The recent furore regarding superinjunctions has largely passed me by, though that hasn’t stopped me dipping into Twitter to find out (within seconds) who the famous names involved are. Personally, I don’t think the rich and the powerful should have access to a special law because they can afford the legal costs and while tabloids are a despicable scourge on UK society, famous people can’t expect to have it both ways.
Actors and football stars are happy to take the inflated salaries, the fame that drops onto their laps at an early age but not happy to have their private lives open to scrutiny. They want the goodies from being famous with none of the downside. Well that’s fine, but can we have our money back please?
I don’t think it’s too far a mental leap to suggest that politicians too have recently opted for a form of superinjuction, almost literally in the case of Alex Salmond regarding LIT. It is too early to say for sure what this election campaign will be rememered for but don’t be surprised if the legacy is the financial truth of the coming five years being shielded from the public, where the supposed ‘Hollywood for ugly people’ politicians wanted the fame and fortune without bothering to be open and transparent with us little people.
The funding of Higher Education is a classic example and I’m amazed, not to mention disappointed, that the SNP, Labour and Lib Dems haven’t been pushed on this much harder:
If fees in England are to settle at an average of £7,000, then (ignoring inflation), the funding gap in Scotland would be £97m. This is the figure that I have seen the SNP and Labour cling onto over the past few weeks.Â
If fees in England settled at an average of £7,500 and inflation was taken into account then the funding gap would be around £202m.Â
We now know that average fees in England will be closer to £8,678 and the funding gap therefore may well be £300m+ a year. So that’s easily a £1bn shortfall in the next parliamentary term that’s going largely undiscussed, and this is before Council Tax freezes, extra NHS spending, building more prisons, keeping police local and the whittling away of savings from (unspent) bridge money are taken into account.Â
Parties can talk about these areas being priorities for future budgets but if every upside needs a downside, if every credit needs a debit, then surely we deserve to know what the priorities are for what will be cut and when? Put another way, whose necks are on the chopping block for each of the parties? Noone likes hearing such news but we deserve to know, don’t we?
Seemingly not. Like the grinning actor and the celebrating footballer hiding a barrelload of sins beneath that shiny veneer, aided and abetted by a handy superinjunction, it is what our party manifestoes don’t say that speaks volumes.
Don’t believe me? Just ask the Centre for Public Policy for Regions that has released a paper on manifesto costings. Some choice lines include:
In many pages on these Manifestos there is a plethora of seeming commitments and
pledges. However, when the current funding proposals are broken down these are
often found to have no (increased) funding attached to them. In some case this
funding is, yet again, expected to arise from generic efficiency savings. The true
worth of such commitments must therefore be called into question in many cases.
As we have previously reported, the 2011-12 budget was already tight with spending
being delayed and all spare funding being fully allocated. There is no reserve in the
event costs rise faster than projected or savings and revenues fail to be generated to
the level of in the timescale proposed.
Overall, serious questions have to be asked of all of the four main Parties as to
whether what they have outlined in their Manifestos is sufficient to meet the
challenges facing them in terms of real terms cuts to their budgets over the next four
years. Voters are entitled to be highly sceptical as to whether what they are being offered in
the Manifesto’s is actually what will happen, rather than a pale imitation of the
difficult choices that await, post-election. In fact, rather than playing a critical role in determining
how difficult future budget choices are to be made, voters are being sidelined.
Double digit cuts to budgets over the coming years means that we either have to tax more or spend less just to stand still, that’s the basic truth of 2011-16. So, if there was any justice, this election would really be a straight fight between the revenue-raising Greens and the happy-to-cut-back Tories.Â
On current evidence, the SNP will only fleetingly enjoy this election win (if it comes to pass), opposition parties look set to have plenty of ammunition to hold the Government and its mandate to account over the coming years. Maybe being upfront, rather than adopting the superinjunction ethos, is the way to go after all.
#1 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 1:36 pm
One day I hope to have someone explain to me what these increasingly-absurd “shortfall” figures actually represent. We’re continually told our universities need to “compete”, but what does that *mean*? Who are they competing with, and for which resources? Students? With no fees for Scottish universities compared to £30,000 for a degree in England, I’d have thought they’d be fighting students off with a stick.
I went to university and I don’t remember my uni being ranked against any other ones. I don’t remember sitting in Quantitative Methods bored out of my my mind and thinking “Oh lordy, I hope we’re not lagging behind Northampton Polytechnic in some abstract and unspecified way”.
