How to make a comment

One or two of you have complained that it's difficult to make a comment. 

All you have to do is to have one of the accounts specified below the comments box.    

Google is the easiest so go to  https://www.google.com/accounts/NewAccount   and spend a minute or two to open an account.

All you need is your usual email address and a new password There is no obligation to do anything else. 

 To make your comment sign in at the top right where it says

Already a member sign in    using your Google account details


and choose google account

Labour needs more internal discussion about fees policy

 Ed Miliband's article in the Observer denouncing the rise in Tuition fees can be read at 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/04/ed-miliband-tuition-fees1

Its noticeable among the online comments about this article that while  Ed Miliband is advocating a graduate tax  the implications of such a tax are a mystery to many.  These are  spelt out in this blog's page on Tuition Fees.

However , Ed doesn't explain in his published article for the benefit of his readers either the economic or ideological differences between fees and a graduate tax, which is a shame. In addition, to say that a rise of several hundred pounds would have been sufficient rather undermines his opposition to a rise in fees. Would a few hundred have been OK? 

I doubt that is what he means us to infer,  but in these days of instant communication and PR Dave's preference for sound bites rather than hands-on leadership, this should have been edited out.

And what about Alan Johnson. He seems by raising questions publicly about  the efficacy of a graduate tax, in the Telegraph of all places,  turning out to be not so much the great communicator that Labour needs, he's acting more like a long- stop who has been promoted  to slip fielder and can only blame the captain when he drops a catch. (Pardon the cricketing metaphor, but we are doing rather well in Australia, so why not) 

Please, please  can we have more of Yvette Cooper.

LibDem duplicity has no equal

The Equality Act, the brainchild of Harriet Harman has received a setback.

The Coalition has abandoned the provision for compulsory audits to monitor and to close the gender pay gap.

Instead, companies will be asked to disclose their pay figures voluntarily.

This presents another huge embarrassment for the LibDems.

Two years ago Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, a LibDem MP then in opposition said,

"A voluntary audit system for private industry is hardly worth the paper it's printed on."

Today, she said: "We want to move away from the arrogant notion that government knows best, to one where government empowers individuals, businesses and communities to make change happen.”

No doubt business leaders will be pleased, because they don’t like regulation, just like the bankers, and just like the bankers they prefer to keep their pay secret.

What is wrong with Universities being supported from general taxation?

Well, this government  claims that those who benefit most should pay the most. University graduates get better jobs, and they as individuals should pay for this advantage. And, this government would probably add, universities  independent of government would be more efficient (like everything else).

So, why not make a charge for all secondary education then?  What's the point of it?  By this time everybody should be able to read and write, do practical sums, and know right from wrong.  Why not charge for further education, particularly if it leads to a qualification for a job?

Hold on.  Is the point of every sector of education that it delivers the individual a work place advantage that can be measured by financial reward? Why then pick on universities.

There is a suspicion that this government rather frowns on the fact that not only has the university sector been invaded by former polytechnics, but they are admitting hordes of students  to study dumbed down humanities and arts subjects which were previously the sole domain of the oldie universities.

Too many going to university and not taking up vocational training they would say.  Less university students is obviously one of the goals because all those students studying non-subjects must surely lead to more non-jobs, that is, doing things of which the Taxpayers Alliance disapproves.  

But, surely the government's  tuition fees policy is underwritten and justified solely by the notion that a university course is vocational training, or at least the gateway to a better paid job. Confusing?

Of course there would be no need to increase the fees if the government were not withdrawing 80% of teaching funding at the rate of £2.9bn each year by 2014.  Alright, so those oldie universities (they call themselves the Russell Group) are always complaining, but students paying up to £9000 per year will see not a single  improvement in facilities, teaching or infrastructure. Their contributions are filling the government's self made black-hole.

So what should happen?

Sadly it was a Labour government that introduced tuition fees and this has left them very little room to manoeuvre, so for Ed Miliband to support a move to a graduate tax an alternative to the tuition fees increase is probably his best option politically.   Remember Labour was also planning to cut university funding.

