From James Lawson: The Liberty League is no threat to the Conservative Party

James Lawson was a founder of the Liberty League.

This weekend over 200 activists will gather for the Liberty League Freedom Forum. It's the UK's largest pro-freedom conference. Freedom Forum explores political and economic ideas underpinning civilisation, training attendees to promote free society. Within the recent Conservative Future elections, candidates were being criticised as “Liberty Leaguers”.  We appreciate brand recognition, but the implication that Liberty League is a threat is misguided.

From the outset when Will Hamilton, Anton Howes and I founded Liberty League three years ago, it has been non-partisan. Whilst CF activists (including the new chairman) attend our events and are very welcome, Liberty League is non-party political. We invite everyone, from Lib-Dem coalition cousins to UKIPers or even Anarcho-Capitalists, to voice their personal opinions.

Our approach is thus pragmatic and progressive. There is no set opinion or policy within Liberty League. There are roles for both those supporting gradualist change by hacking away at the mainstream political process, and for radicals who prefer to focus purely on ideology. All our discussions focus on freedom.

As well as our conferences, we also support freedom-loving societies. When we began there were perhaps 3 active non-partisan student societies dedicated to promoting Liberty. Now there are over thirty, with more universities covered each year. We're also gaining strength amongst young professionals. We need to win the broader battle of ideas to sustain freedom for the future.

James Lawson: Some students actually have read the Browne Review and realise that the Government's proposals on tuition fees are right

James Lawson of Students for Tuition Fees Reform is a student at St Edmund Hall, Oxford University, an Adam Smith Institute Research Associate and the Treasurer of Oxford University Conservative Association.

It seems student activism is back, and with it, occupations across the country and even violence. In Oxford, campaigners invaded the Bodleian Library. Their strategy is baffling; somehow, by disregarding the property rights and rules of the University, and causing great nuisance to fellow students who were actually trying to work they hoped to win us over.

Though the NUS claims to serve students, its response to reform has done much to damage social mobility. By mischaracterising the government proposals, and advancing an image of insurmountable debts, they risk scaring applicants from poorer background away from university.

So what does the Coalition actually propose? In brief, the Government plans to offer loans to all students to cover their fees. These are to be repaid only when graduates are earning over £21,000 (compared to the current threshold of £15,000), written off after 30 years. The fee cap is to be raised from £3,290 to £9,000 per year, with those charging over £6,000 per year contributing to a National Scholarships programme.

So, the Government does indeed plan to shift more of the liability onto students. However, this is a fair scheme. One must remember that no students will face upfront fees and payments are adjusted based on future salary, hence no student (regardless of wealth, class or racial background) should feel dissuaded. All graduates will benefit from lower monthly and annual bills, if the reforms are implemented. Those from poor backgrounds, and those who themselves earn below average, will be taken out of the payment system altogether.