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.
Agree with you here mate, but we need to pose a coherent alternative. Police idiocy was a serious contributing factor in the damage and violence…
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com
Thanks for your analysis.
There’s an important question of how we include the Conservatives and their side of the Coalition’s ideology in criticism of fee hikes, but also funding cuts in general. The left has rightly directed anger and questions at the Liberal Democrats, but it’s still the Conservatives who are driving many of the Coalition’s radical yet unjust and unfair reforms so ferociously through Parliament. It’s not secret that this is in the hope that there will be surpluses and tax breaks by 2015 to win them the next election.
I agree with Doctordrink that Labour needs to come up with a substantial alternative, not just oppose what’s going on, hide behind being in opposition, or the Party’s internal policy-making review. I’d go along with Eddy Anderson on Political Reboot, who today wrote of Labour’s “opportunity missed” to come up with an alternative higher education funding model.
Tim & DoctorDrink, I’m inclined to agree. The palpable lack of an alternative from the opposition benches has been almost embarrassing. Having said that, the complex nature of this, on one hand leads me to believe more time was needed, then again they should have been working tooth and nail to offer a credible alternative.
The path they are pursuing is, like you suggest, obvious. Deep, hard cuts followed by tax breaks around 2015. No surprises to learn the troops, we are told, will definitely come home by then too (even if I dare say a few ‘advisors’ remain…). My greatest fear is that might be enough. The Lib Dems will take a pounding, and if Labour cannot offer anything ‘credible’ then you might think the Tories will take it.
Cameron chose the policy review route, and to say he fell short of defeating a recession government with one of the most unpopular (not my opinion) PMs in recent times – speaks volumes. I think there is merit in not hiding behind the reviews, but I’m left thinking it may happen. It was different for Cameron, he was given a bedding in period and then struck (somewhat ineffectively) when the economy went belly up. Cameron did not have the opportunities Ed Miliband has right from the start of his leadership. I wonder if the next opportunity will be missed too?