The student revolt should be used to inspire change

By Daniel Pritchard

In challenging times what people need is a fighting opposition and a credible alternative to the present government. This can come from political parties but it can also come out of popular social movements. In the 1800’s the protests after the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ case led to trade union rights which subsequently resulted in greater workers rights. When it came to political democracy the Chartist movement succeeded in attaining the right to vote for men, and the Suffragettes later secured voting rights for women.

What democracy meant was that people for the first time could vote for things that could benefit them collectively, and with the vote people decided to create a welfare state with pensions, public services and the NHS. These public services are a symbol of British social democracy and yet the government is shredding these, applying shock therapy to the economy. At the same time the coalition are cutting taxes for multinationals and bankers are allowed to continue enjoying scandalously high bonuses (an estimated £7 billion are expected to be awarded in February) despite being responsible for shattering the economy and ruining the lives of millions. Are we really “all in this together?”

Higher education is of course the story of the moment. Under the proposals universities in England will be able to triple tuition fees by charging £9,000 per year. The proposals also entail plans to cut up to 80% (£3.9 billion) of the annual teaching budget, scrapping vital bursary schemes and introducing higher interest rates. The University of Middlesex has already announced the closure of its history and philosophy departments. Similar things are happening at the University of Birmingham and at Liverpool John Moore’s, among countless others.

The lecturer’s unions have rejected this bizarre notion that higher fees improve university standards and enhance social mobility. They highlight that the contact time lecturers have with their students has declined since the introduction of tuition fees, and especially after they were first tripled (from £1000 to £3000 by the Labour government). The public are rightly challenging government proposals. We wouldn’t dream of making children take on debt to pay for their primary or secondary school education, so why should it be any different when it comes to university education?

David Willetts the universities minister however assures us that the tuition fee rise is “a good deal for students.” I would hate to see a bad deal. Then we have Nick Clegg who is just as enthusiastic. Despite once telling students in public meetings (including one I personally attended) that Liberal Democrats would abolish fees, he now says that the rise is “just the beginning of the story.” Clegg went on to say that “to govern is to choose.” The problem with that analysis is that if you make the wrong choices people won’t tolerate you governing for much longer as Ted Heath (miners strikes) and Margaret Thatcher (the poll tax riots) found out. And despite the talk of there being no money it is amazing how fast the treasury was able to find £7 billion for the Irish government. The most hypocritical thing of course is that the entire cabinet all benefited from a system of free university education. Why should they be allowed to kick away the ladder that they climbed up so that other people’s children and grandchildren are unable to climb it? You have to ask yourself, would you buy a used car from these politicians? The answer must surely be no.

Unlike members of the cabinet the social impacts associated with higher fees are well understood by most people. By turning education into a commodity to be bought and sold it will widen class divisions whereby people who are able to afford university can go, and those who cannot afford the costs will be deterred from going regardless of their academic abilities. For those students who do decide to go onto higher education they will be forced to choose the cheapest courses, not the one that may suit them best. Research from the University of Leicester indicates that there will inevitably be a change in demand for places at the less prestigious universities which will institute a “two-tier system” for higher education. There is a simple principles involved here. Is it moral to charge a person for being educated?

By transferring the financial burden onto individual students is to assume somehow that there are no social benefits to that individual’s education. The truth is that we all benefit in some way from the education of others. When you see your doctor you benefit from his medical education, and when you send your children to school they benefit from the teachers education, and so on. In other words, an educated population is in the national interest.

The most significant point is that tuition fees are economically ruinous. The amount that tuition fees will raise is uncertain because it depends on the future earnings of graduates once they enter employment, and it will take years for the extra funding to filter through. Additionally, the macroeconomic advantages from a higher level of education spending and attainment are that education increases an economy’s growth rate and international competitiveness. A more educated and skilled population generally means higher wages and tax revenues in the long run. For all these reasons the student protesters (the NUS President being the only exception) are right to suggest a system where higher education is free for all. Education should not be for sale.

How would a free education system operate? It would mean a democratic system where we all contribute to a pot collectively through our taxes, and take out of the pot when we need it. This is hardly a radical notion, but it is a concept that makes a society civilised and distinguishes it from the jungle. Abolishing fees would mean that like the NHS education would be free at the point of use, but not a charity. When students graduate they should contribute to the system as taxpayers.

Rightly, the older generation are providing food for thought for the younger generation. In 1945 Britain came from the war devastated economically with a deficit far greater than ours today. There was mass unemployment, poor health, underfunded education, and homelessness. That past generation had a clear choice of whether to cut public expenditure or invest and grow its way to prosperity. They chose the latter. It was then this country went on to built the NHS providing free healthcare for all, it built 250,000 new homes every year, brought an end to mass unemployment, and by the 1950’s provided free university education for the most academically able. The “New Jerusalem” of the Attlee government led to progress many believed was unimaginable. By contrast, the “Big Society” philosophy of the Cameroon-Cleggite camp will take us backwards and leave people behind.

No one should undervalue the power of popular movements. In the 19th century the working class movement fought for the expansion of primary education and won. In the 20th century people fought for secondary education and won. In the 21st century the battle for free higher education is still being waged. The protests are making the government look fragile and they are starting to make concessions. Currently students are the leading opposition to the government, but they cannot be expected to do it alone forever. The Labour Party needs to become a credible alternative quickly, and the public sector unions should organise and be more noticeable. There is a view that union leaders might have missed a trick by failing to unite with and support the students in condemning spending cuts. Perhaps a mass demonstration against cuts on the day of the Royal Wedding is a consideration worth having.