Student angst on fees only the start

The start of the beginning?

Yesterday was a dark day for equity and anything resembling universality in higher education. My views on this have been well publicised. The economic fallacy of the Browne review got me a mention in the Guardian, and I am extremely grateful to Will Straw and Shamik Das at Left Foot Forward for not only quoting me, but letting me occupy their platform in order to get this message out. At this point it is fruitless to regurgitate the figures, but to sum up, its folly to suggest the Browne framework is economically sustainable and in fact adds to the national debt over the course of this parliament. Over the very same period this is supposed to contribute to deficit reduction.

For higher education and party politics, in abstract terms what does this all mean?

Overall this government has made it no secret that it seeks to pass on responsibility in many aspects of society from state to the citizen, and whilst it might be credible and even desirable in some areas, the shift in higher education is deeply divisive and worrying. Echoes of Thatcher’s infamous “there is no such thing as society” taunt heeds greater poignancy. Citizens and the state surely both have a responsibility to maintain society. In this regard the turn from coherent government (rowing!) to governance (steering!) is nothing new. That transition was inevitable, considering the vast increase in the multitude of actors involved in delivering state/public services. Yet the coalition seems to be going beyond the governance propensity to steer. What is the ‘Big Society’ – passing or shifting aspects of civic responsibility to its citizens? Similarly the Browne review is a fundamental shift from a mixed contribution from state and student to predominately student. It is clearly ludicrous considering the numbers who enrol in higher education to expect a free ride, as was the case when a tiny proportion of youngsters entered higher education in the 1970s etc. Passing on the responsibility and financial burden to the student is morally questionable on many levels. Graduates do, of course, personally benefit from their own education, but so do society and the state. On Question Time last night, Liam Fox suggested the contribution ratio currently stands at 60/40 (state/student, private sector), and under Browne it would be 40/60 (state/student, private sector). I would like those figures to be explained further, as it is hard to see how that fits with doubling or trebling tuition fees, and they say trust in politics is dead…

For party politics, the Tories will I dare say, manage to deflect most of the public anger on to the Liberal Democrats. In some respects, the Lib Dems only have themselves to blame. As a party who over consecutive parliaments and election campaigns have known that they have no chance whatsoever of attaining power, 2010 presented them with a unique opportunity. Unfortunately for them it has also served to highlight how ludicrous and unsustainable their politics is; making cheap pledges in order to garnish support or votes to boost their parliamentary profile. I’m afraid in regards to their Mickey Mouse, naive and unrealistic politics – the cat is very much out of the bag. Those pledges, marvellously organised by the NUS could well accelerate their demise from attempting to be a serious political party. If you wanted an indicator of how naive, ludicrous and, frankly cheap they are, Norman Lamb stated on Question Time that Browne was not only “progressive”, but that “Liberal Democrat values” are central to it. In many ways I feel sorry for the Lib Dems on the ground, the vast majority of whom have a leftist social conscience, who are under the thumb of a leadership that are clearly right of centre. A bet on Nick Clegg not being leader in the next general election campaign does not look like a bad punt.

The student protests, which let us not forget is a fundamental democratic mode of expression (perhaps not the damage…), shall be seen in the history books as the moment when a sleepwalking generation suddenly woke up and realised just what was being done to them. Those in government that think this is the end are wrong; surely it is only a matter of time until it spreads to other groups in society.

Social care – should we take Osborne’s remarks at face value?

Boy George or George Gently?

When George Osborne announced to the House of Commons that social care would recieve an addtional average of £2bn year on year, I was sceptical to say the least. During the comprehensive spending review address he stated that;

“Some in local government have concerns about the financing of social care.

I can announce that grant funding for social care will be increased by an additional £1 billion by the fourth year of the Spending Review.

And a further £1 billion for social care will be provided through the NHS to support joint working with councils – so that elderly people do not continue to fall through the crack between two systems.

That’s a total of £2 billion additional funding for social care to protect the most vulnerable.”

In the lengthy Comprehensive Spending Review document, this statement or a variation of it to illustrate that figure was repeated 12 times. When government documents are hazy and fluffy, usually something is being hidden. Incidentally the word ‘fairness’ was used 25 times.

