It is right to try and combat the coalition's plans right now ? but come the election Miliband will have to be far braver
It would be easy to judge Ed Miliband's �6,000 fees policy as a piece of political manoeuvring, a U-turn that sets up another U-turn, and a cheap shot at the government by a party years from a general election. But I think, and hope, there's more to the proposal than that.
What Miliband is demonstrating to the government is that there are easy ways, right now, to make sure that the likelihood of those from poorer backgrounds being put off by tuition fees is lessened, and to reintroduce a measure of state funding for higher education. I'm not denying that reducing fee levels would have a positive effect on decision-making. Research has shown that reducing levels of fees to below �7,000 has a demonstrable effect on whether fees are perceived as a major barrier. The problem is that it doesn't go nearly far enough, nor does it correspond to what Miliband has already promised for young people.
Miliband reached out to students during his leadership election campaign with the promise of adopting a graduate tax as a fair way of funding universities, and led Labour party MPs in voting against the rise in tuition fees. He saw and contributed to the criticism of the Liberal Democrats who betrayed students after the last election, and should be well aware that he is not above such vitriol should he fail to keep his word to fight for the abolition of "sticker price" fees at and after the next election. Students who note his previous commitment to abolishing fees will not suddenly be won over to the party that introduced them when it suggests merely doubling rather than trebling them in this parliament. Any system of funding for higher education based on "sticker price" fees will always act as a major disincentive to students from debt-averse backgrounds.
A policy of a �6,000 cap would not do any favours for Labour going into the election. It cannot be a long-term policy stance. However, as an immediate solution to the government's white paper proposals, this is a very welcome suggestion. This partial halting of the rise in fees, coupled with equivalent reintroduction of public funding, would stabilise funding, rebalance the long-established compact between state, graduate and employer in paying for higher education and halt the creation of a fees market, which has the effect of encouraging poorer students towards institutions where less will be invested in them ? a reverse "pupil premium". With fees limited to �6,000, there would be no need to embark on a risky and untested auction of university places which would create a "stack em high, sell em cheap" pool of sub �7,500 fees and an elite group of those who can select from the high-attaining AAB+ A-level pool of school leavers. So in the short term, Miliband's proposal is both timely and would be incredibly helpful if implemented.
But by the next election, all political parties who are looking for votes from young people and their families must be ready to abolish tuition fees altogether, replacing them with a funding system that doesn't present costs, notional or otherwise, before a student even opens a prospectus. More immediately, they must look at the disastrous system of student support that sees universities incentivised towards fee waivers that keep much-needed funds away from students' pockets and no party can truly claim to be investing in future generations until they have reversed the abolition of the education maintenance allowance. The debate over how to properly invest in the future of young people is far from over and while it's not a perfect answer, the government should listen to Miliband and reduce the burden on students and graduates straight away. Equally, Labour must be far braver in challenging the system more fundamentally come the next general election.
Radio industry Bank of England Argentina Dmitry Medvedev Alex Reid Top 10s
No comments:
Post a Comment