Will cutting fees to £6,000 actually help? Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What does Lord Mandelson's tuition fees warning to Labour reveal about its policy?

The former Labour Business Secretary is to warn Labour about their imminent higher education pledge.

The former Labour Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, is set to warn his party about their imminent higher education pledge. Mandelson, whose department received the universities and skills brief during the New Labour years, is intervening ahead of Labour's expected announcement of a cut in tuition fees.

The Guardian reports that the Labour peer will suggest any reform to tuition fees has to ensure that the current range and flow of funding into universities from all available sources is sustained. He is also expected to voice his concern about making a higher education pledge before the election, believing it would be better to resolve the issue when in government.

In Mandelson's opinion, the levers of government would allow the party to tackle the extremely complex long-term funding implications of changing tuition fees. It would also provide Labour the opportunity to properly consider the impact if a graduate tax were introduced, a policy that the shadow universities minister Liam Byrne told me is his preferred option.

Mandelson will make his comments about Labour's upcoming policy in a speech to Universities UK today, as the Labour leadership continues to grapple with its tuition fees announcement, which has long been expected to arrive this month.

The party is a little stuck with its higher education promise. Even as far back as 2011, and repeatedly since then, Miliband and other senior Labourites have said that were they currently in government (I hear Labour politicians were instructed to speak strictly "in the subjunctive" on this subject), they would introduce £6,000 tuition fees, down from the coalition's controversial £9,000.

Yet the party has not officially announced this policy, and seems to be in limbo. I hear from a shadow cabinet aide that the shadow chancellor Ed Balls is "happy" for Labour to cut tuition fees, but needs the party to find the money to cost such a policy, and so Labour is waiting on coming up with a funding plan. Another obstacle is that although cutting tuition fees is a popular policy, university vice chancellors have been forthright against a tuition fee cut, and there is the argument that the coalition tripling the fees has not actually put pupils off applying to university. A better policy, as Tim has written, would be to help disadvantaged students with maintenance funding, rather than cutting their tuition fees.

On the BBC's Today programme this morning, the Business Secretary Vince Cable defending the Lib Dems' agreement to a hike in tuition fees, referred to Labour being stuck on its policy: "As I understand it, the people who are advising Ed Miliband and his team are telling him that this is a very foolish thing to do because it will either open a very large hole in their budget or it will be funded by quite serious cuts in universities, which is the last thing we want."

It could be that there are other plans in the mix, to mitigate the cost of helping out students financially. One shadow cabinet aide close to the tuition fees wrangling tells me there has been talk among some of a system like New Zealand’s, which has interest-free student loans.

Labour's tuition fees announcement was supposed to take place in February, which means the party only has a week left to reveal its policy. Apparently, this decision now lies with Miliband. As the party is planning to unveil its "young people's manifesto" at the end of this month, it may coincide with that.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.