It was expressed in a table in the document (pg 44), in a manner designed to confuse the reader. Osborne’s statement does not jump out of the page.

Table 2.3: Funds to Support Social Care
	£ billion
	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
Additional funds in NHS RDEL	0.0	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.0
PSS Grant being merged into LG RDEL	1.3	1.9	2.3	2.4	2.4

 

To get a clearer picture of the balance between NHS and Local Government contributions, in table 2.3 you have to subtract the top line from the bottom. It is hardly a big issue, but it would be easier to express like this;

Funds to Support Social Care
	£ billion
	2010-11	2011-12	2012-13	2013-14	2014-15
NHS funds	0.0	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.0
Local Government grant	1.3	1.1	1.4	1.3	1.4

 

It becomes interesting when you consider Osborne forgot to mention three important points which will effect how this money is allocated.

Firstly, as we know, the NHS budget is ringfenced. Thus there is no reason to suggest that those funds will be redirected elsewhere. Secondly we know that local authorities budgets are being cut by 7.1% for four years – a total cut of 28%;

“For local government, the deficit we have inherited means an unavoidably challenging settlement.  

There will be overall savings in funding to councils of 7.1% a year for four years.  

But to help councils, we propose a massive devolution of financial control.”

Thirdly, this is significant because the grant to local government is part of their biggest controllable budget. Local authorities are making efficiency savings and job losses as we speak, most organisations in any sector that suffer 28% cuts cannot afford to protect any portion of a budget.

It may prove too tempting to move the funds around, and not use them for their intended purpose. You can then, say that it is questionable whether the majority of this £2bn yearly average increase in social care will actually be spent as has been suggested by Mr Osborne.

Indeed, I would go as far as saying that the £2bn figure might as well be plucked out of the air. That figure represents the maximum possible, if every penny was directed as suggested. How likely is that, when the public sector are making huge cutbacks? In his own words, he is stating “massive devolution of financial control.” The temptation might be too hard to resist.

Lastly, it is no secret that the UK population is ageing. Most of the “vulnerable people in society” tend to be of retirement age. Whilst any rise is good news, the ambiguity of how these has been packaged is not welcome. At the end of the Parliament it will be interesting to see how accurate the Chancellors promise has been…

 

The Browne report makes little economic sense

A right of passage, but for who...?

For just about everything the coalition wants to do, we are assured that it is all to do with “the current economic climate”, and with reducing the supposedly awe-inspiringly huge deficit. Without each and every act of Government policy, so we are told, the country would face instant bankruptcy, a Greece-style meltdown, riots and so on.

We know this isn’t true… but what if we could catch them at it? What if we could point at something and be clear that despite what they have told us, it will cost the country more money?

It seems unlikely, but the planned reforms of Higher Education funding could be just that chink in the coalition’s armour.

In a statement effectively accepting the recommendations of the Browne Review on Higher Education Finance, Vince Cable said:

“My own party consistently opposed graduate contributions, but in the current economic climate we accept that the policy is simply no longer feasible.” (Hansard, 12^th October)

In doing this in parliament he explicitly drew a link between changes to Higher Education and the coalition’s perennial obsession with reducing the deficit. He did so repeatedly in a number of news reports about the Browne Review, for example in the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph, and in a message to the Liberal Democrat Party.

Analysis

In short, the proposals set out a cut in core teaching resource, and a growth in fee income from students. Let’s look at them each in turn.

The cuts in HEFCE core funding have been widely trailed, and despite the strange lack of clarity in the Browne Review, we can assume that this cuts out the value of the “unit of resource “ (the value that HEFCE currently ascribes to each student studying a HE course, currently set at £3,947). HEFCE uses a set of multipliers modifying this resource to allocate additional funding to courses that incur extra cost, such as Medicine, Engineering and Laboratory Science. For some subjects, including the Arts and Humanities, no multiplier is applied[1].