If people want to make some sort of political point about university funding, maybe they should start phrasing it in ways that aren’t completely meaningless bollocks to any normal person.
#2 by Jeff on April 27, 2011 - 1:53 pm
Yikes.
Well, for a start this post isn’t about competition between universities so if you have a beef with that area then that is for someone else to explain.
As for shortfall, it’s pretty straightforward as far as I can see. The more money that universities south of the border raise through fees, the less money the Treasury spends on Further education, the less money the Treasury spends on Further Education the less money Scotland gets via the Barnett Formula, and the less money Scotland gets via Barnett the bigger the shortfall between what we have previosly spent on Further Education in Scotland and what is available to be spent, assuming all other budgets areas remain level.
Or maybe that’s still all ‘meaningless bollocks’ as you so charmingly put it.
#3 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 2:23 pm
See, that’s the sort of thing I was looking for. However, as far as I’m aware the Barnett Formula is a convention, not a thing that has any basis in law, and reductions (or increases) in spending by the UK government in England and Wales are not *automatically* met by proportionate adjustments in funding to Scotland.
Furthermore, Barnett consequentials are not applied on a per-service basis, but to the block grant as a whole. Therefore it doesn’t necessarily follow that a reduction in education spending in England will result in a reduction in the Scottish block grant at all (for numerous possible reasons), and even if it does it doesn’t necessarily follow that the Scottish Government will pass on that reduction specifically to the education budget, or even more specifically to universities.
I’m also not quite sure I grasp how it costs less to have a lecturer teach a class of 12 students compared to a class of, say, 20. So how are there savings to be made in reducing admissions?
#4 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 2:37 pm
Universities have teaching assistants (like me) to teach some classes so lecturers can go on sabbatical to write, go to conferences – with the resulting publications earning them grants from various bodies. So this is an important revenue stream for them. Problem is, universities can’t afford to employ TAs. Here’s an example:
A uni currently has, for sake of argument, 250 students on a course. Guidelines say seminars should have no more than 16 students in them. That means you have to have 16 different classes a week for that course. The lecturer who is co-ordinating that course also co-ordinates 2 other courses, each with 2 lectures and 1 seminar per student a week. There’s no way they can cover all of that themselves (54 hours in total) and still have time to write etc. So they employ TAs to teach the seminars, with 3 TAs each taking 5 classes (and 1 left for the co-ordinator). That’s a much easier load – and allows time for writing too. Point being – if you have 250 students, you’ll need 3 TAs as well.
But the TAs cost money over and above what the uni is spending on lecturer salaries. Thus 3×5 hours a week on whatever a TA gets paid (plus marking etc) is added to the cost of teaching. Universities figure they can save cash by cutting out the TAs… and this means cutting the numbers of students. If you can get a course down to, say, 100 that’d only be 6 classes – which a lecturer could probably manage – thereby eliminating the excess spending on TAs. But it also means reducing the number of places – a direct result of trying to save money.
#5 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 2:48 pm
Righto. But the piece talks about a funding shortfall of £300m+ a year. Scotland has, as far as I can recall, fewer than 20 universities. That’s £15m a year each. I don’t know what teaching assistants get paid, but that seems an awful lot of money for a single university to be spending on them every year.
#6 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 3:19 pm
Yes it does – and the figure comes from the universities. And there are, I think, 14 universities in Scotland (but that’s just to make your “fewer than 20” slightly more accurate).
The TA “cull” is only one element of it. Stirling, for example, punted 14 members of staff out of their Institute of Aquaculture (there was a strike about it yesterday). So redundancies come into it too. Presumably there will be an increase in attempts to get foreign (ie – non-EU) students in as well, since they’ll pay large fees for the privilege – which won’t cut the total number of places, but it will cut the number of places available to Scottish students to take advantage of our “no fees” policy. Every little helps, as they say.
#7 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 3:34 pm
I just checked on Wikipedia, and if it’s to be believed the actual number is 19, made up of 15 “actual” universities plus 4 further “autonomous higher education institutions”, which are two art colleges, a music one and an agricultural one. So “fewer than 20” was actually extremely accurate ; )
But I’m still not the slightest bit convinced by any of this. The various “shortfall” figures in the post are based on what English universities are going to charge, and I can’t for the life of me work out how it makes a difference to the University Of Abertay whether Leeds Metropolitan charges £3000 or £6000 or £9000 a year for a law degree.