If you believe that attending a university is more that vocationalism, that well educated, imaginative, knowledgeable and forward looking young people are the future of the nation, then you must believe that it is no less a duty of society to support higher education through general taxation than it is to fund the armed forces and the police for our safety, or to fund the NHS for our good health.

 



 

Tuiton Fees: how did we get here

In 1996 Tory PM John Major asked Lord Dearing to look at university funding. The following year it recommended  students pay 25% of the cost of tuition.

Following the report, education secretary David Blunkett announces the introduction of means-tested tuition fees of up to £1250 per annum (to begin in September 1998).

In 2001 LibDem leader, Charles Kennedy, calling their introduction "one of the most pernicious political acts that has taken place". Labour is re-elected with a manifesto pledge stating that it "will not introduce top-up fees and has legislated against them"

In  2003 Labour publishes a white paper setting out proposals allowing universities to set their own tuition fees up to a cap of £3,000 a year.

Conservative party leader, Iain Duncan Smith, pledges that all university calling condemning tuition fees as "a tax on learning".  The next Conservative leader, Michael Howard, reiterates his  strong opposition to top-up fees, by calling Blair’s plans " absolute nonsense".

Charles Clarke makes concessions to Labour rebels in a bid to avoid defeat in the Commons.

With 316 votes for, and 311 against, the higher education bill is passed.

What is the point of these police reforms?

Ideology pure and simple is the answer. This government is engaging in a form of shock and awe, announcing policies in a barrage one after the other. How well thought through are they?

Elected Police and crime commissioners which could cost more than £130 million to set up and run in the first year, are to replace police authorities, which will be scrapped. 

According to the Home Secretary the system will cost no more than police authorities and would "give people value for money".  

Elections, will be held every four years from May 2012, costing £50 million.

Shadow home secretary Ed Balls warned this upset a 150-year tradition of keeping politics out of policing and would entail unnecessary expense in the face of 20% cuts to police budgets. 

Holders of the controversial new posts are the focus of a dramatic shift in power from Whitehall.

 The Home Secretary will have no powers to sack a commissioner - or a chief constable and  police and crime commissioners can only be removed come the next election.

Critics say it is not inevitable that elected police and crime commissioners will give  power  to the public, and would depend both on the job description who is elected.

Vernon Coaker, Labour's shadow policing minister, says: "A single elected police chief for an area as large as Devon and Cornwall will do little to improve police accountability, but will risk politicising the police and at a huge cost to the public. 

He also pointed out that"At a time when police funding is being slashed by 20%, people will not understand why the Government wants to spend an estimated £100 million - the equivalent of 600 full-time officers - on this controversial top-down experiment. The Government should think again."

Rob Garnham, chairman of the Association of Police Authorities (APA), warned that the introduction of police and crime commissioners created "the very real risk of politicising police accountability through single-issue elections". 

There are concerns about the workload and large geographical areas that will need to be covered by the new commissioners. 

"At present 17 members, including nine elected councillors and eight independent members of the community, share the work of holding the force to account and managing finances," he said. 

"A single individual would need a significant number of support staff to enable him or her to be as effective as the current model.

"This would essentially mean employing staff to carry out the work that police authority members do now, but at a much greater cost."

The Mail flies the flag for English students

The Mail this morning has a very typical eyecatching headline and some good photographs of the student demos. There is one interesting point buried in the article.  How is it that English students attending a Welsh University will have to pay full fees but those from the EU will not. There is a suggestion that this is illegal.  Ho ho, we should thank  the  Welsh Assembly for its timely intervention.

Punished for being English: Welsh students join Scots in being spared tuition fees rise 

By Laura Clark and Jason Groves

Britain was facing a future of tuition fees apartheid last night as Welsh students were told they will be exempt from higher charges.
They will be spared the full £9,000-a-year premium at the expense of English students, bringing them into line with Scottish students who also receive far larger subsidies.
English students will still face the higher fees even if they study at a Welsh university, while Welsh students at English universities will not.