Table 1: Core HEFCE teaching income to universities

Price group[2]	HEFCE-fundable FTEs[3]		current multiplier	current funding		“Browne” multiplier[4]
A	67,403		4	£937,980,148.00		3
B	303,877		1.7	£1,797,219,741.10		0.7
C	588,921		1.3	£2,663,513,006.70		0
D	597,710		1	£2,079,433,090.00		0
	3,290,065			£7,478,145,985.80
result		£ loss		%loss
£798,118,923.00		£139,861,225.00		14.91
£839,581,763.30		£957,637,977.80		53.28
£0.00		£2,663,513,006.70		100.00
£0.00		£2,079,433,090.00		100.00
£1,637,700,686		£5,840,445,300		78.10

(Please note that this is ONE table, it appears to be two for formatting reasons.)

You’ll note that this gives a 78% reduction in state funding, which was the reduction that was widely trailed.

Next, we will examine fee income. This is important because both the current model and the Browne review do not require the up-front payment of fees by students. Instead, students borrow (from the Government) the cost of their education, which is then paid back over a number of years after graduation. So fees are in fact government spending, which will not be recouped in any significant way for at least 5 years, and more likely 25-30 years.

The current level of fees is £3290, and I’m assuming that the average level of fees under Browne will be £6000. This assumption is drawn from what happened when top-up fees were introduced in 2004 – the overwhelming majority of fees were set at the maximum permissible. It is very unlikely that any Vice-Chancellor will be happy to do the same teaching as now for less money.

Table 2: Government spending on fee loans, annually.

students[5]	current fee/ year	total fees spend/ year
3,290,065	£3,290.00	£10,824,313,850.00
browne fee/ year	total fees spend/year	£ gain/year
£6,000	£19,740,390,000.00	£8,916,076,150.00

From these calculations, we can now clearly derive the government’s annual spending on higher education.

There is also additional spending around student support, and infrastructure costs. We can cancel support costs out on both sides of the equation, as the Browne Review states, regarding changes to student support: “all students would receive as much cash in hand as they do now”[6].  It is impossible to estimate the set-up costs regarding the Student Finance and Higher Education Council quangos, so we have not attempted to do this.

Table 3: Annual government spend on HE funding

	current	browne		notes
core funding	£7,478,145,985.80		£1,637,700,686	from table 1, above
fees	£10,824,313,850.00		£19,740,390,000.00	from table 2, aboveCancels out, as discussed in paragraph above.
maintenance
total (core + fees)	£18,302,459,835.80		£21,378,090,686
estimated additional cost to Govt. of Browne model, for each academic year: £3,075,630,850.50

So implementing Browne as set out in the Review would cost the Government £3b (three billion pounds) per year, per cohort.

Conclusions

In their analysis of the Browne Review, HEPI (http://www.hepi.ac.uk) a Higher Education Policy think tanks staffed largely by ex-HEFCE personnel, hold back from using specimen figures as we have done, but even so they  note:

Even with the most urgent implementation, the first cohort of graduates paying back loans for the new fees will not graduate until around 2015 or later. In cash terms, the package will increase public expenditure for years after then, certainly in the time the Government plans to pay off the deficit.[7]

This analysis makes a mockery of any argument that could be made that suggests that reform of Higher Education funding is necessary or required by a need to save money. It does not save money – it costs money, which could be spent more fairly on increasing the core teaching resource.

This analysis suggests that Vince Cable has lied to parliament, to the press and to his own party.

And this analysis casts doubt on the commitment of the coalition to their own stated aim of deficit reduction. This reform is clearly a purely ideological move, attempting to reform Higher Education along market-driven lines with no proven benefits and several clear issues, not least the additional costs to young people. And can we really afford it? Apparently so.

Apologies for the formatting issue with Table 1 – you can download a Word version of this post here – Analysis of financial impact of the Browne report recommendations.

---

[1] For a fuller explanation of the current teaching funding method, see http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/faqs/heses09/HESES09affects_grant.PPT . You’ll note that I have simplified the model I have used to ignore low impact stuff like London Weighting.

[2] Broadly, group A is clinical medicine, group B is non clinical medicine, lab-based science and engineering, group C are subjects with a small amount of lab, studio or fieldwork like maths, psychology, media and geology, Group D is everything else.

[3] From a HEFCE analysis of teaching grant allocation for 2008-9, which can be found at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/funding/price/review.doc

[4] Removal of state funding for bands C&D and an equivalent reduction in band A&B funding.

[5] Using the same figures as in table 1, for comparability.

[6] Browne Review, p38

[7] Paragraph 29 of the full report, http://www.hepi.ac.uk/455-1860/The-Independent-Review-of-Higher-Education-Funding–an-analysis.html

The myths behind the cuts

We know...

George Osborne’s statement in the House of Commons yesterday did not appear to offer many new ideas. Most of it had been leaked or previously discussed in the public domain. There can be no doubt that cutbacks are needed, but the justification he and his party have given regarding the extent of the cuts are predicated on some grossly over exaggerated myths. It is worth remembering that;

• According to the IMF we have the lowest government debt as a proportion of GDP among the G7

• Is government debt ‘unsustainable’? Not only do we compare well to the G7 in terms of debt proportion to GDP, but how often have you heard the Tories or Lib Dems compare our economy to Greece? It was the given reason why the Lib Dems sensationally altered their stance on the deficit, just days after polling day. The Greeks owe most of their debt to external financiers, whereas most of our deficit is held within the UK. Considering the nature of our debt, comparisons such as the ones we have heard are pathetic

• Did public spending get out of control under Labour? Answering yes to this neglects two key points. Public spending now is around the same as that of the early 1990s, i.e. the last financial crisis. It is responsible and indeed logical for public spending to increase during a recession. Those who answer yes have very short memories of dire public services that Blair inherited from Major. Our public services, namely education and health have improved dramatically since 1997. Our public expenditure on health has only been brought up to the average of other western economies

• Public sector expenditure is also comparatively low. Lower as a proportion of the economy than Italy, France, Austria, Belgium and the Scandinavian countries. The perception of our ‘oversized public sector’ does not stand up to scrutiny

• Are public sector workers overpaid? Some statistics exist that show that public sector pay has risen above their private sector counterparts. This is true for some areas, but it is the logical outcome of the recession. A look across the board will illustrate that while public sector pay is relatively steady, pay in the private sector differs dramatically on a wider scale, and is thus handicapped by a large number of underpaid workers

• Are there alternative to mass cuts? Simply speaking; yes. Bringing the 50% tax threshold down to £100,000 would see £4.7bn being raised. The famous ‘Robin Hood’ tax would raise some £20bn, while tax avoidance and loopholes seem to have been underestimated. If George Osborne, as he repeatedly said today that the ‘broad shouldered’ would take the brunt, actually meant that, he may have considered the more progressive ideas that have been suggested. Instead amongst other things, he has chosen to raise VAT and slash the welfare and benefit budget.

This suggests that the coalition plan is a political and ideological choice. They have managed to spread the popular myths above, and have thus cultivated a climate to introduce measures and policies that they have previously only dreamt of – a smaller state. It is classic conservatism, and don’t let them tell you it isn’t. Although that is fervently denied by the Lib Dems!

It was not hard to notice that most of yesterdays big, and thus controversial announcements had already been made. Firstly to lessen the shock factor, and secondly so that a lot of small gimmicks could be packaged as real positives.

As for the 500,00 estimated public sector job losses, I would imagine that figure has been as politically crafted as much as the above myths have been. Osborne made a point in the House of Commons stating that his cuts average 19% across the board, branding it alongside Labours position of suggested 20% planned cuts. The fact Osborne had previously preached up to 40% cuts (that too was leaked…) shows that numbers in this context have been used to soften and scaremonger the public. 19% is still drastic and deep, yet it would make sense for the government to over estimate public sector job losses – so when they actually occur on much lower levels, they can claim the credit. It may be playing with people’s livelihoods, but it makes political sense.

I was taken aback by the apparent ease at which Osborne could be seen to ‘do away’ with 500,000 jobs. Up until now it has been a number, and not people’s lives. I have a feeling that the government may have been over creative in this respect. It is a shame that honesty is clearly not on their agenda…

Are we really all “in this together”?

Alan Johnson

The letter from Conservative high command via 35 of the UK’s leading businessmen was clearly given to the media to coincide with Alan Johnson’s first appearance as shadow chancellor. It was not just the timing that was a little petulant. I’m not sure a statement by 35 of the wealthiest businessmen in the country has any political weight or clout in regards to an austerity programme that largely stays well clear of their own personal wealth. They may be experts at accumulating wealth, but does their lavish lifestyle permit them to empathise and understand what it is like to live on the bread line?

I am surprised Sir Philip Green (the governments anti bureaucracy tsar) was not on the list. He seems more than qualified to make the cut. In part due to the fact that he dodged giving HMRC some £285m from a dividend of £1.2bn that he conveniently transferred to his wife. It may well have been legal, but does that make it morally acceptable?

It seems Sir Philip has all the qualities of making his government advisory role a more formal arrangement. You would have to suggest he is top cabinet material. He, and the 20 or so cabinet millionaires would get on like a house on fire. Although I dare say his personal fortune makes Cameron and Osborne look like peasants, so perhaps not.

Of course there is nothing wrong with success, especially if it combines job creation and has significant positive ripple effects in the regional and national economy. However, a group of fat cats stating that we should embrace austerity looks, and is quite insulting.

Enter Alan Johnson, Labours new shadow chancellor. One of the qualities Alan has, unlike his government counterparts, is that he will be able to empathise and connect with an increasingly sceptical electorate. George Osborne is hardly a heavyweight, but I would suggest Johnson needs to learn his lines too. The fact he did not stick around for questions after his speech today indicates that he is still in the process of doing just that.

However, Johnson made three great points in regards to the lies the coalition government are spreading;

-          The deficit was avoidable, and was all Labours fault

-          There is no alternative other than fast and deep cuts

-          The cuts are progressive.

Lies, lies and damn lines.

Johnson has stuck to Alistair Darling’s pre-election position; to cut the deficit in half over four years. That in turn would mean that government departments preparing for a 14% cut in their budget would instead, on average be trimmed by 8%. In what should go down well with the majority of the electorate, Johnson advocates increasing the levy on banks by a further £3.5bn.

The alternative may have little in the way of meat and gravy right now, but it is certainly a start. Contrary to the Conservatives, there is a fairer alternative. Doesn’t it make your blood boil when you hear George Osborne state “we are all in this together”? It certainly does for me. I wonder if he’ll utter it at the comprehensive spending review tomorrow…

Pointless quote of the day

Awesome insight

“Most national security threats arise from actions by others: states or non-state actors, who are hostile to our interests.”

William Hague’s national security strategy. I wonder what it takes to work in the Foreign Office these days…?

Browne – right for the wrong reasons

The two sides to DPM

Realists would suggest that the Browne report has some desirable consequences, but you are hard pressed to try and justify the means by which the report intends to achieve them. Whilst Browne advocates a free market approach to tuition fees, he has set down a framework to deter institutions from charging anything below £6,000 per year. Scant consolation to those who struggle on the current cap of £3,290.

What is supposed to be a sweetener, that instead of paying fees up front (which is the case at the moment), that you will pay an increased fee back upon achieving a salary of over £21,000, is essentially a con. A measure introduced to take the initial financial pain out of, what is at the moment, an immediate transaction. It is a poor justification – pay more, but pay later.

There is an argument, which I support, that asserts that we churn out too many graduates. What has been suggested is an extremely disagreeable and regressive way to address that. Blair was wrong to try and pursue his infamous aim of getting 50% of young people to university (it got to 35%). As a broad principle it served to stagnate the social mobility of a sizeable group of people, as the jobs simply were not there to support them. Increased competition meant that internships and work experience are regarded almost as norms in terms of taking that next step.

If Blair went too far, Browne has gone too far in the other direction. Blair populated the market with too many graduates, and Browne seems bent on depleting those numbers beyond what is healthy, certainly in a social context.

Browne is right for the wrong reasons. His idea will create a hierarchical higher education system, a sector where choice will be constrained to cost. The likes of Oxbridge and other top class institutions will be able to charge what they see fit, and thus rule it out as a viable choice for many able candidates who do not happen to come from wealthy backgrounds.

Charlie will oppose it...

It will entrench a system whereby the wealthy go to the top institutions and the rest fight over what is left. It may well drive up academic standards, as entry requirements will surely increase in the more mainstream institutions on a similar trajectory to the fees that they charge. It will create a large gulf in higher education. Many universities simply will not be able to justify increasing their fees, thus it would surprise me if many eventually went under. It will throw many institutions long term strategies off course. If this becomes the norm, then in the years to come I would expect to see the amount of universities in this country decrease, as a consequence of fewer applications. Perhaps the answer is the old technical colleges?

Read between the lines, the Tories want quite rightly, a more diverse workforce. This is an unjust way of going about it. The trade and industry sector have suffered as a consequence of increasing graduates year upon year. This may forcibly redress the balance.

I suppose you have to balance Browne’s argument. Streamlining and putting quality over quantity in higher education will be a long term consequence should his report become legislation. But that means a swing back to a hierarchical society based on top heavy wealth. Does Browne realise many able candidates come from poor, or not so affluent backgrounds? Blair’s target actually stifled social mobility on a horizontal basis for a proportion of graduates who could not get jobs; this suggestion will align society along its old hierarchical lines.

The notion that this will hit the poor is a misconception. As it is, and as it has been suggested the poorest will continue to pay nothing. It hits the ‘squeezed middle’ the most, which just so happens to be the largest social group in society. Although this report was commissioned by Labour, you cannot help but suggest it looks like the Tories (through the Lib Dems) are rigging the system to benefit their own, and as for the Lib Dems, I dare say they may be punished further down the line.

Shad cab surprise

Certainly making his mark

Did anyone foresee Alan Johnson as shadow chancellor? I thought, and hoped Yvette Cooper might get the job, but eventually she was seen as too close to her husband, Ed Balls. Although Ed Balls was hotly tipped too, the perception of him outside Labour circles is hardly a positive one. If that is an important quality for, arguably the most important shadow portfolio, you can see Ed Miliband’s logic to give the role to Alan Johnson.

Johnson is liked and well respected inside and outside of Labour circles. He is a curious blend of former trade union leader, Blairite and a close ally of David Miliband. It is an appointment that does not add credence to the ‘Red Ed’ tag.

With all the checks, balances and appeasement issues at play here, it resembles a game of political chess. In those terms Alan Johnson is a sensible choice, a safe pair of likeable hands to represent the Labour party’s economic stance. Yet therein lies Johnson’s biggest flaw as shadow chancellor – he is not known for his number crunching, although he is an experienced campaigner having held many roles in cabinet.

Further reasoning behind Johnson’s appointment, is that compared to George Osborne, he will be perceived as a more down to earth figure and will provide the electorate with common ground that George Osborne cannot.

I am not shocked, and am pleased that the Labour party’s attack dog is pointed directly at the Tories weakest link – Theresa May. Balls gave Michael Gove a torrid time in his short stint as shadow education secretary. I hope he can pile more misery on the hapless Theresa May.

Yvette Cooper doing battle with William Hague is a bold move. Mrs Balls had done sterling work at the DWP, thus I am surprised at the big shift.

Elsewhere Andy Burnham’s move from health to education seems sensible enough, although I thought he might stay on as shadow health secretary. His passionate defence of the NHS will no doubt be useful when it comes to jousting with the gaffe laden Michael Gove.

Sadiq Khan, as Ed Miliband’s campaign manager was always going to get a substantial promotion, which is reflected in his shadow secretary of state for justice.

I can only think the experience of the relatively unknown John Healey had a bearing on his appointment as shadow health secretary.

With shadow roles for Liam Byrne, Douglas Alexander, John Denham, Jim Murphy, Caroline Flint, Meg Hillier, Ivan Lewis, Maria & Angela Eagle, Mary Creagh, Peter Hain, Shaun Woodward, Tessa Jowell – Ed Miliband has certainly made his mark. It is a mark that each should have time to settle into and become familiar with, thus I hope Ed ends, what at times has looked like a merry-go-round at the top of the Labour party. Let us hope that these appointments act as a basis for success.

The complete list of appointments can be seen here.