Leeds is getting the same amount of funding from Westminster whatever it charges students – making ends meet is its own problem. So Barnett consequentials – IF they’re affected at all by education spending generally, see my previous post – .are not relevant. Which means the “£300m+” figure just seems like groundless scaremongering.
#8 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 3:45 pm
Sorry – I was just counting the “universities” (and I missed the new University of H&I). So my figure wasn’t far wrong either!
Anyway – I’ll let Jeff explain why the English uni charges matter, I think he has more of a handle on it and Barnett than I do. But whether it is to do with England’s allowing tuition fees up to £9,000 or Scotland’s no fees policy, the reality is universities in Scotland are cutting places and services. That’s a fact. I think understanding why it is happening is important (which is clearly what this discussion is about) but more important is Jeff’s point: only the Tories (reinstate fees) and the Greens (increase taxes to pay for tuition) have a “complete” solution to the funding issue.
#9 by Daniel J on April 27, 2011 - 2:52 pm
Ok, so the funding of Arts and Social Sciences has largely stopped in England, the Barnett consequential as such will see us lose money.
The funding gap is made up of this loss of money to the Scottish Gov + the additional money brought into English universities by the fees. The fact that fees are £8,500 as opposed to £6,000 does not mean we get less money via Barnett but that English Universities will be in general better funded.
Right?
#10 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 3:39 pm
It sounds to me like you’re counting figures twice there. The loss of money to the Scottish Government I’ve addressed above – it isn’t actually necessarily going to happen at all, and even if it does Holyrood doesn’t have to pass the cuts specifically to universities. At the moment, it’s at worst a possibility, not a reality.
And as I said in my last post (which you appear to be agreeing with) the “shortfall” represented by the fees paid to English unis is completely irrelevant. The amount of money in Leeds Metropolitan’s coffers from fees has no impact whatsoever, directly or indirectly, on the finances of the University Of Abertay, and therefore cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as a “shortfall”. Abertay is not being deprived of a penny by the payment of that money to Leeds by students.
#11 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 1:53 pm
Rev Campbell,
The problem at the moment isn’t getting students to come to universities here – they are quite happy to. The problem is finding places for them. Because we don’t have fees, we can’t afford to take on as many – I know one uni is cutting their intake of politics students next semester by 60%. Like it or not, there is a funding gap – and that’s what Jeff is talking about. We can’t expect to say to universities “You’re not getting to charge students fees” and expect them to carry on as if nothing has changed. That’s the reality of this: no tuition fees means less money for universities – and Jeff’s sources back up that statement.
The shortfall represents Scottish universities’ inability to compete with others not on the basis of an abstract or unspecified thing. Its to do with actually being able to teach the students who come through the door. I actually agree with Jeff here – only the Greens and the Tories are addressing this issue, albeit in totally different ways. Labour, the SNP and Lib Dems dispute the figures, which is fine – but they haven’t said how they’ll plug what they see the gap to be. Well, perhaps that isn’t fair – the Lib Dems have, but that’s by removing bus passes and would only contribute around £20m(?) to the cost. Where’s the rest coming from?
#12 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 3:46 pm
Hang on, though – Scottish universities haven’t had fees since about 2001. So that can’t be the reason for slashing politics places by 60% next semester, can it? Nothing’s changed in regard of fees between 2010 and 2011.
Genuine question – how much have Scottish universities actually, definitely had their funding from the Scottish Government cut by so far? (As opposed to what they think *might* happen in 2012 and beyond.) Not a rhetorical question, I honestly don’t know the answer.
#13 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 3:50 pm
That’s not true at all. Scottish universities haven’t had upfront fees, but students still had to pay to go. We had to pay a graduate endowment. That’s, to all intents and purposes, a fee for tuition – except we paid it at the end of our studies. To say we abolished tuition fees in 2001 is completely wrong.
#14 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 3:53 pm
As for the second part of that – its not the funding CUT from the Scottish Government that they are talking about. Its the fact that, from 2007 on, they no longer got the fees from the graduate endowment, which was abolished then. When students were paying, universities crammed them in like sardines. No they no longer get any money from them for going to uni… it’s a different ball game.
But what they think *might* happen in 2012 is likely what will happen. At least, in my view.
#15 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 3:55 pm
A hairsplitting quibble – the endowment was AFAIK abolished by the SNP in 2007, so it still can’t be the reason for a change between 2010 and 2011.
