̽Ƶ

Loan forgiveness ‘terrible policy but probably good politics’

While ‘doing an Albo’ and wiping proportion of student debt unlikely to make any difference to English graduates’ cost-of-living fears, evidence from Australia shows it was a vote-winner

Published on
March 6, 2026
Last updated
March 5, 2026
Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese gestures as he prepares to speak on the first day of the annual Labour Party conference in Liverpool, north-west England, on 28 September, 2025.
Source: Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images

The government should not resort to wholesale debt forgiveness to soothe escalating concerns about student loans in England, according to Antipodean experts who conceded that the approach had paid political dividends Down Under.

Higher education analyst Maxwell Yong said wiping debt could work as a “political stunt” but would not ease Britons’ day-to-day cost pressures. A preferable approach would be changing repayment arrangements to provide a sugar hit for struggling graduates, he said.

“If the objective is improving cost of living for graduates, raising the repayment thresholds will be one option to create relatively expedient cost-of-living relief,” said Yong, an honorary fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for the Study of Higher Education. “However…it will [put] the government in more debt.

“Also, the less students pay, the higher their chance of not repaying the whole loan. That ends up becoming an effective subsidy from taxpayers.”

̽Ƶ

ADVERTISEMENT

Keir Starmer’s government has come under increasing pressure to reform student loans following an outcry over its November decision to freeze repayment thresholds for students who started their courses between September 2012 and July 2023.

Starmer has promised to make student loans fairer, without specifying how. Lowering the interest rates or raising the repayment thresholds appear the most likely reform options. But the Liberal Democrats say public sector workers should have their student debts written off after 10 years of service, while a Labour MP wants Starmer to copy Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese’s tactic of wiping 20 per cent of accrued borrowings.

̽Ƶ

ADVERTISEMENT

Yong, a teaching fellow and public policy postgraduate at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, said he knew “lifelong Liberal voters” who had backed Albanese’s Labor Party at the 2025 election in part because of the promise. “They thought it was a stupid policy, but you’re not going to vote against your own financial interests.

“That 20 per cent debt wipe policy sounds very sexy, but it…has poor distributional effects and requires huge trade-offs from a fiscal perspective. That’s five state-of-the-art hospitals that you can’t build.”

He said partially writing off debt, unlike raising the repayment threshold, did nothing to increase people’s disposable income unless they had nearly paid off their loans. “All it does is change the repayment period.”

Christchurch consultant Roger Smyth said the New Zealand Labour government’s 2005 elimination of interest charges had taken “a lot of the political heat” from the then fraught issue of student loans. “It was a bit of an electoral winner, actually,” said Smyth, a former head of tertiary education policy at New Zealand’s Ministry of Education.

“The British government [could] take a leaf out of that book [and] run the good news in the lead-up to a tight election.”

̽Ƶ

ADVERTISEMENT

Smyth said a relatively small “sweetener” – reducing interest rates to the level of inflation, for instance – would be preferable to forgiving loans. But any reform would be expensive, given the magnitude of student debt which – in New Zealand’s case – was the third-biggest asset on the government’s books after public sector superannuation and the accident compensation scheme.

“If they touch an asset of that scale, there is no way [they] can do it without costing the Treasury an awful lot of money,” Smyth said. Any concession would also be “regressive”, forcing taxpayers to bankroll more benefits for graduates who “disproportionately come from higher socio-economic classes”.

Monash University higher education expert Andrew Norton said debt forgiveness was “terrible” policy – but less so in England than in Australia, where fees were generally lower and graduate salaries typically much higher.

̽Ƶ

ADVERTISEMENT

“More of the debt here is actually recoverable,” Norton said. “The actual cost long term to taxpayers…is much higher than it is in England, where a lot of this debt is kind of an accounting fiction because so much of it will never be repaid.”

Norton said wiping student fees would be an appealing political stratagem for the Westminster government. It had proven a potent weapon against both progressive and conservative opponents in Australia’s 2025 election, arguably costing then Greens leader Adam Bandt his inner Melbourne seat.

“This was such an attractive promise from Labor,” Norton said. “Even though the Greens have been against student debt for a long time, Labor had a real promise that they could actually deliver in a way the Greens could not.

“Why did the margin of victory end up being so large? I think it was because they pushed this student debt thing in the last week, and sort of pulled a whole lot of marginal voters. I would say doing an Albo is actually pretty tempting.”

̽Ƶ

ADVERTISEMENT

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (4)

Their debts are not being 'written off ' - they are being repaid by the taxpayer. So we are getting all taxpayers, even less well off ones without degrees, to pay the universty costs of these students. That's rather regressive. If only we had a socialist Govt, they would surely never do this.
I suppose we have to decide whether an injustice has been done or not in these cases, and the Australian proposal is partial relief. It is true the taxpayer (including non grads) funds the bill, but then we need a HE system and its has to be funded to a large extent by the tax payer. If the system works well (and it may not) then society as a whole benefits from having a highly educated population who will then pay the higher rates of taxation back (in addition to any loans) benefitting the economy and cultural life of the nation. It's not really fair to expect the student to fund the entirety of their education. It seems to me to be important to strike a fair balance between state and student contribution and I am not convinced this is right at the moment. A large number of non-graduates also don't pay any tax etc because they are economically inactive and graduates in work have to pay for their financial support, so it is swings and roundabouts to an extent. As taxpayers we have to fund all kinds of things for the benefit of the community that we don't personally make use of. A good example might be the £570 million funding year one of Erasmus Plus, we may think it is a good thing and support it while we won't directly benefit personally or via family.
The cost-sharing experiment has put English HE as a policy outlier - first, the £9500 UG is very high by the norms elsewhere in countries that have introduced tuition fees; second, the use of RPI is daft given it is a discredited measure of inflation (should be CPI); third, adding an interest rate only made sense when inflation was low in the 2010s and now it just looks punitive; and finally freezing the threshold rates is in effect ‘breach of contract’. Moving forward? - use CPI or 2.5% whichever is higher; add 1% interest but not if CPI exceeds 5%; move thresholds with average earnings… Will cost the taxpayer but some of that cost could be offset by reducing the numbers in HE if decent alternatives within joined-up TE are at last created.
new
Perhaps a better way to ease the pressure on graduates would be to lower the excessive interest rates that they are being charged. We've seen calculations showing that people can dutifully repay all year and end up owing more than they did at the beginning of the year. That does not make sense. At the very most, all they should pay in interest is the headline rate of inflation. The student loan system is not there to make a profit.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT