I think the IFS has some data somewher e. . . .

I know that when c. 6% of the population went to university, that getting a degree on average led to much higher earnings, but is that still the case when c. 40% of a year group are graduates?

All we know is that since this system came in, kids with the same A level performance across the income distribution have been going for university in equal measure. Fortunately, they are not being put off. The problem is getting them to that level of achievement in the first place. The answer is more funds lower down in schooling.

Unfortuantely, as Nick’s announcement today shows, it is he who shouts loudest – the student body -that wins, not the silent but vastly larger number failed in school many years earlier.

I also wonder whether decisions about taking on debt in 2009/10 will be diffferent than in, say, 2006/07.

Giles I understand what the loans company does and I understand the repayment system. The parents I am mixing with do not appear to differentiate between borrowing from the loan company for fees or for maintenance. Nor do they differiate between a loan from that source and one from their bank. People have been paying off debt and deciding to forego new debt. Why can we be so sure that this kind of behaviour will not apply to student loans? I believe that the rate of interest this year was reduced to zero, but admissions staff are not able to say what the rate will be next year.

I don’t think the household earning, say, £20,000 a year or experiencing third generation unemployment would understand that they were in effect buying some equity.

tuition fees are paid by the student loan company. The student’s family pays nothing. Then, after graduation, IF the student is earning enough, he starts paying it back. On 20k a year he might pay £450 annually, or £40 a month. Not bad for an education denied to the majority, and which is likely to end up earning him many tens of thousands over a lifetime.

Debt specifically set aside for student tuition fees is more like equity than debt, in that it (a) does not attach to anything but the student’s earning ability (b) does not have obligations to repay until after graduation. I appreciate that maintenance payments during university time are different – but putting up tuition fees does not add to them.

I understand that Sep was the wrong time to implement. But argue? Why should Nick not argue about what was going to happen in 2011 or 2012? To close his eyes to the inevitable would have looked immature. I would not guess at what he was thinking in terms of positioning. He was just being grown up. When you talk about your policies for the electoral term 2010-14, and you don’t include the small fact that you start that term with revenues 500bn, outgoings 700bn, you run the risk of proposing bold policies for fantasyland. And peoply might say “same old Lib Dems”.

He was not taking his position from others, just from an ancient occult art called Arithmetic.

Secondly the political point is not to do with timing. You should know that I have always argued that it is about timing AND last September was the wrong time to implement or argue for extensive cuts, economically and politically. Back in September the threat of deflation and a long period of suppressed output was acute. Clegg made that statement with careful and considered forethought in pursuit of political tactics NOT economic prudence. It was done to position him/the Liberal Democrats on the same ground as the Conservatives (if not to their right) because of a political marketing strategy based on a belief that to do otherwise was to risk being regarded as against change and a political cousin of Labour. This is a naïve interpretation as change can go in many, many directions. Real leadership does not cringe or fawn or take its position from the position of others (either other parties or media preferences) it campaigns energetically for its own beliefs and values, fearlessly.

I don’t think following the dictat of the FPC is leading, either.

Nick didn’t say “savage cuts” because he likes it, or chose it. It is because he is forced to contemplate a situation where £100 bn of revenues that are relied upon to pay for services has disappeared. Why do people keep thinking this is some sort of choice, like whether to go on a diet? The only choices are about timing.

I admire Brown in many ways, but have to agree to disagree on negative opinions of him. He will not be liked, full stop; and even if the recession ends, quality of life in 2010 will not leap upwards, like in the 1980s recovery, but will be joyless, like the 1990s.

Future historians should praise his crisis management. Current voters won’t.

This is based on a view that the political market is dominated by a pendulum that only swings only from right to left and left to right.

They therefore concluded that they must not allow themselves to portrayed as being ‘to the left’ of Cameron (or the rightward swinging pendulum) as this *will be* regarded as anti-change and implicitly pro-Labour.

I have explained this in more detail here http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-but-is-it-really-time-for-a-change-17124.html

This explains the tax position sought by their leader at their conference in ’08 and his ‘savage cuts’ position at the ’09 conference.

It is possible that these policies sit comfortably with Clegg’s inclination but this is probably not the case for Cable, especially in relation to the cuts positioning.

Polling figures also show that Brown’s lack of popularity is a very significant factor. Back in the summer, something like 75% of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with him. Regard for Labour was much less negative.

If the economic situation continues to be perceived as improving and electors’ fear of unemployment continues to fall, the Conservative lead will continue to dwindle. Negative attitudes to Brown would fade. Look at his November 08 ‘crisis management’ standing.

If a ‘Time for a Change’ election narrative morphs into a ‘Hang on to Nurse for fear of something Worse’ election narrative, the Liberal Democrat Leadership will have bet on the wrong horse.

It will have sacrificed the anti-Conservative tactical voter for the anti-Labour tactical voter. There are fewer of the latter than the former in marginal seats. It will have lost seats it need not have lost and failed to win seats (against Labour) that with these tactics it is privately counting on.

The Federal Policy Committee may limit the Liberal Leader’s influence on the Manifesto but it is the new Parliamentary Party which will limit his freedom to manoeuvre if one of the other Party leaders should telephone in the circumstances of a House of Commons in which a single Party does not have a majority.

In the event of a Balanced Parliament, that new Parliamentary Party is likely to have more MPs who owe their seat to anti-conservative tactical voters than anti-Labour tactical voters.

But I wouldn’t spend much time waiting for a call if I was Clegg.