Simon Wright: No To Reduced Tuition Fees

When last week we met with our local MP for Norwich South, Simon Wright, we discovered that he recently voted against a proposal to reduce the tuition fee cap to £6000. In 2010 he signed the pledge above. We asked Simon to explain his reasons to students in Norwich, so he has written this letter to share with you.

The system proposed may not be financially viable. However, the current regime is also yet to prove its own viability.

There are schools of thought which believe the current system could be even more economically devastating. IFS projects that the government will lose approximately £25bn per year under the current system. If Simon is concerned about £2bn, then he should be ten times more concerned about £25bn.

Simon signed a pledge stating that he will “pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.” While it may be reasonable to reject Labour’s proposal on the basis of its financial viability, the arrival of this proposal presents a good opportunity to bring about pressure on the government to investigate a fairer (and more economically sensible) alternative to our current system.

Ultimately the hope is that an alternative system will enable the country to move towards the ideals that the UUEAS believes in; education for education’s sake – free education for everyone.

What do you think? Has Simon fulfilled the pledge he made to Norwich students? Was he right to reject the Labour proposal to reduce tuition fees on the grounds that it is not financially viable?

Matt Myles (UUEAS Communications Officer)


2 thoughts on “Simon Wright: No To Reduced Tuition Fees

  1. Yes, he was right to reject it. This new system we have now is wrong. But, if you’re going to replace something that doesn’t work, don’t replace it with something equally useless.
    Let me give a hypothetical analogy. Let’s say you decide to replace all the (working) light bulbs in the house with energy-saving bulbs, the idea being to save money. However, it turns out that everyone starts suffering from migraines because of these bulbs. Clearly, replacing the bulbs was a bad idea. Now, let’s say that in order to try and cut down the migraines, you consider replacing all the bulbs (again), with a brand-new type of bulb. It costs the same in electricity consumption as the energy savers, but the migraines are milder. However, the bulb itself costs a fortune, and will need replacing frequently – ultimately, it’s more expensive than the original bulbs.
    Should you have switched to the energy-savers originally? Of course not. Would it be right to switch from the migraines to something you can’t afford? No, because ultimately it’s replacing one problem with an equally severe one. No point curing the disease by killing the patient.

    • Yep, I agree 100%. It was a proposal that was more politics than substance anyway. But it’s a good opportunity to pressure the government to find another system, rather than just reject a new proposal and do nothing else. MM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s