Tuition fees fiasco – latest in distasteful ideological agenda

Decisive or divisive?

Vince Cable’s stance on tuition fees is laughable. Some months ago, in what David Lammy MP brought to my attention as a choreographed stunt; Cable thrust his weight behind the concept of a graduate tax, as a fairer and progressive alternative to the current university tuition framework. Now he intends to do away with the cap on fees, consequently universities will be able to charge what they wish.

Many thought at the time that Cable had done so merely to get some much needed positive PR. Cable summoned the nations media to announce that he would wait for the Browne report, something that had already been announced and organised by the previous Labour government. In effect he was announcing something that had already been announced. It was at this PR exercise that he stated his preference, and his party’s, to introduce a graduate tax.

Fast forward three months and he has had to accept, or rather he has been made by his Tory masters, to change his mind. It is just the latest Liberal Democrat policy or idea to be thrown in the Westminster skip. It underlines the scant influence that the Lib Dems hold in the coalition government. Not only will he face a backlash from party members, who passed the motion at conference. Students and academics are planning on taking to the streets of London on the 10^th November. It appears to be the first planned demonstration by a specific social group, and I dare say it will not be the last.

It is true to say that the government do not have to take Lord Browne’s recommendations as policy, yet it looks like they will. Banishing tuition fees will permit institutions to charge what they wish. Some point out that most middle of the road/mainstream institutions will probably decide to stay close to the existing fee framework. However taking away the cap will invariably mean access to top class institutions will be dependent on wealth. George Osborne and other members of the coalition government have tried to show themselves as ‘progressive’. In regards to the student, who already faces huge debt as it stands, this is a dictionary definition of a regressive policy. Ministers are missing the point in regards to introducing a complex framework of interest rates, that come in to play when fees have to be repaid. It is not irrelevant, but those interest rates will take a backseat, especially if the amount to be paid back rises.

It is hard to see beyond initial assertions that this proposal will entrench elitism, which is already prevalent in higher education to some extent. We have heard in the past week that some children are to be classed as deserving poor, based on the actions of their parents. Now it looks like your choice of higher education institution will largely depend, not on your academic merits or qualifications, but on the size of your bank account. We would also be stupid to forget Michael Gove’s free school flagship policy, which also happens to drive primary education down the elitist route. There is a positive correlation here – they are three recent examples among many, of the clear and distasteful ideological agenda at the heart if this coalition government.

In an amusing twist, should Cable follow his heart and campaign against this rise in fees, he could abstain or vote against something that he himself has had to introduce to Parliament. For their own electoral prospects, it would be folly if the Lib Dems did not abstain, or vote against this. If this does go through Parliament, it would justify the Lib Dems as a Tory lite party…

Tories identify deserving poor

It seems the Tories have chosen to pick on a group in society that cannot answer back - children. The message is simple, Hunt suggests that the government will withdraw state support, or cap it in line with the median household income. Whilst they will hide behind ‘responsibility’, they are implying that benefit claimants should have less right to have a family. Parents do have responsibility when it comes to bringing up their children. Jeremy Hunt stated on Newsnight last week, “The number of children that you have is a choice and what we’re saying is that if people are living on benefits then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices. It’s not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices.”

He is right in suggesting that parents have a responsibility, one that encompasses creating a stable home for their family – something that will be severely hampered if benefits are capped in this manner. It is not just remarkably nasty, it also contradicts a stated central aim of this government. It has been stated on numerous occasions that the government wish to end what they see as the benefit system as a ‘culture’ or a ‘lifestyle choice’.

It seems reasonable to suggest that in order to transport long term benefit claimants out of the system and into work, they need many support mechanisms, including a financial aspect. This is particularly relevant on the impact of the child, as we are told that parents who are on long term benefits are increasingly likely to pass on that lifestyle choice to their children. Decreasing benefits in the manner that Jeremy Hunt suggested will only serve to entrench that probability. It is amazing that the government either have not seen the positive correlation, or choose to ignore it. It is further proof of the ideological values currently at the heart of government.

What next week? It would not shock me if the Tories suggested that part of your first trip to the job centre entailed a sterilization procedure…