(Dated: 6th October, 2010)

To say politics is a dangerous game would be an understatement. You don’t have to sit down and watch Have I Got News For You? Or The Thick Of It to appreciate the cynicism many voters feel towards the underhanded mechanics of government. Politicians will say one thing when they mean another, avoid direct questions and openly lie in front of millions if it means shielding their career from scandal.  Yet sometimes it isn’t possible to tread lightly or skirt the issue, especially if you’ve based an election campaign around a pledge that remains so important to core supporters, not even Alastair Campbell could sweep it under the rug.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who made one such pledge at the NUS Annual Conference earlier this year, will be faced with a very delicate decision when the findings of Lord Browne’s review are published this week. If he decides to support an increase in tuition fees, thus strengthening his ties with the Conservatives, he runs the risk of isolating not just the student vote, but also the more principled members of the Liberal Democrats, both on the backbench and amongst influential senior figures such as Sir Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy.

Under the present circumstances it seems hard to believe that less than six months ago, Clegg was modeled as the perfect candidate for the student population. As a result, the Liberal Democrats benefited enormously from the turnout of young voters in May, claiming many of the constituencies that would have otherwise clinched an overall majority for either of the two larger parties. It seems appropriate that they should now return the favour.

To acknowledge this impending crisis, the coalition government stated, “If the response of the government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.”

Is an abstention an acceptable alternative? When Clegg, Cable and 55 other Lib Dem MPs signed the NUS pledge, they were signing a declaration of war against tuition fees. There was to be no compromise when it came to the crunch; Clegg went so far as to propose the abolishment of fees altogether. At this stage even abstaining from the vote would look hypocritical, and at worst, show that the party is completely devoid of principles.

In hindsight, it is easy to see how the Lib Dem manifesto could not realistically live up to the promises it offered. Wiping out student debt is an idealistic notion at best, but at least it was an ideal many voters in our generation could get behind. If Clegg bows to Conservative consensus in favour of retaining his sphere of “influence”, there will be no sympathy when his party finds itself at the bottom of the ladder once again. If the Liberal Democrats have any doubt of this, they should remember that coalitions are fragile, and voters can be easily swayed.

 Tom Goulding