Student Voters: Don't Listen To The NUS

There are 5 major flaws in their latest attempt to influence our votes.

1. "Liar" suggests this was planned.

If the Liberal Democrats had won the election, they'd have been able to implement all of their promised policies, which is what I believe they genuinely wanted to do. Instead, they finished third, and had to compromise: they were able to get about 75% of their manifesto through, which meant some had to be left behind. They had to work with what was available.

At the time of the pledge, I believe that they fully intended to carry it out, it was just that circumstances changed and they had to adapt to do what was best. The NUS is ignoring political realities to make a personal attack on the party's character.

Compromise and coalition are natural parts of politics, and in the wake of the financial crash it was the only responsible thing to do. Sacrificing a few policies is worth it to have any at all, not to mention a stable government. What was the alternative? You can't criticise a politician for choosing to deliver 75% of what they promised over 0%, for choosing to work across party lines for policy they believe in over standing back and point-scoring in opposition. Is that what you'd prefer?

2. The current system is fairer.

What has been introduced isn’t just an increase on the old fee system: it is a completely alternative, fairer system, which effectively takes the form of a highly progressive graduate tax. There is nothing to be paid up front, so that even the poorest students can afford to enrol, and only the successful will have to pay them back as a tax on graduate earnings.

The actual pledge was “to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative”. To everyone’s surprise, the Lib Dems were able to actual enter government, and what they did was to introduce a fairer alternative to the original fees system, just like the conveniently forgotten last part promises. Was that pledge really broken?

3. Labour also have a "permanent mark".

Labour also promised not to raise tuition fees but tripled them in 2004, increased them again in 2010, and were poised to do the same if they'd been re-elected. If broken pledges leave a permanent mark, the NUS shouldn't be supporting Labour and only attacking the Liberal Democrats.

It's also worth noting that Labour introduced fees in the first place, and that they did all of this in majority government with no constraints on their decisions, unlike the Lib Dems who had their hands tied by the Tories. Labour actively chose to break their pledge, just as the Tories willingly broke their pledge not to cut the NHS this time around, and yet that's conveniently been forgotten. Is this really about fees, or is there an agenda here?

4. Most Lib Dems aren't to blame.

Despite all of the above, a majority of Liberal Democrats MPs refused to support the bill to change the fee system, with just fewer than half voting in favour. Campaigns such as this seem to advocate punishing all of Lib Dems, and never speak of rewarding those who voted against the policy for their courageous dissent. They risked their position just to uphold the pledge, and they're being punished for breaking it anyway. Is that justice?

5. Tuition fees just aren't worth it.

With rival politicians understandably looking to knock back the Lib Dem vote as much as they can, you could be forgiven for thinking tuition fees were a global political issue of massive consequence, but they really aren't. The current system is fair, probably fairer than the one it replaced, and nobody is really suffering from it. With no fees to pay up front, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are heading to university in record numbers, knowing that they won't have to pay anything back until they can afford it.

In a country facing economic crisis, with hospitals and welfare being cut, to sit in a student bar and demand that the government pays through the nose for you to be there takes a great deal of gall. They already give you the loan money to get through your degree, and don't even ask for all of it back unless you become rich. They ask for repayment in small, manageable quantities depending on our income, claim nothing at all if your degree doesn't find you success, and write it all off after 30 years anyway.

If you look at the state of the country and pick this as the one issue you find important, enough to let it alone decide who you vote for, you are severely out of touch. At the upcoming election we will have to decide between more austerity, balancing the books to cut the deficit, and a return to lavish government expenditure, two economic philosophies which will have far-reaching consequences, not to mention the vital constitutional issues of staying in the EU or changing our political system itself.

Even as student, policies on affordable housing and stable jobs are much more relevant; it is the living costs that bring financial trouble at university, not the tuition fees, and these will continue after graduation. This election should be decided on the important issues. You shouldn't vote out an otherwise good candidate on a policy which barely even affects you, which they may not even have voted for, simply because the NUS have a bias.

If you want an economic policy which doesn't spend as much as Labour but doesn't cut as much as the Tories, and a social policy which is far to the left of UKIP but not as extreme as the Greens, vote Lib Dem. If you don't agree with these policies, don't. I'm just asking that you don't make a decision based on one largely inconsequential policy, which was rightly sacrificed to get any policies through at all, which your local MP may not even have voted against, which the Lib Dems would have liked to deliver but couldn't due to circumstances beyond their control. Is that really all you care about?