Universities Charge What The Government Allows Them To Charge Shock!

So, it appears that some universities will be charging the maximum possible in tuition fees that the government allows. Fair enough, I reckon. A degree from a decent university is worth much more than £9k. What does bother me, though, is the government then whining about universities charging the maximum.

I’m sorry, but what precisely did they think was going to happen here? That most universities – entities that need to make money – would charge as much as possible in many cases was 100% inevitable. To think otherwise is completely naïve. Yet the government seems to have been precisely that. There seems to be a certain incredulity that money-making organisations would choose to, well, make money. This talk of only charging the maximum in “exceptional circumstances” is nonsense on stilts – after all, what could be more of an exceptional circumstance for a university that having large amounts of its government funding removed?

Just to be clear – I’m not concerned about tuition fees, or the substantial rise in them. In many ways the new system is fairer since it is being financially able to pay back the cost of a university education is now categorically the criterion for being expected to do so. What does bother me, though, is the terminal stupidity of a government that allows organisations to make money, and then gets the hump when they do. The coalition need to get a grip. They need to be far more astute and political than this. Fundamentally, they need to remember the basic point that their policies have consequences, and if they don’t like those consequences, then they shouldn’t pursue the related policies in the first place.

Good. One piece of control-freak, illiberal legislation down, about a billion to go.

More like this, please, Con-Dems. A lot more like this. And quickly.

The Coalition's Progress

The coalition came to power promising a new politics; a common enough aspiration, and it is easy enough to understand why the Con-Dems would want to distinguish themselves from the completely compromised failure that was the Brown administration. But, as Obama has so clearly demonstrated in the US, it is far easier to talk about change in politics than to actually implement it. So how have the Con-Dems got on thus far?

In terms of spending cuts, they’ve obviously made a start – although the caveat about a reduction in future spending not being the same as an actual cut in spending is ever present and ever relevant. However, where the Con-Dems have completely failed is in the battle to dominate the discourse when it comes to spending “cuts”. Rather than making the case for spending cuts, and thus reducing the size of the state, they have treated cuts as something nasty that they are being forced to do. A bit of empty, half-hearted rhetoric about the Big Society is not enough to make the case for a smaller state and a freer, but more responsible, populace. Plus, the Con-Dems have completely failed to punish Labour enough for making these cuts inevitable. Every time Ed Miliband opens his stupid mouth to spout spurious nonsense about the “cuts”, the coalition should be responding with “well you and your party caused them!” There is an opportunity here to keep Labour out of power for a generation, but that will only happen if people truly understand the cost of Labour’s incompetence during their thirteen years of misrule.

The coalition has also made a small start with civil liberties. It is great that the ID card scheme has been scrapped, but that is simply a reversal of one of Labour’s most egregious attacks on our civil liberties. It is not the start of a genuine move towards a freer society in any meaningful way. And the much vaunted commitment to civil liberties from the coalition is not materialising in terms of practical politics. The state can still spy on us to a massive extent; landlords are not allowed to decide whether to allow smoking on their premises or not; protest is still draconically policed; we are all still “nudged” towards the sort of behaviour the state wants from us. If there is a distinction between the coalition and the last Labour government, then it is in a commitment to paternalism rather than overt coercion. Thus, we’re in a better state of affairs than we were under Blair and Brown, but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The area where the coalition has had its most success is in maintaining what is a fragile and unlikely union between two different parties. Sure, there have been grumblings – particularly from the Lib Dem contingent, but generally speaking the coalition has defied cynics and managed to hold itself together, even through deeply divisive issues such as the rise in tuition fees. It is well within the realms of reality to now predict that the coalition will serve a full five years in office – something that, on paper, never really appeared possible even in the first flush of the new political union last May.

