EMA Cuts Tell Us All We Need to Know

EMA (Education Maintenance Allowances) don't apply in Scotland.

In England, it gives up to £30 a week to 16-18 year olds from low income families attending further education courses.  A Labour Policy, its about paying for kids books, travel and subsistence.  To make getting a higher qualification just a bit easier.

Today, the Coalition cut it.

The same week as they are saying its OK for students to build up £36,000 of debt for a four year degree, they pull away the step ladder for the rest.  £30 a week really matters, when your folks' can't pay.

Tells us all we need to know about the real agenda.

Cameron and Clegg both come from a highly privileged background.  Its showing...

Read more...

Some Economic Facts & Figures

The rightful hiatus over student fees has rather obscured some startling detail in last weeks report from the Coalition's very own Office of Budget Responsibility, the OBR. 

Thanks to the New Statesman for highlighting the following:

• economic growth will be higher than forecast this year (at 1.8% rather than 1.2%).  Impressive in the first 12 months after a savage recession.  Since there is an accepted lag between policy and effect, this is mostly due to Alistair Darling's fiscal stimulus
• growth next year and the year after has been revised down to 2.1% and 2.6% respectively.  Slower growth predicted as a result of Osborne economics.....
• whilst there is predicted drop in public sector job cuts from 490,000 to 330,000 this is based on a rapidly expanding private sector creating nearly £2m jobs.  Douglas Alexander has noted that in the last post recession period (1993-1996), the private sector struggled to create just 300,000 jobs
• by 2015, we are predicted to have a budget SURPLUS of £6bn.  Good housekeeping, but why on earth is there a need, therefore, to cut £7bn from university funding over the same period?  A cut that is the direct cause of the need to raise tuition fees.  I say again that its about idealogy not economics.

Britain already spends less as a percentage of its GDP on higher education than the rest of Europe (0.7% compared to 1.2% in France, 1.4% in Sweden, 0.9% in Germany) so this has to be about a deliberate policy to shift higher education funding from the state to the individual.  They are creating a market in education, along the lines of the US model.  Equal access for all will suffer as a result.

All useful facts to have at your fingertips when (a) there is no alternative or (b) its all Labour's fault are being advanced as the reason for every coalition policy......

Conspiracy theorists will say letting the LibDems cop the flack for a week is rather a good diversionary tactic from some pretty bad economic news.  Another answer to what the LibDems are for!

Read more...

Cameron is Wrong on Student Fees

In London on business tonight, which always gives a different perspective on UK politics than from just the domestic Scottish view.


Lead article by David Cameron in the Evening Standard makes the case for the Coalition’s university fee plans. “Before Protesting, Students need to get the Facts Straight”. He makes three main points; university funding can’t escape the cuts, universities need decent funding to excel and it’s all very fair because most graduates will pay less per month than now.

He is wrong in the detail as well as the principle.

Cameron states that the public “subsidy” to further education is £5bn per year and that we can’t afford it. That’s a big number but I actually though it would be more. It’s less, for example, than the £6bn corporation tax bill that Vodafone has (allegedly and legally) avoided. This is long term investment to create growth and wealth in our economy.

He argues that reform to university funding is needed to maintain a world class education system. Then gives the game away by suggesting this will come from students deciding where to “spend” their fees and so drive up standards. Market economics in further education. Kind of assumes you can afford the fees in the first place, doesn’t it David? Which I suppose feels natural if you come from your own and George Osborne’s background.

Finally he rests his case on fairness. The higher threshold will mean, he writes, that most students will repay less each month than now. Probably true, but they will go on paying for longer and the higher interest rates mean they will pay a lot more in total. Unless, of course, you are well enough off to pay the loan off early.

This is all about shifting the cost of higher education onto individual students and nothing to do with fairness.

I oppose student fees because I think they are unfair. Further education should be a right open to all and not constrained by fear of future debt. Nor should students be choosing which universities to attend based on how much they can afford to repay. Our whole society benefits from well educated graduates entering the workplace and those that go onto to earn high salaries will pay handsomely through general taxation.

In Scotland we seem to have an all party consensus on a “no fees” approach. I hope it continues.

I could – just – be persuaded down the route of a Graduate Tax. Though I see many issues with it.

Loading students with individual fees - the scale of which depends on which institution they aspire to study at - is something I will never support.

Read more...

Broken Pledges (No 1 in a series...)

Text of my letter to the Inverness Courier (which they so far have not published) asking Danny Alexander to explian why he has broken his own and his party's pledge on Student Fees

Dear Sir

With the party conference season behind us, its time to start looking at the reality of the new Government’s policies rather than listening to the sound-bites.

A promise not to raise Student Fees was a key commitment by the LibDems during the election campaign, back in May. Here in Inverness, Mr Alexander made much of that promise at the Student Hustings and challenged myself and other candidates on the issue. I made clear that I would not vote to support an increase in fees and signed the NUS Pledge. So did Danny Alexander, as reported in the Courier at the time.

What a difference six months in power makes. Now it looks like the LibDems are going to tear up their commitment and support open-ended rises in fees at universities and colleges in England to a level which will put a huge burden of debt on future graduates. How many bright school leavers from ordinary families will now think twice about going on to university, scared by the level of debt they will run up. Increasingly, will it only be kids from well off families that can afford it? What’s fair about that?

Despite the different arrangements here, Scotland is not immune from changes to university fees and funding in England. A two-thirds cut to the teaching grant paid by the Treasury to English universities, has a massive knock-on effect in Scotland, via the Barnett Formula, to the tune of as much as £400 million. It will put huge pressure on the system here, whilst higher fees will discourage Scots students from applying to English universities.