Angry: As tuition fee protesters took to the streets again in London and in other cities around the country, the news Welsh students will have their fees subsidised threatens to trigger fresh anger

The move came as the Coalition’s flagship policy was thrown into chaos with the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg refusing five times to say if he would vote for it.

His colleague Vince Cable, the man who drew it up, added to the confusion by saying his instinct was to vote for it, then said it was up to his party, which is implacably opposed to higher fees, how he would vote.

Students took to the streets across the country for a third week of protests, some of which turned again to violence, over the prospect of paying £27,000 just for the teaching in a three-year degree.
In London 153 arrests were made, the vast majority of which, 146, came when police finally cornered a group of protesters who refused to leave Trafalgar Square at the end of the demonstration.

Battle: Protesters come face to face with police after a day of marching against the planned university tuition fee increases and freezing temperatures across the country didn't put people off

The Welsh move will deepen concern over so-called ‘apartheid’ in public services between UK nations, with the devolved administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff giving their citizens better access to medicine as well as cheaper education thanks to far higher public spending.

According to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, public spending per head is 14 per cent more in Wales than in England as a result of the controversial Barnett formula, under which money is handed out by the Westminster Parliament to the devolved administrations.
In 2007/08, every man, woman and child in Wales benefited from £1,042 more in public spending than in England.

Reinforcement: Police officers line up outside Parliament in London preparing for the student demonstrations

The row centres on Westminster plans to allow the cap on tuition fees in England to rise to £9,000 a year from the current £3,290 for students starting university in September 2012.

The move by the Welsh Assembly government – a coalition of nationalist Plaid Cymru and Labour – is a pointed snub to the plan.

The Assembly pledged to pay the difference between current fees and the new £9,000-a-year charges for all Welsh undergraduates, as well as students from elsewhere in the European Union studying in Wales.

The Senedd: The Welsh Assembly has pledged to subsidise Welsh students fees - even if they study in England

English students now will have to pay the full amount to study in Wales but students from other EU countries will not.
Welsh education minister Leighton Andrews described access to universities as an important principle.

‘We are preserving the principle that the state will subsidise higher education and maintain opportunities for all,’ he said.

‘In Wales, we remain committed to helping the most disadvantaged access education.’
The waiver will benefit approximately 70,000 Welsh undergraduates who study in Wales each year, and about 16,000 who study in England.
It will also go to around 7,500 students non-UK European Union students.

Across the country: Protests against the increased University tuition fees were carried out nationwide and here students are confronted by police in Leeds

At the same time, the poorest students in Wales will be able to access grants for living costs of £5,000-a-year, higher than grants proposed for England.

The stance was welcomed by student leaders last night. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said: ‘Welsh students stand to have their higher fees paid for them, clearly showing that where there is a will there is a way and that fees can effectively be kept at current levels.

‘The Government’s proposal to triple fees would leave English students and their families with huge fees and increased debts.

‘The claim that there is no alternative to passing huge debts on to the shoulders of the next generation to fund our future has unravelled in spectacular fashion.’

Critics said the proposals are unfair to English taxpayers who are effectively forced to subsidise cheaper courses elsewhere in the UK.

A spokesman for the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: ‘Graduates derive a significant financial gain across their lifetime from their degree and so it is right that they should contribute towards the cost of their university education.

‘It’s completely unfair to expect those taxpayers who do not go to university to subsidise those who do, and that includes English taxpayers funding Welsh students’ fees.’

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the lecturers’ union UCU, said: ‘I am pleased that the Welsh Assembly Government has recognised that access to higher education should be on based academic ability not ability to pay.

‘It is a shame that the Coalition government hasn’t grasped this reality and that it is persisting with its deeply flawed strategy.’

Scottish undergraduates studying in Scotland do not pay tuition fees, although they are liable if they study in England, which affects a very small number.

English students studying in Scotland pay fees of £1,820 a year or £2,895 for medicine.