But this is somewhat depressing; the most effective the coalition has been, according to this analysis, is in clinging onto the reigns of power. In other words, by acting for itself. The self-interest that has dominated so much of recent political history is present and correct in the “new politics”, rather sadly. And the progress of the coalition thus has not been impressive; at the moment, the very best that they can claim is that they haven’t been as bad as Labour. But if they genuinely what to do something new, and create a decisive break with the past, then they have to spell out a decisive vision for a smaller state and at the same time turn their rhetoric in civil liberties into something meaningful and practical. Forget the Big Society; the coalition can be genuinely ground-breaking if it speeds up the pace of change and gives us a free society instead of the status quo.

Voting Lib Dem

I voted Lib Dem at the last election. And I would be more than happy to do so again*.

It isn’t just down to the fact that they made the right decision after the last election and decided not to prop up the failed Labour government – although, had they decided to back Brown, then I would rather have set myself on fire than ever back them again. No, there is another reason why I’d vote Lib Dem again – it is because they have been fantastically entertaining in power. An ongoing comedic bout of political slapstick is the best way to describe the Lib Dem side of the coalition. And at a time when the Tories are quietly getting on with the process of remembering how to run the country and Labour are saying and doing precisely nothing, it is nice to have a party in power who increasingly represent an episode of The Brittas Empire.

They’ve always had a propensity toward comedy – witness their 2006 leadership election, which consisted of senior members of their party washing their dirty linen in public before that party elected a doddery old fool. But since coming to real power, the party has been funnier than ever. Right from the get-go, when Cameron and Clegg did their rose garden press conference, the Lib Dems have been shedding whatever credibility they might have had at a startling rate. That press conference reminded me of an early 1990’s romantic comedy, with Cameron representing a fat Tom Hanks with Nick Clegg as a bemused looking version of Meg Ryan. From there, they have been unstoppable – witness David Laws, and his 22 days in power – the shortest ministerial career in history? Or Simon Hughes lurking in the background, acting like some sort of shady but utterly ineffective nemesis of the coalition’s plans. A bit like the Child Catcher, but without the gravitas and menace. And most recently, that wonderful, wonderful footage of Cable explaining to the world why he might abstain from a parliamentary vote on his own fucking policy! Pure, pure comedy.

It may seem a bit off to be deciding who to vote for based on their entertainment value, but then since all parties do fuck all when they get into power other than make things just a little bit different (and, more often than not, a little bit worse) it is as good a way of making the decision as any. The Lib Dems have always been glorified amateurs at the political game; it is hugely entertaining to see such amateurish behaviour writ large on the national political stage.

*Providing they don’t ditch Clegg and elect a left-winger like Simon F*cking Hughes. And assuming that there wasn’t a Libertarian candidate running in my constituency.

When Will Nick Clegg Go?

It can now only be a matter of time before Nick Clegg loses his position as leader of the Liberal Democrats. There is a certain Faustian element to his decision to get into bed with the Tories – he got the job of Deputy Prime Minister, but in the long-term, damnation and (almost certainly) eventual dismissal from his own party. Let’s not rehash whether he made the right choice, but instead consider when the deed will finally be done, and his increasingly uncomfortable party gives him the chop.

Frankly, I can’t see it happening while the coalition holds. As much as many Lib Dems might not like the coalition, the lure of being in power coupled with the chance to temper the Tories (no matter how limited that power is) will stop them from changing their leader while the coalition exists. So the best chance Clegg has for a prolonged time as Lib Dem leader is the extension of the coalition arrangement for as long as possible. The other alternative elections results would lead to Clegg being bounced before he had any time to think about it.

If the Tories (most likely) or Labour win an outright election victory, then the Lib Dems will be out of power. What use would the Liberal Democrats then have for a former Deputy Prime Minister in a Tory led coalition as their leader? They would need to redefine themselves in view of the changed political circumstances. And if Labour won but not outright, you can be absolutely sure that one of their conditions for a entering into a coalition with the Lib Dems would be the sacking of Nick Clegg.

But when the enforced retirement finally hits Clegg, he can at least take some comfort that he has been the first Liberal in decades – and the first Liberal Democrat ever – to get to one of the top positions in British politics. The cost of his political influence and power is longevity as Liberal Democrat leader. But when the history books are written Clegg’s time as Deputy PM will probably be what they note rather than his leadership of Britain’s perennial third party.

