Mandelson's third way on tuition fees
Mandelson says that Labour would have increased fees but would "never have trebled" them.
By George Eaton Published 21 June 2011 12:36
Peter Mandelson's comments on Ed Miliband at last night's Progress event have received a lot of attention this morning but some of his most revealing remarks were on another subject: tuition fees.
Mandelson conceded that Labour would have increased tuition fees but added: "We would never have trebled them and cut the teaching grant by so much." The Tories have often pointed out that Labour commissioned the Browne Review, implying that the opposition would have adopted the same policy, but Mandelson's comments suggest that Labour could have charted a third way.
Had the coalition not chosen to triple fees to £9,000 - the highest public university fees in the world - it could at least have minimised the tuition fees fiasco. The cost to the state would have been no greater since ministers would have been required to provide fewer subsidised loans (many of which will never be paid back in full), and the charge that students from poorer backgrounds will be deterred from applying would not be so strong. It was the coalition's decision to slash the teaching grant by 80 per cent that prompted around two-thirds of universities to charge the maximum £9,000 a year.
Mandelson was also right to call for Labour to "revolutionise its funding sources". As I've pointed out before, the party is now an almost wholly owned subsidiary of the trade unions. Back in 1994, when Tony Blair became Labour leader, the unions accounted for just a third of the party's annual income. They now account for more than 60 per cent.
In the last quarter, private donations represented just £59,503 (2 per cent) of Labour's £2,777,519 income. Just two individuals donated to the party, one of whom was Alastair Campbell. By contrast, union donations accounted for 90 per cent of all funding. I'm a strong supporter of the trade union link, but it's unhealthy for a progressive political party to be so dependent on a few sources of income. Mandelson was right to argue that Labour must widen its funding base as a matter of urgency.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















9 comments
@matthew fox
Head out of fox hole for 60 seconds.
If we did not have a deficit then we would not need a deficit reduction plan. To win votes and power, Labour's deficit reduction plan is to borrow and spend £250Bn more than the Tories,
Just to echo the comments presented above, there were a lot more than 2 individual donors. Parties only have to declare donations above a certain level, so I presume the figure is actually "only two individuals donated more than £x".
"Just two individuals donated to the party, one of whom was Alastair Campbell."
Well I donated £25 so is the other person me? Clearly there weren't only two private donations.
'....the party is now an almost wholly owned subsidiary of the trade unions'.
This kind of narrative does not help.
Can we start thinking more of union donations as the willing donation (it isn't compulsory to donate to a political party via union membership)of millions of individual working men and women and not bracket it under some sort of umbrella like we do the hedge fund donors or the financier section who are a very select few contributing nearly all Tory donations?
Such rhetoric does a disservice to the political voices of millions of people and as I've said before, I'd rather a party be funded by millions of individuals than a very wealthy, elitist few.
Good to see Peter back in the saddle with university fees - focussed on making an opening for young people.
The arguments is flawed though:
"The cost to the state would have been no greater since ministers would have been required to provide fewer subsidised loans (many of which will never be paid back in full)"
So people who do not benefit from University do not pay for it.
Before 2008, the last government borrowed £350BN but what did our kids get for it (A clue is £9,000 per year). So who do people blame for the tuition fees (check market research before answering)?
Shove your fees where the sun don't shine Mandy.
Wonder when people will realise that there is no left wing politcal party in the UK. We have Far-right, center-right and Center.
The statement that only 2 people donated money is completely ludicrous.
I suppose Indu Pendent is commenting about tuition fees, so he doesn't to write about the PSBR for May 11.
Osborne borrowed £17.4 Billion in May 11, which added to the £10 Billion for April means Osborne has borrowed £27.4 Billion in only two months.
I thought he had a plan to cut the deficit, not increase it.
Mandelson wouldn't have trebled it... but impose £8,999, can't trust labour...
Post new comment