Many people who trusted the LibDems on Student Fees will want to hear from Mr Alexander how he can justify breaking such a key pledge. Perhaps the Courier could facilitate that debate?


Your Sincerely

Read more...

Why Language Matters

Language matters.  I don't agree with the way Harriet Harman talked about Danny Alexander at my party's conference this weekend.  Just as  I think Boris Johnston was wrong to bring Kosovo into the debate about the effect of the Coalition's housing policies on London.

Some language is just wrong in principle.  But often its wrong-headed because it distracts from the real issues.

In London, we should be talking about the the impact of an ideologically driven policy on thousands of families trying to  make a life for themselves in a vibrant, multi-cultural city.  The combined effect of Housing Benefit caps and cuts, combined with the development of a "social "housing sector based on near market level rents will drive the unemployed and those on low wages out of high-rent areas like central London.  We will see the same effects in any area where demand for rented housing keeps local rents high, as Housing Benefit is tied to local averages, not a single national figure.

And in the Highlands, the debate should be about the politics of the man who has designed a programme of savage cuts of a depth and speed he spoke out against during the election.  Who spoke out against the idea of raising VAT because of its impact on the poorest in our society - but who now presides over a rise to 20% from January.  Who made a lot of noise about local post offices closing, but who now sits side by side with his new political friends who have just voted to privatise the Royal Mail.

Language matters, but its what you do that counts.   

Read more...

Why Osborne is just Wrong!

In speech after speech at their Conference in Birmingham, the Tories argued that the coming programme of savage cuts in public spending is the only way. Its all Labour’s fault. A result of years and years of profligate spending . Labour’s fault for deciding to increase the deficit, and bail out the banks.  Labour's fault for cutting VAT and boosting public spending as the recession hit.

“…. because of the problem left by the previous government……” seems to be a mandatory part of every Coalition politician’s speech.

Labour politicians, not bankers, are responsible. Public sector workers and families with children across the country now need to pay the price. There is no choice. It’s the only way to keep the financial markets happy (and profitable).

What rubbish.

Yes, Labour spent money to invest in public services, like the NHS and the New Deal. But it mainly raised taxes to pay for it; the Windfall Tax on Utilities, National Insurance rises. Remember all the Tory complaints about “stealth taxes”? Tax income rose steadily on the back of economic growth.

When the global banking crisis hit in 2008, the UK had low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and the lowest net debt of any G7 economy.

In 2008, the Labour Government had to make the critical decisions on how to respond to the global financial crisis caused the big US and UK banks. We pumped money into the banks and the wider economy to protect jobs, support household finances and keep the small business economy working. Yes, a huge programme of public spending but it worked, avoiding a total collapse in our economy. Our approach was commended and then replicated by Governments around the world.

That’s where our huge spending deficit comes from.

Of course, we need to reduce that deficit, but we need to do it through a fair and long term programme which balances income from economic growth and taxation with reduced spending.

And for me “fairness” is making sure that financial speculators, investment bankers and tax avoiders pay their share before we start putting the burden on working class families with “too many” kids.

The lessons from history are stark. In 1925, 1931 and 1980, governments told us there was no alternative to massive cuts in public spending. The markets demanded it, to restore “confidence”. Recession, devastation for individual families and huge social unrest followed every time.

George Osborne, David Cameron and Nick Clegg are taking us down the same road again.

To quote from Ed Ball’s excellent Bloomberg speech back in August:

“For all George Osborne’s talk of ‘deficit-deniers’ – where is the real denial in British politics at the moment? We have a Chancellor who believes that he can slash public spending, raise VAT and cut benefits – he can take billions out of the economy and billions more out of people’s pockets, he can directly cut thousands of public sector jobs and private sector contracts, and none of this will have any impact on unemployment or growth. Against all the evidence, both contemporary and historical, he argues the private sector will somehow rush to fill the void left by government and consumer spending, and become the driver of jobs and growth.
 This is ‘growth-denial’ on a grand scale. It has about as much economic credibility as a Pyramid Scheme.”

Time to put the record straight. Step up Ed Milliband.

Read more...

Rural Broadband, Rural Health

I’ve posted before on the issues surrounding access to decent quality broadband services in the Highlands.


What I learned today added a whole new dimension.

I was in Inverness on business today, attending an HIE conference on Digital Healthcare and how it supports the emerging P4 strategy for service delivery – Predictive, Preventative, Personalised, Participatory.

Speakers – clinicians, academic researchers, technologists – all described what is possible in terms of delivering the P4 strategy in rural communities. The essence of which is that instead of requiring people to travel to a GP or major health centre for “treatment”, they can take responsibility for their own health by being able to access information, diagnostics, services and on-line communities. The potential benefits - in terms of quality of healthcare outcomes and cost-effective service delivery - are immense.

The Murray Community Healthcare Partnership is already piloting these ideas with the Health E-care Portal and the Dot Rural project. In Inverness, UHI and the Centre for Health Science are involved in world class research and development around the concept.

In the workshops, however, it was clear how big a barrier the rural broadband issue is. If people and communities don’t have decent internet access, they can't exploit such services. And what really surprised me was how vocal the delegates were about why this was a POLITICAL issue that the Scottish Parliament must address.

Decent broadband services in the islands and other rural areas aren’t just about on-line shopping. They are fundamental to achieving excellence in health outcomes in a cost effective way.

Labour’s Digital Britain Strategy points the way.

The Scottish Government needs to make it happen.

Read more...