Paddy Ashdown: In a hole over tuition fees, but can anyone spell out a better alternative?

The hole is full of water, there are explosions all around and shells are careering all about them. One Tommy turns to the other and says: "If you know of a better 'ole – get to it!"

Our coalition Government must feel a bit like that at the moment.

Things are very tough – especially for my colleagues in the Lib Dems. But is there a better 'ole to go to?

There are two central questions which need to be answered here.

The first one is it seems only asked of the Liberal Democrats. Why have we changed (some people, especially some students, would use a stronger word such as "betrayed") the policy we stood on in the election?

I have to say this is a little unfair. Every party has changed the tuition fees policy they stood on at the election. The Tories went into the election opposed to tuition fees and are now in favour because of the economic crisis.

The Lib Dems did the same and now find they have to change because of the coalition. And Labour went into the election in favour of fees and now oppose them because it gives them better chances to beat up on the Government.

Perhaps we Lib Dems are getting it in the neck because our MPs were seen signing those pledges. The point I hear made is that its OK to "break a promise" in your manifesto, but not if it's a personal pledge. I am not sure I understand this.

Surely it's the manifesto which governs the personal action, not the other way round. If someone asks you to sign a pledge which says what your manifesto says, how can you refuse?

Labour abandoned their manifesto support for tuition fees, not because they needed to reach a compromise with another party to provide the country with strong government at a time of crisis.

Labour refused to work with others and take responsibility to clean up the mess they had created. They changed their election stance on tuition fees, not for reasons of national interest, but for reasons of opportunism.

The promise Lib Dems made at the election was: "If we become the Government, we will get rid of tuition fees." But we are not the government. We have a coalition. And that means two parties working together in the national interest.

In a coalition both get some of the policies they like, but have to accept some they don't as well. How could it be otherwise?

And if that's not a price you are prepared to pay, then forget partnership politics. Forget, too a strong Government with a clear majority at a time of economic crisis.

Forget economic stability; low interest and mortgage rates; public expenditure choices made by an accountable Government, rather than unaccountable markets. And you can forget saving jobs too – lots and lots of them.

The truth is that thanks to the mess the last Government made, we don't have any choice now. We have to take drastic action to start living within our means. And that includes our universities. Every other public service is getting a cut of 25 per cent.

If they don't bear their share, the pain for everyone else will just be greater.

That leaves us with a choice. Either cuts which will ruin our universities forever, or ask students who will benefit most in later life, to pay something back when they do.

I am clear which option is in the nation's interest.

So, final question – are the Government's tuition fee proposals fair?

I do not condemn people who demonstrate non-violently in support of their views. I've done a bit of that myself in my time. But I do wonder whether all those demonstrating on the streets of our cities know what they are demonstrating against.

And if they do, then why didn't they demonstrate against Labour's current tuition fee scheme?

Because what the Government is proposing is far, far better.

Like the current scheme, no-one will have to pay up front to go to university.

They only pay afterwards if their salary is more than 21,000 a year (6,000 more than the current repayment threshold).

And they will pay less – about half less as much – as they do at present. And the richest will pay more than the poorest, which they don't at present. And part-time students will be free, which they aren't at present. And those from the very poorest families will get up to two years without any fee at all.

I understand about the issue of personal debt. And I don't like it either. And I know its tough. But then, if we are going to get out of the mess we are in, it's going to be tough on us all.

And students, who have most to gain from pulling this country out of the hole we are in, can't be an exception to that.

I agree, this 'ole ain't comfortable. But I don't know of a better – or a fairer - one to go to.

Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-hamdon is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats.