Jon Cruddas: an opportunity wasted - 16 comments
Warning: this post contains criticism of Jon Cruddas. One of the difficulties that arises when spreading the writing of a post across
*
Having read Liam Byrne and Bill Rammell's earlier article ("An utterly false choice"), I can see why Jon Cruddas might have been riled, but I found his response [via Stuart] equally gloomy reading.
The earlier article seemed content for electoral politics to be pitched at the voters most likely to tilt a General Election Labour's way, with little criticism of the legitimacy of the ambitions and priorities of a few (lucky) slices of that society being made the priorities for a future government, ignoring such trifling concerns as freedom, equality, justice, or the democratic aspirations of the rest of the electorate.
Unfortunately, rather than savaging the original piece for these obvious omissions, or finding some way to engage the entire Labour movement in a plausible crusade against poverty and injustice worldwide (two priorities for any Labour Party, surely), just about all Jon could conjure up with was a vapid appeal to "traditional" values. At no point did we learn what these traditional values are, how they equip us to reduce poverty and meet future challenges, who these "traditional" voters are, or what their needs are, let alone whether those needs are best met by those traditional policies. Does "traditional" really boil down to the following?
Everything anyone remotely likely to vote Labour don't like about politics today, and any favoured policy from the past that is no longer in current use, for whatever reason.Sorry, but anyone who insists upon using terms like "core" voters (no less silly a term than "swing" voters), and "Labour values" is being abstruse, whether deliberately, or otherwise. It denies potential voters the opportunity to judge candidates and parties on the basis of the policies they might actually carry out, and the chance to judge the accuracy, applicability, plausibility, and likelihood of success of those policies. Sure, there's no General Election in the offing, but there's no harm in a politician who wants to be remembered for their policies to act like there is.
References to "core" and "traditional" remind me of the futility of searching for ideological purity - in our case, the mythical "Real Labour". It's a label more often adopted than bestowed. It's not hard to suggest groups in society - the poorest, for starters - who should expect the most attention from a Labour programme. To what extent their concerns tally with traditional Labour voters (who I'm not yet convinced aren't, in fact, substantially more middle class than is believed), I don't know, but the policies Labour should be pursuing are what work particularly well for the disadvantaged, whether the policies are old or new.
Perhaps this is unfair - there is a little politics in Jon's piece:
Too often the second-term Labour government ... [arrived] at policies such as differential top-up fees that not only owed more to free-market dogma than our traditional values but were also deeply unpopular among swing voters.This is unhelpful in several ways. The need to address higher-education funding dates back to substantially before 2001, with several different funding/fees options on the table, and this need was felt within the Labour Party just as much as elsewhere, so it's hardly accurate to claim the current policy just materialised. And, hang on, why would a government overly concerned with swing voters stick to a policy that, so it is claimed, fails to deliver those middle class votes? Could it be that there was an impulse behind the policy that Jon's analysis fails to spot?
Appending "dogma" to "free-market" is (I regret to say) a fairly common rhetorical trick on our side, used either to restrict discussion to comfortable or agreeable arguments, or to signal one's statist credentials to supporters, masking off huge areas of policy exploration - for example, road pricing that simply asks drivers to pay the social cost of their driving, then let's them alone - at a stroke. Funnily enough, support for university fees is one of the few policies I've held consistently over the past decade or so, even back to the days when I might have used similar language, but one problem with traditionalists is their tendency to cherry-pick those "traditions" that suit them. For example, I can't help feeling "If you have the means, you're going to have to make a pretty good case before we subsidise you with taxpayer's money, but we'll give the most help to those who most need it" is a better established expression of Labour values than "All potential students have a right to free higher education, whatever the cost, whatever their means; and taxpayers have the corresponding responsibility to pay, whatever their means." You might not agree with my choice, but at least you didn't slap "dogma" on the one you didn't like.
The idea that we need lectures from Rammell, the minister for top-up fees, on winning back aspirant voters frankly beggars belief.We could, of course, turn that around and say:
The idea that we need lectures from Cruddas, the Member of Parliament for Dagenham, on winning back "traditional" voters frankly beggars belief.In fact, that's pretty generous: Rammell, after all, was tarred with "minister for top-up fees"; he no more "lectures" than Jon does (though I've already stated that I strongly dislike the inferences of Rammell and Byrne's piece); and besides, Rammell didn't - to my knowledge - make any claims about the popularity of the introduction of (deferred) higher education fees, nor should that be a priority for any Education Minister.
*
I don't have a problem at all with Jon's housing suggestions, but if he can make a difference in that area, wouldn't it be more sensible for him to position himself to take on a future housing portfolio, rather than gun for a Deputy Leadership job that would deny him a direct input?
Likewise - and I'm tailing off a little, here, so bear with me - I don't have a problem with the suggestions about political activity...
