-
They (or at least Clegg) would have done better by calling it a graduate tax if that's what he intended it to be, whilst also pushing for increased spending on early years education at the same time to try to sell it better. I don't remember him doing these things.
However, other politicians have got away with breaking promises more severe than Cleggs. I guess the Tories want to perpetuate it as a permanent stain on his (and lib dems) characters.
christianSpaceman-
I got the impression the Lib Dems would have communicated it in those terms if they had been able to do so. But they basically got bullied in the coalition, and no doubt it suited Cameron and Osborne to secure the revenue from a 'graduate tax' as a contribution to austerity, while also taking the opportunity to let Clegg get a kicking for it all.
boristrump
University fees are interesting... I saw Nick Clegg talk about that (among other things) a while ago. He described how it was designed as a tax of redistribution, with the intention being that money recovered from those paying for higher education would be allocated to improving education at younger ages. The argument was that better intervention at early stages of life was thought to have the greatest (positive) impact on people's life outcomes. When viewed in those terms, it can give you pause for thought as to its merits. (Doubtless Cameron and Osborne spunked the cash from fees on some tax giveaway for their mates while making sure Clegg got a good kicking.)