UFO Info Week-End

The reason for that loss of prime ministerial prestige is not difficult to identify:

The reason for that loss of prime ministerial prestige is not difficult to identify: Mr Blair’s decision to join President Bush’s invasion of Iraq and its bloody aftermath. Just in case he has forgotten that, Lord Hutton will be there to remind him tomorrow.. It is not at all related to the financial means of the student’s parents.Indeed, with the restoration of the maintenance grant and the monitoring of the “social profile” undergraduates, the Government is demonstrating its determination to ensure that higher education really is open to all according to ability rather than ability to pay.The price of failureSadly, if Mr Blair does win the vote this evening it will be as much the result of the black arts of the Whip’s Office as the force of his argument. That demonstrates the extent to which the “New Labour” revolution left much of the party unmoved and as hostile as ever to change.It also shows how low the Prime Minister’s stock stands, even when he made this issue one of personal authority. On that basis it is also fair to ask those graduates to make a contribution.

It is equitable because it is repayment of a notional debt only takes place when a graduate earns enough to do so. They should be asked to do so when, and only when, they reach a stage in their working lives where they are capable of repaying that debt without hardship.Different courses at different universities will benefit students in different ways, and it is natural that the structure of university fees should reflect this reality And that, in essence, is the Government’s plan. So it is right that the cost of educating graduates should be mainly borne by the general taxpayer as a reflection of the contribution made by graduates to the economy as a whole.Yet it is also true that the benefits of a university education through generally higher lifetime earnings accrue to the individual graduate. This argument needs to be stated carefully.Who benefits?Of course, as the critics of top-up fees always point out, everyone is better off because Britain has better qualified teachers or doctors or engineers, for example. A further rise in direct taxation would merely offer Michael Howard’s resurgent Conservative Party, in its current opportunistic phase, another chance to make political hay.The second problem with using general taxation as the method of meeting the universities’ needs is a more principled one: it violates a fundamental principle of fairness. There are two obstacles to raising the money from general taxation.

First, the fact the Government has just about pushed increases in the tax as far as is politically possible. The Chancellor, in between offering mischievously coded messages of support for Mr Blair, is also alive to the theme. His words at the Treasury-organised international enterprise conference yesterday were as clear as could be: “I want us to be the best educated, best trained workforce and the much needed reform of university finance is another vital step towards that goal”.If the university students of tomorrow are to receive the same quality of teaching as their forebears then the funds will have to be found. His ministers were right to argue for a rapid increase in the numbers of young people entering higher education. The only way in which an economy such as Britain’s can be competitive in a globalised economy is through the quality of its human capital.Creating a competitive advantage should be the prime goal of government policy, or, as Mr Blair used to say when asked what his priorities would be in government: “education, education, education”.

This is a broken-backed bill from an increasingly beleaguered prime minister.The case for variable feesYet Mr Blair’s instincts are sound. Thus the new scheme will not raise more than £1bn of the £8bn or so the Russell group of leading universities says is needed to ensure a world-class higher education sector So much for Mr Blair’s claim that he has “no reverse gear”. As with the legislation on foundation hospitals that limped on to the statute book last summer, these changes represent an embarrassing weakness in prime ministerial resolve.The principle of tuition fees may soon be enshrined in law, but the funds that will be now raised for hard-pressed universities – supposedly the whole point of this scheme – will be much diminished as a result.The Secretary of State for Education, Charles Clarke, has now pledged that fees will not rise above £3,000 until well into the next parliament. It may even prove to be Tory MPs voting against their own party line that saves Mr Blair’s flagship bill. If that comes to pass, it will be a humiliation not even visited upon Mr Blair when MPs debated the invasion of Iraq last March.
Moreover, victory in the division lobbies will have been purchased at the price of some serious concessions to the rebels. The parliamentary vote on variable university fees – the so-called top-up fees – is, according to Downing Street, “too close to call”. Even allowing for spin, there seems little reason to doubt that, even if Tony Blair does carry the day, it will be on a much reduced majority, a fraction of that he normally enjoys through Labour’s landslide dominance of the Commons.