#16 by Malc on April 27, 2011 - 4:00 pm
It can actually. Pre-2007, universities were still taking students who they thought would be paying fees. We have 4 year degrees here, thus its only now that those who started first year when we got rid of the fees are graduating. That – plus the increase in fees in England – is why it is coming to a head now.
Anyway – I’ve got to go and do some work now!
#17 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 4:09 pm
Semi-fair point, but what about students who started their degrees in 2008 or 2009 or 2010? Universities weren’t getting or expecting any fees from them either, so it still seems a weak justification for suddenly slashing places in 2011/12.
I’d still be interested in discovering what ACTUAL funding cuts universities have had so far.
#18 by Douglas McLellan on April 28, 2011 - 2:40 am
Ok.
Total Teaching Grant 08/09 – £850,875,726
Total Teaching Grant 09/10 – £879,531,664
Total Teaching Grant 10/11 – £891,312,060
Total Teaching Grant 11/12 – £848,502,536
As you can see the rises from 08/09 to 10/11 were below inflation so were real terms cuts.
And then a really really big cut for the financial year just started.
I hope that is sufficiently actual for you. Easy to find btw.
#19 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 1:40 pm
PS Nice work on adding the SNP logo to the pic, for all those readers of a Scottish political blog who don’t know what Alex Salmond looks like…
#20 by Jeff on April 27, 2011 - 1:54 pm
The SNP logo was already on the picture I picked up online; I don’t have time to add little flags to pictures or, for that matter. removing them.
#21 by Czkelly on April 27, 2011 - 2:31 pm
I accept that you have already rebutted the ‘competition’ issue as not the point of this article. However, it is undeniable that the debate over HE funding is permanently framed by a comparison between Scottish and English universities. What we hear is ‘without the funding we can’t compete’. For that reason it is a relevant issue to this debate. The thing that is frustrating is a deeply parochial approach which does not dare to look to how our neighbours deal with this issue. For example, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and Finland provide free education without any residential qualification and at any level (undergrad, Masters, PHD). Sweden, where I will be studying myself in a few months time, provides free education to any EU citizen at any level.
My point is that these countries understand the benefits of HE and a highly educated workforce. Furthermore, they understand that this should not be limited to those who can afford to pay and that social mobility provided by HE is fundamental to the health of a society.
The funding gap is an issue and I agree that there should be more coherence from the parties in how they seek to address this. What does not help is Principals – all on six figure salaries, many with complimentary houses, cars, and lucrative second jobs – demanding student fees. Rather, in my humble opinion, the Scottish parliament needs the fiscal powers to truly alter the tax system and raise the revenue to deal with the funding gap. We all benefit from HE, not just the individual student, and for that reason we should all pay our share.
#22 by Indy on April 27, 2011 - 2:45 pm
I think your comments about actors, football stars etc are way off the mark.
In real life, if you took a close interest in a complete stranger’s sex life – if you raked through their rubbish, followed them about trying to get a picture of them drunk or kissing someone they shouldn’t be kissing etc – you would be, at best, a right weirdo. At worst you would be a stalker. You could actually go to jail. As far as I am concerned it is no different when tabloid papers do it. It is a sick, voyeuristic culture which degrades everyone involved in it.
Not sure how you link that to LIT lol. A contrivance too far I think.
#23 by Allan on April 27, 2011 - 7:01 pm
Kind of agree with you Indy. I prefer to think that really we’re not that interested in the storm of “Person Has Sex Shocker!” headlines (file alongside “Two People are Getting Married on Friday” stories).
There is a discussion to be had about attitudes towards sex & so called celebrities. Now however is not really the time when tabloids are outraged about not being able to pass off gossip as hard news.
#24 by Thomas Widmann on April 27, 2011 - 2:54 pm
Two issues regarding university funding:
(1) While I understand that Barnett consequentials will mean less money for Scotland if England spends less on its universities, it’s my impression that England will actually have to spend quite a lot initially paying the students’ fees; of course this money (or at least some of it) should be recouped down the line, but here and now it’ll cost England money. Shouldn’t this additional spending be reflected in the Barnett consequentials, too?
(2) Why is it Scotland’s universities are only comparing themselves to England? In Europe, no other country seems to be going down the route of enormous fees, and surely Scotland could copy the approach taken by universities of some country other than England.
