In the run up to the 2010 election, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a compelling report that clearly stated that each of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were not being honest about what tax rises they would have to implement and what they would have to cut in order to match the promises they were making during the campaign.
In terms of a funding gap, Labour were 87% short, the Conservatives 82% and the Lib Dems 74%. An abysmal performance at a time when trust in politicians was already at an all time low and a moment that should have sparked national outrage despite a seemingly largely unperturbed electorate.
We have of course seen the Conservatives and Lib Dems have to show their full post-election hands now that they are in power. VAT rises, NHS overhauls, massive cuts and huge job losses are a large part of the gap between the 2010 promises and the 2010-2015 reality. Added to that, of course, is the raising of tuition fees to £9,000/year for many universities south of the border.
As I said in a recent post and will say again, spending decisions that take place at Westminster have a direct impact on spending decisions at Holyrood. How can a block grant taken from an overall budget that does not include free elderly care, free prescriptions, free tuition, billion pound bridges and a bloated public sector stack up against the Scottish political wishlist of freebies, jobs and social security for all? The simple answer is that it can’t. We either have to top that block grant up with more money, rearrange priorities or fall in line with the approach taken down south, including introducing painful tuition fees. So far we have done none of the above to the necessary extent so the remaining option is for the whole devolution process to fall down like a house of cards under the weight of wishful thinking.
One party (the Greens) is saying that education should be free but we’re going to have raise some taxes in order to pay for it, other parties (SNP, Lib Dems, Labour) are saying that education should be free but we don’t have to make any noteworthy sacrifices to deliver this. I’m sorry, but who from the above sound like they have a solid grasp of the financial reality ahead of us? Who makes electorally toxic suggestions of tax rises lightly?
When I wrote the post on tuition costs only yesterday, Labour and the Lib Dems had not made their position on fees clear. They now have, university education will remain free over the lifetime of the next parliamentary term unless there is a Conservative majority in place or, perhaps with a little bit of history repeating, a Conservative/Lib Dem majority.
The funding gap for further education is estimated by some political parties and bodies to be £93m by 2014/15; a gap which NUS has called “clearly bridgeable” and which Scottish Labour said in a reply to me on Twitter was “eminently bridgeable”. (I wonder who composes the feed for @scottishlabour, hey?)
The problem is, that £93m gap is the wrong figure. As the Scottish Government’s report itself shows, that £93m (£97m in the report itself) does not take into account inflation (currently running at 4% and set to increase) and is based on an average English fee of £6,000 which is contradictory to the Treasury’s expected average tuition fee in England of £7,500. The ‘correct’ assumptions state that the funding gap is actually £202m, more than double what Labour, the Lib Dems and perhaps even the SNP are using to quickly pull their manifestos together. This is creating a financial black hole that will no doubt go largely unnoticed until governing parties have to break election pledges to fix it. Why not face up to the challenge now and treat the public like adults is all I’m asking?
Tavish Scott, to his credit, has tentatively mooted doing away with some ‘universal benefits’ in order to pay for free tuition. Although no detail was put forward, free bus passes for the elderly, at £199m a year (and rising), may plug the gap but it remains to be seen how bullish the typically flighty leader will choose to be on this. It’s hard to imagine a party so full of rural MSPs advocating a complete scrapping on free bus passes for the elderly.
Labour, who felt the need to charge students for studying in the good years of ever-increasing budgets when they were in power, now think they won’t need to when sitting in the cold, hard seats of Opposition. The SNP has not yet formally announced its official policy for financing students through their studies but you can bet that the next swirl of this downward spiral of overpromising and under delivering is just around the corner.
The Conservatives and the Greens are the only parties with a credible position on this. Either students pay upfront or back-ended fees in the form of a graduate contribution or other direct payment or we accept that a graduate contribution already exists in the form of income tax and fees are made free for students by raising the necessary funds elsewhere.
I believe in the latter and would vote so accordingly, neatly sidestepping the parties whose arguments simply do not stack up.
We have already been led up the garden path by political parties in 2010, let’s try not to have it happen again in 2011.
#1 by Daniel J on March 5, 2011 - 3:26 pm
Good post. To add to it further we’re probably in for a din dong in 2012 about the Barnett consequentials and the comparability of increased student loans in England.
I had no idea they were using £6,000 as the figure, ridiculous, Prof. David Heald said yesterday he expected the fees to average closer to £8,000. Let’s not forget Oxford or Cambridge’s nod to ‘increasing participation’ was offering to raise targets for state schooled pupils by a few percent..
