Labour will begin consulting on new ways to fund university education within weeks, as senior party figures warn that Keir Starmer’s decision to drop a previous promise to abolish fees altogether could be a “disaster” for Thursday’s local elections. The Labour leader told the BBC on Tuesday he was looking at alternative ideas for funding the higher education sector and wanted to “move on” from the pledge he made as a leadership candidate to scrap fees. The comments have infuriated some in his party, however, who believe Starmer’s repeated U-turns on his leadership campaign pledges, without announcing what will replace them, risk doing electoral harm to the party. They worry that the Labour leader is creating a policy vacuum that has contributed to the party’s recent slide in the polls. One Labour MP said: “The tuition fees issue is a bloody disaster. I don’t know how it has come out, but for us to be saying this without saying what the alternative is for our young people is terrible.”
A party adviser said: “It is a nightmare for this to come out two days before the local elections. I get why they might have to think about alternatives, but why let the U-turn come out at this time before we have even begun to do so?” The internal party concerns reflect criticisms being made by Labour’s opponents. Stephen Flynn, the Westminster leader of the Scottish National party, told prime minister’s questions on Wednesday this would prove to be Starmer’s “Nick Clegg moment”. The former Liberal Democrat leader oversaw a catastrophic loss of support for his party after going into the 2010 election promising to abolish tuition fees, only to raise them when in government afterwards. Starmer’s allies say the Labour leader had not planned to announce a policy reversal on tuition fees this week, but was forced to confirm it was coming after the Times revealed he was due to do so later in the month. The party will begin consulting the sector on possible alternatives later this month, party officials said. Policy experts have suggested a range of alternatives for the current system, including a cap on student numbers, higher fees for certain high-cost subjects, a levy on employers and increasing the number of higher-paying foreign students. The tuition fees issue is not the only example of Starmer abandoning pledges he made while running for leader just three years ago. He has also dropped promises to raise income tax for the top 5% of earners, to nationalise large portions of the utility sector, and to end NHS outsourcing. Meanwhile, he has rowed back on suggestions he would scrap the universal credit system of benefits and no longer backs freedom of movement for EU travellers. His allies point out, however, that he has kept other main pledges, such as promising to invest £28bn a year to tackle climate change. Many on the left have accused him of hypocrisy, however. Owen Jones, the Guardian columnist, wrote this week: “Starmer’s deceit may have bought him the leadership of his party, but may well sink him in government.” Others believe the problem is not junking old policies, but not saying what will replace them. Andy McDonald, the Labour MP and former frontbencher, said: “We have got to come out and say with clarity what are going to be the transformational policies we will enact in government, and I’m sure we will eventually do that.” Those concerns have been exacerbated in recent weeks as Labour has watched its poll lead slip and Sunak’s personal ratings catch up with Starmer’s. Since Sunak became prime minister last autumn, Labour’s poll lead has nearly halved to about 17%. Jemma Conner, research manager at the pollster YouGov, said: “Labour are doing relatively well in the polls, but nearly half of Brits still say that they are not ready for government. This might suggest that what we are seeing is a case of discontent with the current Conservative government, rather than overwhelming support for anything that Labour are doing.” Labour MPs have spent this week canvassing across the country, and have occasionally been frustrated about the lack of retail policies they can sell to voters. “We’re just reduced to wandering around pointing at problems,” said one. “People feel it’s opportunistic.”