#25 by Danny1995 on April 27, 2011 - 4:12 pm
As someone who is going to university hopefully in 2012 I have to say this is the main issue for me.
Could someone who understands economics better than me explain exactly why the funding gap needs to be closed?
#26 by Douglas McLellan on April 27, 2011 - 4:14 pm
1. I think Barnett is more to do with ‘real spending’ rather than budget figures. The real education spend will not include the payment of fees upfront as that will be recouped later. I suppose, at a stretch, it could be argued that we get some mechanism to lend money in a similar way.
2. I think it is quite hard to compare ourselves to other education systems on the continent. After all, most of them appear to be heading towards the English style three year degree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_process
I also think, but lack the relevant stats to prove it (so am totally willing to be proven wrong), that far more of Scottish (and UK) children go into Higher Education for the purposes of getting a degree that many other EU countries. Its hard to find the stats I think because so many continental universities offer qualifications at the end of each year so its hard to tell how many children there were looking to get the degree when they started.
Anyway, I think our university costs are higher, thus fees and the funding gap.
#27 by Thomas Widmann on April 27, 2011 - 4:45 pm
I can only really talk about Denmark, which is where I got my MA. In Denmark, going to university is free (there are even almost universal grants for up to six years), and almost everybody studies 3 + 2 years — leaving with a bachelor is still fairly uncommon. I’d also be very surprised if Danish unis cost any less than British ones.
#28 by Douglas McLellan on April 27, 2011 - 6:03 pm
Cant find per university costs yet but I have found that Scotland has 19 degree awarding bodies but Denmark, of a similar population size has 9. Thats a lot of potential savings in terms of highly paid Principles etc.
Plus, Denmark has a total student count of 141,000 (including post grad equivalents) and in Scotland we have over 160,000 undergraduates, excluding those at the H&I Uni. In Denmark there are around 347,000 people aged 18-23 (5 year degree) and in Scotland there are 278,000 people aged 18-22 (4 year degree).
As far as I can tell (and seriously, I would check these figures) we have around 57% of potential students in higher education whilst the Danes have 40%.
So fewer students and fewer universities may mean that it is financially feasible to offer the financial aid that the Danes have in the past. However, a quick trawl of Google has highlighted changes to the funding and teaching in Danish universities have resulted in occupations similar to the universities in Scotland.
#29 by Thomas Widmann on April 28, 2011 - 11:08 pm
Thanks for looking into the numbers.
Danes don’t go to uni to become primary school teachers and several other careers that are normally associated with uni degrees in Scotland, so this is likely to make the Danish figures look smaller.
I need to look at the actual figures to be able to comment in greater detail, though.
#30 by Doug Daniel on April 27, 2011 - 4:31 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one who has noticed this strange notion that the funding gap for Scottish universities is directly proportional to whatever level of fees England is charging students. English universities are only being allowed to raise their fees to accommodate the drop in funding from central government. This drop in funding is not predicated on the size of fees charged by the universities, otherwise no one would be charging the highest amount as it would be better for them to get the money from government than to charge higher fees.
The section of the Scottish block grant relating to higher education funding is (presumably) equivalent to however much Westminster spends on universities. So if the amount of funding Westminster is giving to universities is fixed, then so is the proportion of the block grant relating to higher education funding.
Now, I don’t know if the funding gap in England is equal to £6,000, £7,000 or even £9,000 in fees (although somehow I suspect it is not equal to £9,000). But what I DO know is that whatever the amount required to bring their funding back to their pre-cuts levels, any amount they charge over that is just the universities being greedy. I don’t see why Scottish students should suddenly have to start paying fees just because some English universities have decided they value money more than education.
The idea that this funding gap is predicated on whatever English universities want to charge in fees is simply not credible. Scottish universities should be more honest – an average of £8,678 for fees in England does not mean they need more money; they just want more money. That’s not a funding gap, it’s a profit gap.
The whole argument would look very different if people more correctly referred to it as a subsidy gap, as people would then realise that there is a difference between the money given by Westminster to universities, and the extra money they want to charge. The media, as ever, have been appalling in just meekly accepting the frames of this debate, rather than saying “hold on, surely the funding gap is whatever amount the Tories are cutting from the higher education budget alone?” Until we get some honesty in the debate over what exactly the “funding gap” represents, then we can’t deal with it sufficiently.