Blogging Fatigue

So, as Obo the Clown fucks off in the blogging afterlife (for how long, no-one knows - I suspect that, like many bloggers, he won't be able to stay away from the blogging world for too long) and a whole host of posts appear about the apparent decline of the right-wing blogosphere (at least compared to the left), I drift towards writing one of those tedious posts. Yep, I'm going to do it. I'm going to blog about blogging.

See, I think sometimes we forget that for the vast majority of bloggers, this is a hobby. It is a venture done in their free time for no remuneration whatsoever*. Sure, you can argue that they choose to do so and there's no promise that when you start blogging, you're going to make any money whatsoever. But it also means that if someone's work life becomes busier, or their interactions with the real world become more time-consuming, then it will be the blogging that suffers.

But there is also the fatigue that comes if you are a Libertarian blogger. Because, despite the result of the General Election in May, very little has changed from a Libertarian perspective. Labour bloggers can get excited about now being able to attack, which is why there's a rise in the prominence of leftie type blogs. The Tories can celebrate, knowing they're back in power, and that's probably why their bloggers have either shut up shop or become less than essential reading for many. But for Libertarian bloggers, nothing has changed. The government is still the problem, since what divides Labour and the Con-Dems is dwarfed by the fundamental statist assumptions they all share. We've got another five years of statism to endure, and no guarantee at all that there will be any meaningful change after the next election.

So I reckon Libertarian bloggers might be dropping out of the blogging world not because they are closet Tories (although some clearly are), but rather because of the overwhelming sense of fatigue that comes from knowing that we're going to be making the same points to a new group of people who believe that everything is going to be better because the football team party they support happens to be in power. It's a bit like Groundhog Day, but with stakes somewhat higher than the sanity of a fictional character depicted by Bill Murray.

And I feel this fatigue - I feel it every time I hear a lie, or a fabrication, or a fresh piece of idiocy emerge from the gobs of politicians of every party in this country. When I hear phrases like "growth deniers", "Robin Hood Tax", "tax on banking bonuses", "marriage incentives", "National Service", "Burqa Ban" and all the other terrible shit that is spouted by centrist, statist politicians searching for a positive headline. And it is only the rage at their self-serving pomposity and egregious ignorance that allows be to continue with this blog despite that often overwhelming feeling of fatigue.

So for what it's worth, this blog isn't going anywhere...

*I will confess that while I've been blogging I've received donations totaling £30 and a free Cure album. Which is very nice, but not enough to sustain me for too long. If you'd like to increase the profitability of this blog, then there's a donate button in the side bar.

Redefining the Liberal Democrats

In case anyone hadn't noticed, the Liberal Democrats have a problem. A problem growing in size and importance. The coalition with the Tories has created divisions within the party - divisions that will, at some point, damage or potentially destroy the party. There are some who favour the arrangement made with the Tories, while others would have been happier jumping into bed with Labour. The reason is simple; the Lib Dems have, from their inception as the Liberal/SDP Alliance right up until the moment their leader became Deputy Prime Minister, been the party of apparent perpetual opposition. Therefore, its MPs tend to define themselves through opposition to the government of the day.

Don't believe me? Look at when the leading lights, for want of a better phrase, came into the Commons and what their positions are on the coalition. Those who are left-leaning - those who would have preferred a union with Labour - all came to power when the main focus for the Lib Dems was opposing the Tories. Simon Hughes, Paddy Pantsdown Ashdown and Charles Kennedy were all elected to the Commons in 1983, Menzies Campbell in 1987, Cable (who initially stood as a Labour candidate during his long bid to get into the Commons) in 1997. For these people, the Tories were the enemy - they would have cut their political teeth opposing the Conservative party. Of course the sudden union with the Tories in May upsets and unsettles them; to those of that pedigree, the Tories are the enemy.