#2 by Jeff on March 5, 2011 - 3:44 pm
Thanks Daniel.
I don’t want to disparage any further education institutions but if Exeter University is pledging to charge students £9,000 then you’ve got to think most will.
Clegg looked absolutely ridiculous urging universities to resist using the £9k limit that he voted to introduce so, yes, an £8k average doesn’t seem unreasonable which would push the funding gap even higher than the £202m of course.
#3 by Douglas McLellan on March 5, 2011 - 4:46 pm
I still cant work out why so many of my Lib Dem colleagues are against charging for higher education whilst seeking to ensure as many young people go to Uni as possible. Dont know how conference addressed it this weekend but I had to note that at Conference in Autumn that the older the delegate the bigger the resistance to any payment. Those really wanting the charge were the students and young people who saw what falling income was doing to the quality of their courses.
Pretty much each institution down south will implement fees of £9,000 as not doing so implies some kind of lower quality of degree. Of course those places, not unlike Exeter, will probably face ruin in the courts when disaffected students not happy with the pile them high, educate them cheap that many new universities have adopted sue for a lack of quality in their Education.
I was surprised to hear Tavish Scotts comments about the free bus pass scheme being a target. It was a stupid thing to say. He needs to be far more nuanced about moving money around than that.
#4 by Indy on March 5, 2011 - 5:47 pm
£202m is by no means a financial black hole.
You make the same mistake as many people in adopting a last in first out approach i.e only spending on policies adopted under devolution like free personal care, free university tuition etc can be cut.
That’s a strange approach to take, as it ignores the vast majority of Scottish Government spending.
You are trying to polarise things by saying we ether raise tax or we have to charge Scottish students tuition fees. This is neither true nor is it grown up politics.
#5 by Ezio on March 5, 2011 - 8:17 pm
When can this blog be renamed as Green Tactical Voting? It’s essentially what it has become.
One Green partisan and one Green employee. Not good enough!
#6 by Jeff on March 5, 2011 - 8:28 pm
Well, sorry you see it that way Ezio. I’ve been in favour of paying more tax for longer than I have blogged, be it at SNP Tactical Voting or here at Better Nation (as I prefer to call it). I don’t see that as partisan, even if there is slim pickings among the parties to vote for to that end.
The SNP and other parties have plenty of good policies. I’m sure they’ll get a fair airing here too as, indeed, they have done before.
#7 by BM on March 6, 2011 - 12:17 pm
Have you tried paying more tax? Or maybe opening up a ‘tax fund’ for those who want to pay more tax, and offering grants to your local council, and other government agencies?
#8 by mav on March 5, 2011 - 8:38 pm
Here’s what concerns me. The parties who’s policies, as you rightly say, don’t add up, are the one most likely to form the next Scottish government, be it SNP or Labour minority, or Lib/Lab coalition. In betting terms, most likely means racing certainty. So it can only end two ways. One, they end up doing a fairly large U-turn, or two, they manage to keep that promise only by cutting other unspecified areas. Cuts which would have to be fairly draconian, in a time when large and long overdue cuts in public spending are already eing made. I suspect that which ever comes to pass, it will be blamed on coalition cuts. The snag with that plan is that coalition cuts won’t continue forever.
#9 by fitalass on March 5, 2011 - 9:11 pm
“Why not face up to the challenge now and treat the public like adults is all I’m asking?”
Hear, hear. Great article Jeff, and one that has so desperately needed to be written! And I say that as a parent of three teenagers who maybe entering the University system over the next four years rather than a Conservative. I really worry about the current black hole opening up in further education, and denying its existence or trying to undermine those in our Universities who are telling us the real facts is about the most dishonest option being taken by some!!
But if we are going to either follow the option of bridging that black hole through direct taxation or some sort of tuition fees, we need to have realistic figures to hand at the May elections. What we shouldn’t be doing, is going into that elections with false promises of continued free further education by promising funding that should be going elsewhere, and than blaming the shortfall left there on Westminster cuts. Like so many other areas that have been starved of maintenance and investment in recent years to fund freebies, are they hoping to get away with blaming that on the Coalition cuts?
If Holyrood can offer free further education, frozen council tax, no prescription charges for all and other goodies like no toll charges in such austere times. Then they can hardly accuse the Westminster government of leaving them short of cash?