#31 by Douglas McLellan on April 27, 2011 - 6:21 pm
The methodology for working out the funding gap can be found here:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/82254/0113495.pdf
The reason is that it is a funding gap is based on the commitment made by the Scottish Government in 2008 that investment in learning and teaching, research and knowledge exchange activities should maintain broad overall comparability with the rest of the UK.
I think that you are wrong about how Barnett works. The Scottish Block grant is a total figure. How it is spent is up to the Scottish Parliament (i.e. approving the Scottish Governments Budget). I could be wrong though.
#32 by Doug Daniel on April 27, 2011 - 7:31 pm
You’re not wrong, but neither am I! I can see why you think I’m saying otherwise, though. The grant may not come with a “this much to be spent on your higher education budget” label on it, but there are still very solid figures stating how much of the grant was made up from the Westminster education budget. So the Scottish Government is then having to use up bits of the grant they would normally use for other things to make up the shortfall caused by the reduced universities spending.
Maybe this is why people have been focusing on the fees being charged, rather than the size of England’s university budget. But I still think it’s the wrong way to frame the debate.
#33 by Douglas McLellan on April 28, 2011 - 2:48 am
The total spend on English universities is being reduced by 40% over the period of the 2010-2015 Westminster Government. Which is why fees are all being set £8000-£9000.
What this means of course is that there is a similar reduction within the university spending element in overall Scottish Budget.
#34 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 28, 2011 - 8:55 am
It doesn’t mean that at all. As previously noted, Barnett consequentials don’t apply on a per-service basis.
#35 by Rev. S. Campbell on April 27, 2011 - 9:20 pm
Surely in that case, with England slashing university spending, they should be cutting the Scottish budget far *more*, then…?
#36 by Douglas McLellan on April 28, 2011 - 2:40 am
Sorry I dont understand the point you are trying to make.
#37 by Allan on April 27, 2011 - 7:07 pm
“don’t be surprised if the legacy is the financial truth of the coming five years being shielded from the public”
No change from last years election then when the most heated debate about the future of the countries finances centred around Labours proposal to put up NI. If memory serves, all parties were evasive when VAT came up, and all parties got decidedly defensive when the issue came up. Remember the debate when Cameron attacked Brown for “scaremongering” over OAP’s heating allowances.
#38 by Gryff on April 27, 2011 - 7:18 pm
To add another voice to the confusion. My understanding is that: part of the ‘shortfall’ is a result of the barnett consequentials on HE spending, and is so just a function of the overall Scottish budget falling. Barnett consequentials are essentially automatic, not legally, but politically. Can you imagine the outcry if a government in Westminster paid less or more than the Barnett sum? Can you imagine Osbourne letting Scotland off its share of the pain?
The other part of the Shortfall is the competition factor, this is what varies depending on what fees are charged. What hasn’t been mentioned here though, is that universities that have more cash are more likely to be able to attract other research funding. Presumably Universities Scotland are worried about English universities taking all the funding, and as a result the best staff, postgrad sudents etc.
#39 by mav on April 27, 2011 - 8:30 pm
Jeff’s wider point is that the manifestos simply don’t add up, uni fees being one example. I think this has been a gradual trend which got far worse last year. from memory, the Inst of Fiscal Studies went through the manifestos then and conclided that the tory one was only 70% funded, and the others were worse. Every interviewer tried to get the parties to admit what everyone knew – that Vat was going to 20% regardless of who won, but they never did.
The trouble is that elections are won by largesse, not talk of austerity. you would have thought that after more than a decade of labour trying to make their promises happen almost bankrupted the country, we’d have learnt out lesson, but there is no sign of it. Instead of praising the tories and the greens for their honesty on tuition fees and tax rises, the media ask them how they expect to win votes by being so stupid.
Of course, just as we knew about Vat a year ago, we know the truth now. Labour and the snp have the same plan. Promise the earth, and blame the uk govt when they fail to deliver. I suggest a different tack. Vote for a party whose policies you think are affordable, refuse to vote for any party you feel are promising things they know they can’t afford or achieve.
#40 by Jeff on April 27, 2011 - 8:43 pm
You know what, Reading through the above, I’m not entirely sure I understand university funding any more, or the supposedly “straight forward” difference between competition and shortfalls!
Might (might!) have to unstick that Sellotape from Salmond’s mouth after all…!
#41 by Rev. S. Campbell on May 2, 2011 - 11:36 am
Thanks for those. That looks to me like a cut of roughly 5%, which is clearly a bad thing, but I’m not sure I’d call it “really really big”.