Time for me to be controversial again. In light of the protests over the tuition fees increase there's no better time to debate what the fees actually mean. Based on the plans for tuition fees alone, I see no problem with the plans for increasing tuition fees. My problem with it is the reduction in funding for Higher Education alongside it.
What the Conservatives are proposing is increasing the tuition fee cap from around £3,000 to £6,000 but crucially, they have put in a system which makes it considerably easier on those who come out of university with poorly paid jobs or even reasonably paid jobs. The minimum wage to start repaying money owed to the government has shifted up to £21,000 which is £6,000 a year more than under the current system and there is no interest on the loans when earning underneath the minimum. Those universities who do decide to charge over the £6,000 cap are expected to contribute to a £150m scholarship for poor students. This seems to me like the balancing of an overly sympathetic system.
I fail to see why high earning families should not seek to support their children through higher education the same way they support them in primary and secondary. Parents in the United States save all their lives to put their children through university. I'm not saying that should happen but there should be the same concept of support at least instead of the 'throw them in the deep end' policy currently upheld by many.
It is important that I stress this is not a blog attacking the attitudes of parents or the upper classes in Britain. But simply a defence of a heavily criticised policy that I feel few understand fully. My real issue is why the government insists on reducing university budgets by a staggering 40% when so many are having to turn to them to further their education in the hope of getting a job.
Another problem is the distinct lack of clarity on this issue. Yes the rise in tuition fees means it will cost more but I do not believe that either Clegg or Cameron has adequately explained what the changes to the system actually mean. However I will defend them regardless as I sincerely doubt that the Labour party has any real suggestions on what to do, judging by Harriet Harman's shameless resort to university freshers week comparisons.
The combination of the cuts and the rise in fees will only be detrimental to higher education in the UK. The government, now more than ever should maintain heavy financial support to universities. They should seek to balance out the system where necessary to create a fairer process and allow those less fortunate the opportunities that the fortunate receive. The UK faces severe economic difficulties and it is the fortunate who will have to suffer a lack of financial support. Something they can cope perfectly well without. The current government needs to be clear about its intentions if it is to survive the next election.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Britain and Democracy
Off the back of politics lectures and tutorials, I thought I'd air my apparently rather controversial views on the democratic system currently used in the United Kingdom. This comes amid reports that the UK is under increasing pressure to allow prisoners the vote.
Britain has a long standing relationship with democracy and sees itself as the first bastion of democracy. Being the first major nation to develop something close to the modern sense of democracy. A view that in some ways can be see as hypocritical, with the retention of the monarchy whereas other nations have ousted theirs. Some claim the monarchy only currently survives for its tourism which although a good form of revenue gives a poor image of the UK if that is the case.
For elections in the UK, the country is divided into constituencies and the population vote for a MP to represent them in the House of Commons. What happened in the last election showed the devolution of British politics and the population's distinct lack of interest in local politics. The idea that a party that currently forms part of the coalition has been voted in because of their leader and the fact they were seen by many as the only option is something that shows UK politics has become a sorry state of affairs. The media combined with public disillusionment with local politics after the expenses scandal turned the last election into a straight up vote between Cameron, Clegg and Brown instead of the focus on the MP's the public would actually be voting for. Britain's political structure is effectively wasted if the focus continues to be on the leader of the nation and not the focus on all those combined who represent us.
Recent news reports also claim that now the UK, under increasing pressure from its European counterparts, is to give the vote to prisoners. Here I think I am in agreement with many British politicians, as part of the criminal punishment certain rights are rescinded and the right to vote should not be an exception to that. Those who flout the laws of the state deserve no say in the way the state should be run.
This in turn led me to question whether every Average Joe deserves the right to vote and I have to say honestly that I don't think so. Yes, everyone pays taxes and so the right to vote should follow but I feel taxes should only give you the right to live in the state and be protected by it. The reasoning behind this is that those who are not politically active or aware are voting purely on who they've voted for for the last 20 years or because 'that bloke on the telly sounded nice'. Surely people who are thinking in such a manner show no knowledge whatsoever of what they are voting for and the implications that potentially has on the United Kingdom. Although this is a rather elitist view I fear elitism is necessary to improve the popularity and the workings of politics. Hopefully 'intelligent voting' will produce better governments under more pressure to think of how to best serve the nation. Unfortunately carrying out a system of such nature would complex. How do you define political activity and awareness? In its boiled down form Who really deserves the vote?
Faith in British politics has dropped significantly and from the outside looking in something seems fundamentally wrong with the system currently used. At the risk of sounding like Obama, Cameron or the like, there needs to be a top-to-bottom change in British politics. The sooner the better.
Britain has a long standing relationship with democracy and sees itself as the first bastion of democracy. Being the first major nation to develop something close to the modern sense of democracy. A view that in some ways can be see as hypocritical, with the retention of the monarchy whereas other nations have ousted theirs. Some claim the monarchy only currently survives for its tourism which although a good form of revenue gives a poor image of the UK if that is the case.
For elections in the UK, the country is divided into constituencies and the population vote for a MP to represent them in the House of Commons. What happened in the last election showed the devolution of British politics and the population's distinct lack of interest in local politics. The idea that a party that currently forms part of the coalition has been voted in because of their leader and the fact they were seen by many as the only option is something that shows UK politics has become a sorry state of affairs. The media combined with public disillusionment with local politics after the expenses scandal turned the last election into a straight up vote between Cameron, Clegg and Brown instead of the focus on the MP's the public would actually be voting for. Britain's political structure is effectively wasted if the focus continues to be on the leader of the nation and not the focus on all those combined who represent us.
Recent news reports also claim that now the UK, under increasing pressure from its European counterparts, is to give the vote to prisoners. Here I think I am in agreement with many British politicians, as part of the criminal punishment certain rights are rescinded and the right to vote should not be an exception to that. Those who flout the laws of the state deserve no say in the way the state should be run.
This in turn led me to question whether every Average Joe deserves the right to vote and I have to say honestly that I don't think so. Yes, everyone pays taxes and so the right to vote should follow but I feel taxes should only give you the right to live in the state and be protected by it. The reasoning behind this is that those who are not politically active or aware are voting purely on who they've voted for for the last 20 years or because 'that bloke on the telly sounded nice'. Surely people who are thinking in such a manner show no knowledge whatsoever of what they are voting for and the implications that potentially has on the United Kingdom. Although this is a rather elitist view I fear elitism is necessary to improve the popularity and the workings of politics. Hopefully 'intelligent voting' will produce better governments under more pressure to think of how to best serve the nation. Unfortunately carrying out a system of such nature would complex. How do you define political activity and awareness? In its boiled down form Who really deserves the vote?
Faith in British politics has dropped significantly and from the outside looking in something seems fundamentally wrong with the system currently used. At the risk of sounding like Obama, Cameron or the like, there needs to be a top-to-bottom change in British politics. The sooner the better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)