#10 by Cato on March 5, 2011 - 10:00 pm
You’re only half right on the figures. True, the £93m figure leaves out inflation, but it’s not clear that English fees will rise in line with inflation anyway. However, the report does use an average of £7,500. As far as I can see, the £93m figure is arrived at by using that figure to arrive at a predicted funding gap of £155m, and then deducting £62m raised by charging students from the rest of the UK £6,375 a pop.
#11 by Jeff on March 5, 2011 - 10:48 pm
How can I only be “half right” if it’s “not clear” what’s happening with inflation? If this decision from the coalition is for the long term then inflation has to be applied as it is for every other avenue of cashflow. Inflation at 4% means that £6,000 is worth £7,400 in five years time. It seems unlikely that standard financial rules wouldn’t apply here but, fair enough, it’s not yet certain either way.
#12 by Ezio on March 5, 2011 - 10:28 pm
Awk, I love ye really Jeff, you old devil!
#13 by Cato on March 5, 2011 - 11:26 pm
Actually, the inflation point is what I gave you credit for. It was your comment on the average fee I marked you down on. That, and the fact you didn’t account for the extra income from RUK students, which equates to about half the difference between the Government’s figures and your own.
#14 by Iain on March 6, 2011 - 1:44 am
It’s almost as if all three parties want to go into opposition, not Government, and hope their bluffs therefore won’t be called. Obviously this view best fits the Lib Dems (“the other two having already declared their desire to down the minority route again so let’s try to shore up our vote and let someone else worry about HE funding”), then the SNP (“expect Labour to be the largest so let the ticking bomb go on their watch, not ours”) and not so well for Labour (“we were never very good at Russian Roulette”).
At least that’s how you would expect it to work at Westminster – where the Government usually has a decent majority to push unpalatable decisions through so the opposition can afford to make opportunistic attacks safe in the knowledge that the difficult decisions are being made anyway by someone else.
But if we get another minority government in May, how can we expect the opposition to give up the opportunity to take the political high ground against the governing party for going back on manifesto pledges and support whatever proposal is put forward?
You can’t assume that the final proposal would be acceptable to the Tories/Greens (LIT just one example). And anyway, would the minority government wish to leave themselves open to the charge of dealing with the Tories on (especially) this issue, assuming they could bring themselves to make a deal in the first place)?
So it seems the worst case scenario is that we end up with three parties taking unrealistic positions, one of them being caught out when the music stops, the other two partying on and still no solution to the funding problem, leaving Scottish HE buggered in the mean time.
#15 by Indy on March 6, 2011 - 10:29 am
You really are all talking nonsense you know. Free tuition is not unaffordable. If it was, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You are simply choosing to present your arguments in this way because of what has happened down south. In doing so you are actually missing a lot of what is going on in Scotland.
I agree that there will have to be big changes in the way government money is spent over the next period but your determination to make tuition fees a litmus test is quite peculiar.
Let’s take a look at what will definitely happen over the next years, irrespective of who wins.
There will be a hollowing out of public sector management. This is already happening in local government, where managerial staff are jumping at the opportunity to take voluntary redundancy at a rate of knots. The same will soon be happening in the health service.
At the same time there will be a retrenching within public service providers to protect frontline and statutory services. Everything else will go. This, again, is already starting to happen. The big losers here will be the voluntary sector as they provide most of the “extras” which will be lost.
There will also be a major logistical restructuring of local government. This may or may not involve a reduction in the number of councils, but it will certainly involve the wholescale merger of backroom functions and there will be more joint procurement, subject to what is legally allowed, to drive down costs. This could be bad news for small businesses. There will be a single fire service and a single police service.
Community care will be integrated into the NHS. In some ways this is the real biggie, as no-one actually knows how it will work in my opinion i.e. who will ultimately control the budget?
These are just some of the things that will happen – and already are starting to happen in order to make the savings that are necessary. Why do you ignore all of this? Because there are some pretty big issues there. Or is it just that it doesn’t fit into your theory that we can’t have free access to higher education without tax rises?
The higher education sector will not be immune from rationalisation either. But there is no need, or desire, to introduce tuition fees just because England has.
#16 by Hamish on March 6, 2011 - 8:39 pm
I agree with most of what you say, Indy.
But I don’t follow your logic in saying:
“The big losers here will be the voluntary sector as they provide most of the “extras†which will be lost.”
There’s no gain in squeezing them out because by definition, they don’t cast anything.
#17 by Indy on March 7, 2011 - 10:19 am
Yes trhey do Hamish – the voluntary sector is heavily reliant on funding from local government in particular which is why it will be particularly tough on them.