Whereas for David Laws (elected to Parliament in 2001), Clegg, Huhne and Danny Alexander (all elected 2005) the enemy would be Labour - particularly since they will have endured first hand the rump end of Blairism and the absolute, abject failure that was the Brown administration. Of course, for this lot their natural coalition partners were their fellow opponents against Nu Labour: the Tories.

This, then, is the challenge for the Liberal Democrats - they need to work out what they do now they are in power, and have had to make a choice as to which party they ally themselves with. They can either work to amend their identity in line with the choice they made in May, or they can let their growing schizophrenia tear the party apart. Because they can no longer simply define themselves in opposition to the incumbent government; they now have to define themselves against what they have achieved as part of that incumbent government.

The Labour Vitriol Against The Liberal Democrats

Well, this is going to whip the Labourites into an even greater anti-Liberal Democrat fever:

"I totally understand that some of these people are not happy with what the Lib Dems are doing in coalition with the Conservatives. The Lib Dems never were and aren't a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour Party. There is no future for that; there never was."

Well, the problem Clegg's got is that for some, the Lib Dems were a receptacle for left-wing dissatisfaction with the Labour party; it is just for him and his fellow Orange Bookers that its not. But I do think that the future for the Lib Dems isn't in joining with the Labour party again. And the main reason for that is the behaviour of many in the Labour party since the election.

Since the Lib Dems did the only thing they realistically could in May and joined in coalition with the Tories, the Labour party have acted like a bunch of mad stalkers that have been spurned by the object of their affections. The level of bile that the Labour party have heaped on the Lib Dems is entirely out of proportion with their "crime"; after all, the Lib Dems joined with the effective winners of the last election, but before they did that, they negotiated with Labour and certainly gave that party the chance to win them over. But no, the Labour party have acted with arrogance and bile towards the Lib Dems; the occasional lip service paid by some of the contenders for the Labour leadership to the idea of the future Lib-Lab pact doesn't make-up for the bitter vitriol thrown at the Lib Dems by the Labour party since May.

Labour are still in shock from their defeat in May and still labouring under the delusion that they are in some way entitled to power. It is the same arrogance that defined Nu Labour, and ultimately sank the Brown administration. The Labour party still expects to be in power, and if they can't achieve it by themselves, then they expect the Lib Dems to prop them up. The fact that Clegg and Co. chose not remains a point of bitter contention for the Labour party. And given the level of bile thrown at the Lib Dems, I really don't see whatever future they might have resting on an alliance with Labour.

Nick Clegg: The Impossible Choice

Simon Jenkins on the limited political future of one Nick Clegg:

Clegg the politician was a nice chap. He could have made a good departmental minister. Back in May he could have decided otherwise, standing aloof from office and declaring that his party would debate and vote on each government measure on its merits. That would have been a true Liberal Democrat dawn, from which he could have returned perhaps more successfully to fight the Tories at the polls.

Instead Clegg chose glory in death. He came to the rescue of Cameron in the latter's hour of need and enabled him to steer the economy out of Labour's morass. I have no doubt Cameron will show gratitude, offering honorary life membership of the Tory party, a safe seat and a comfy place on the Notting Hill sofa. For Clegg that might be enough. But as leader of the Liberal Democrats, he has booked a ticket to oblivion.

Now I'd agree - in part. Nick Clegg is basically fucked as Lib Dem leader. His decision in May was always going to work for roughly half his party, and really piss off the other half. That's the nature of his compromise. Had he done it the other way round - and jumped into bed with Labour - he would still have alienated half of its parties and half of his followers. He had to make a choice, and he did. It was never going to please everyone, which is what makes it a compromise.

And this notion that the Lib Dems could have chosen a third way (no pun intended) of voting on each issue as and when they arise rather than going into coalition is a non-starter. All that would have happened is the Cameron would have gone to the country again sooner rather than later. His party was the only one with the funds to fight another election, and both the Tories and Labour would have a massive stick with which to beat the Lib Dems - that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for unstable government and for political instability.