#18 by Hamish on March 7, 2011 - 11:43 am
Isn’t a voluntary organisation which is heavily reliant on funding from (local) government what is called a QUANGO?
OK, that’s a bit facetious, but I contribute to quite a few medical/care charities which do not receive funding from government.
[Apologies for the ‘cast’ typo. I’ll trade it for your ‘trhey’.]
#19 by douglas clark on March 6, 2011 - 1:35 pm
Jeff,
What figure would you accept as realistic for free tuition costs?
It matters in terms of the overall Scottish budget.
If, perish, we thought it was the most important thing in the whole wide world, then we could, could we not, afford it, could we not? Within our discretion to set a budget?
I suspect it is marginal in terms of overall costs and benefits.
I do not think you have made a case.
#20 by Indy on March 6, 2011 - 5:46 pm
It is marginal. It was an election issue as long as only the SNP was committing to free tuition. Now it is not.
I think Jeff may just be annoyed because everyone moved on without telling him.
#21 by Chris Jones on March 6, 2011 - 7:56 pm
Some good arguments made already by others, so I won’t repeat.
However, there is the cliched elephant in the room South of the border that is not quite as bad up here, and the fact that most gloss over – too many incapable students in too many third-rate institutions doing too many soft/pointless/non-degree subjects. The world of HE is abound with examples, but my favourite is a BA degree in “Culinary Arts Management” at “Thames Valley University”. Twenty years ago you would have been learning for a vocational certificate in cooking at what was then Ealing Technical College….. I rest my case.
Until HE is purged of these (and to do so means that we will have to have a real vocational-based FE strategy – which itself will require money) then I struggle to have any sympathy with arguments in favour of student fees. Get rid of students, courses and institutions that shouldn’t be there and just perhaps we will be able to afford those world-class research institutions that we all want to see.
#22 by douglas clark on March 7, 2011 - 1:56 am
Chris Jones,
That is nonsense. It is elitist crap even. I recall having an HNC or an HND was a positive thing. It would get you a good job. It would certainly get you onto a degree course.
If I recall correctly, your degree would take a year after that.
The fact that you can now get a degree in ‘Culinary Arts Management’ has knowt to do with that. It has to do with a pointless inflation of what is degree worthy and what isn’t.
We have devalued that.
Whether that matters – I’d have thought that a degree in say astronomy said a bit more about you than one in media studies – is a bit moot. It is a given that kids will do a university course before they are considered worthwhile in anything much above trade jobs.
It is ridiculous, it is an overwhelming need to separate wheat from chaff, and assume that some chaff couldn’t do the job. When they obviously could.
Your better Universities bullshit is just that, an obstacle to anyone getting a job…..
#23 by Malc on March 7, 2011 - 8:37 am
I fall more onto your side of this debate Douglas. In 1997, arbitrary targets of “50% of school leavers going to university” were introduced and (arguably) that’s part of the economic downturn – since we have less people in the workforce. I don’t know if that’s accurate (since there are less jobs as well) but as you say, it artificially inflated the value of a degree from being a requirement for upper-level management (and beyond) and a desirable though not essential for other positions to necessary for practically everything.
Whether that means we need fees to dis-incentiv-ise going to university (for those who really shouldn’t go, but want to spend 4 years drinking) is arguable. I’d say probably yes – but then you have the issue of those who can’t afford it, but are brighter than those who just want to drink.
But – if we look at Scotland at the moment – we’re spending way above our means of “earning”. Free tuition, free personal care, free prescriptions, free bus passes… we’re responsible for making lots of stuff free, yet we are not responsible for raising the revenue to pay for it. Maybe if we had fiscal autonomy, we wouldn’t have made university free, since we can’t really afford it.
#24 by douglas clark on March 7, 2011 - 9:04 am
Malc,
Thanks for the reply.
If I understand it correctly, which is certainly debatable, under GERS we contribute far more to the exchequer than we get back. If that is true, perhaps we undervalue ourselves and what we can afford massively.
But I’m SNP, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
#25 by Malc on March 7, 2011 - 9:40 am
Yes you would. And I don’t think its “far more” but certainly more than we should. Though we make some of it back under Barnett (which is complicated, and we shouldn’t hijack Jeff’s post getting into!).
On another note – even if Scotland were independent – having no tuition fees in the context of England introducing fees of up to £9,000 a year makes the position less tenable in the long run (in my opinion). This is for 2 reasons: an influx of English students looking for cheaper university degrees and the inevitable “brain drain” of staff to English universities who can afford to pay them more. Sure, it’s difficult to see at the moment – but let’s reassess this in 5 years time, when the English system has bedded in. Perhaps then we’ll see how our universities stand in a comparative context.
#26 by Indy on March 7, 2011 - 12:14 pm
1. English students will pay English fees so there will be no influx.
2. So what if there is a brain drain of top level people? I never understand that argument. It is often stated that we have to “keep up”with the very top level of international universities and therefore have to do what England does in order to stay in the same league as them. I just don’t get that. Maybe what we need to do is re-define what we think the core function of higher education is. I think the core function is to equip Scottish students with the knowledge and skills they will need to get good jobs and contribute towards growing the Scottish economy. Everything else is an extra. So yes it would be nice if we had universities in the top level globally but it is not actually essential.
As for the R & D side of things – maybe we need to look at that separately and make sure that government funding is going into what will benefit us the most as a nation e.g. life sciences, renewables etc.
#27 by Malc on March 7, 2011 - 12:31 pm
1. There will still be some influx. Eg – A student can’t afford to spend £7500 to go to x uni in England so instead will take go to uni in Scotland, where they are only £3000(?) at most. Then they save £4500 a year, to get basically the same end product no? Again, we should wait and see it happen, and I might be wrong – but “fees refugees” seems like a logical conclusion of this.
2. I’m not talking about “top level globally”. I’m simply talking about universities having staff good enough to provide the outcome you desire – equipping Scottish students with the skills required in the workplace (though I disagree entirely with that definition of what universities are actually for). If universities don’t have the money to pay staff well, good staff will leave for places they can get paid better (think NHS v private practice doctors). If they don’t have good staff then less students will go to universities, so less money will be going into universities (and less students coming out) which has an impact on your preferred outcome. Okay, this may mitigate problem 1 (fees refugees) but it creates a bigger problem in the long run – namely, a skills shortage.
Yes, I paint a very bleak picture. But as I say – ask me again in 5 years, and we’ll see where we are.
#28 by Indy on March 7, 2011 - 2:53 pm
I think the NHS versus private practice analogy is a good one. There’s a much lower demand for private medicine in Scotland than there is down south. Most people are happy with the NHS and we don’t really have a problem staffing it. In the same way, I think most people would be happy with a higher education sector which did not necessarily have the top flight people but still does the job.
You will of course get people who say that is settling for mediocrity and it’s all about how well Scottish universities measure up against the best in the world – but the quality of any service is to be judged by how well it meets the needs of the majority of the population, not by how well it serves the elite.
So I really don’t see that there will be a flood of regular non-superstar academics from Scotland to England, unless the university sector down south expands at a massive rate. And that’s not going to happen.
#29 by Malc on March 7, 2011 - 3:02 pm
“We don’t really have a problem staffing it.”
I suggest you go and speak to some nurses, see if they are happy at how understaffed they are.
Though I do take the point that the nature of it (ie – that we’re “happier” with the service provided by the NHS and don’t go for private medicine in the same way as England does) could be similar. But like I say – I don’t think we can make any judgements on how universities will work here for about 5 years – until we see the impact of increased fees in England versus no fees here. I don’t grant that there will be no impact – so let’s see if it is limited to marginal impact (as you think) or potential apocalypse (as I can see happening).
#30 by Indy on March 8, 2011 - 10:11 am
I could speak to anybody in any workplace who would say they weren’t happy at how understaffed they were. That’s not really the issue. If the NHS didn’t work there would not only be a higher demand for private practice, there would be more NHS staff trying to get out of it and into the private sector.
I agree with you that we will have to wait 5 years until we see what effect the changes down south will have in Scotland – and luckily enough five years without tuition fees is exactly what Scottish students are going to get.
Thanks, I have to point out, to the SNP. (There is an election on after all).
#31 by Malcolm on March 10, 2011 - 12:36 pm
“How can a block grant taken from an overall budget that does not include free elderly care, free prescriptions, free tuition, billion pound bridges and a bloated public sector stack up against the Scottish political wishlist of freebies, jobs and social security for all?The simple answer is that it can’t”
Yes exactly.
Giving people things for free, beyond a country’s collective means to provide those things, can create tremendous social problems.
People become dependent on them, expect unrealistic provision, and will become fantastically angry when the services they expect as their birth-right are withdrawn.
Scottish politics and the SNP in particular, seems to be living in some kind of fantasy land. Seems like a kind of competition to see who can be the nicest and most caring, but actually it’s deeply irresponsible.