This is the tragedy of Nick Clegg; he had no choice but to compromise, but by compromising, he ended up shooting himself in the foot. And, as far as I am concerned, he made the best of a bad situation. That's not going to stop the carping of lefties throughout the country, though...

The Graduate Tax

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is proposing a Graduate Tax to replace student loans:

He said he had asked Lord Browne to look at the idea of a graduate tax "as a priority" in his current review in to higher education funding in England.

This would mean students paying for their studies through the tax system, rather than through subsidised loans.

He said high-earning graduates would pay more than those on low incomes.

Right, let's look at why this is wrong. Why it is more than just wrong - why it is both dumb and appalling. And let's do that through an analogy.

Two students walk into the students union shop to claim a free pen when they first start their degrees. One student uses his pen to take lots of notes on lectures and seminars during his time at university. The other uses his pen to draw genitals in various library books. The former gets a first, the latter a third. Is then right to slap the former with a hefty charge for his pen (in part to fund the pen of the latter) because he managed to put it to much better use than the latter? Because that is what this tax is effectively trying to do.

If you do well at university, and consequently get a high paying job, you will end up earning more than someone who spunked away their time at university in various bars. However, you will have used the benefit of a university education far better than the person who just used it as a chance to party for three years. However, under a graduate tax, you would pay more than someone who did bugger all at university. You would pay more for having done well at your studies. You would end up paying for someone who has done less well than you, on account of nothing other than their relative failure.

On what planet is that fair? On what planet is that not penalising those who work harder at university? And is that the sort of society we want to be? Where we charge those who work harder more than those who waste their opportunities? Do we really want to disincentivise people from getting good degrees from good universities, and then going on to do good jobs?

Cable justifies it in this way:

"It surely can't be right that a teacher or care worker is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon," he said.

Well, yes, it can be right if they have all got degrees. It is like saying that it can't be right that a care worker has to pay the same as a commercial lawyer for a bottle of coke. It is right, given they are buying a commodity - through their own choice - of the same, or at least comparable, value. Sure, by all make your case that commercial lawyers earn too much relative to care workers, but the way to combat that is not something as regressive as a tax on the wealthy. It is to start getting people to question why there is such a wide disparity in salary between more vocational work and more commercial work. The way to change this - if you actually believe that this needs to be changed - is through changing attitudes. Not to further penalise the successful through regressive taxation.

And while we're on the subject, let's lay to rest the myth that those who earn more should pay more tax. Because the reality is they already do. Someone who earns £20,000 and gives up 25% of their earnings to the tax man will give £5,000 to the state. Someone who earns £40,000 and gives up 25% to the state would be losing £10,000. And that is assuming a flat tax rate across all earnings which, of course, does not exist.

All this achieves is creating a culture where those who have done well are made to pay more for their success than those who have done less well. The graduate tax is effectively saying "don't worry if you've got a third and are heading for the dole queue - the person who has just got a first and is heading for a decent job will fund your further education". It is nothing more than an example of the ever unworkable Marxist slogan "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And this is supposed to be "radical" thinking on funding further education. Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts. This is absolutely typical of the mindset of modern political parties. Got a problem? Tax it. People drinking more than you would like? Increase the tax on booze. Do the same thing if you have an issue with smoking. Too much congestion? Try a tax. Further education a problem? Here's a thought - try tax. If it moves, tax it.

In short, there is nothing radical about tax, and in particular about tax increases. They are the norm, not the exception. You want to be genuinely radical about universities? Why not start thinking about reducing the number of people who go to universities? If you want to think the unthinkable, why not consider having fewer universities? Why not consider abandoning the arbitrary target set by Blair for university placements? Why not entertain the idea that some people might be better served by not going to university?

A graduate tax would be a further corruption and devaluation of the university system in this country. It would further extend the idea of entitlement at the expense of others in this country. If the Tories have an ounce of backbone or dignity, they will kill this idea from the socialist-in-denial Cable right now. It is wrong, it is unfair, and it needs to be stopped.