They think this is modern, but actually today's voters are more likely to respond to active, campaigning parties that are properly rooted in their local communities.... insofar as anyone disagrees with that. The statement isn't wrong, or harmful, it's just lost its value through overuse. Saying it might meet our fairly low expectations, but showing that you have a unique solution, or a unique ability to achieve an existing solution, is what will restore value to the fine sentiments.
*
I don't think I'm simply being pedantic here: having the opportunity to write for a popular and influential publication should be an opportunity to appear sensible, thoughtful, accurate, interested in the truth - and what works. Coming across as close-minded, and with a preference for warm, woolly, catch-all terms, doesn't seem to me to adequately reward the reader for their time.
Labels: Bill Rammell, fees, Jon Cruddas, Labour, Liam Byrne, markets, poverty, voters
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
16 comments so far...
A largely valid point. Jon could have been a lot more specific in his riposte to the arguments used against him, but bear in mind that he was subject to a word limit, and as I'm sure you have found, it's usually a lot harder to respond succinctly than it is to argue! often the parameters of the argument mean that you have to calculate your own in a rather complex fashion in order to respond.
I did think however that there are three points here that rather soften Rammell and Byrne's blow:
Firstly, their own article, as MOT explained, is riddled with logical errors and flaws.
Secondly, it is easily arguable that Rammell and Byrne's logic has enforced upon them exactly the dichotomy that they have (without evidence) claimed that Cruddas has sought to portray; that there must be a choice between Labour's 'traditional' working class constituencies and the aspirational proffesional classes. There is of course a balancing of interests both electorally and in terms of justice; one which Cruddas has argued, on both counts, has been wrong, until now. But it seems that Byrne and Rammell seem to think, rather bizarely, given their argument, that one must trump the other.
No. It's really just a matter of readjusting the balance towards a more equitable and pragmatic (Cruddas would argue) solution, rather than being sycophantic to certain fringe groups such as, *ahem*- IT professionals.
The third issue is that Cruddas is buggerred if he does or doesn't; being the only non-cabinet contender, he cannot claim to have seen particular policies through, whereas this will be crucial stuff for the other contenders, regardless of whether or not such policy is relevant to the deputy leadership (or DPM position, in their cases).
If he makes policy announcements, people say 'he is running for deputy, not defra', while the other contenders are free to speak as they please. If he does not, people will say 'where is the policy', despite the fact that cruddas thinks there are major policy areas which need redressing. All of the other canididates are free to do both as they please. Jon is free to do neither:
So what is a guy to do?
It's a toughy.
As it is 4 in the morning, I probably need to get a life. Goodnight comrades ;o)
for example, road pricing that simply asks drivers to pay the social cost of their driving
Road tax to be abolished then?
Road tax to be abolished then?
My influence on transport policy is slight at best. I don't know what'll happen, but the argument I made in the post you just read certainly allows for that. Charges should be overwhelmingly on usage (except insofar as the parked vehicle uses socially valuable space, is an eyesore, is rotting away, etc.)
Tom - will respond to you when I've got more time to think!
Your main criticism seems to be that Jon Cruddas didn't use a Response piece - i.e. an article that the Guardian give you for the sole purpose of rebutting a specific crticism - to outline what Labour's values are.
If he'd have done that, the Guardian probably wouldn't even have accepted the article.
As a side point, you then go on to attack his position on top-up fees by saying it's not a matter of market dogma to make those who benefit from HE contribute.
Indeed it is not. What *is* a matter of market dogma is the means by which this is done - a system of differential fees paid for a service, i.e. a market.
There are plenty other systems, through the tax system for example, that would not be market-based, and would avoid many of the problems inherent in the system of top-up fees, but the government were insistent on using a market mechanism instead.
Of course, dogma is a pejorative word, but given that this was a rhetorical exchange I hardly think you can criticise either Byrne and Rammell or Cruddas for using rhetoric.
Perhaps this is a bit cheeky, but I do feel upon reading the above piece that your attack on both Byrne/Rammell and Cruddas for being "woolly" is not only rather peculiar but also suggests just a slight lack of self-awareness.
PC,
Your main criticism seems to be that Jon Cruddas didn't use a Response piece...
I don't know the ins and outs of the Guardian publication rules, I just felt the article was unhelpful. Other people - including bloggers - were already criticising Byrne & Rammell's piece, and Jon's response really didn't add anything very useful. It felt like a wasted opportunity.
Indeed it is not. What *is* a matter of market dogma is the means by which this is done - a system of differential fees paid for a service, i.e. a market.
In the sense that some humans (potential students) adapt to the actions of some other humans (University staff), yes, that suggests there are markets at work, but bear in mind there is already such a thing as a job market, that looms above any of these concerns. Also that the government is hardly "hands-off", with the generous deferral scheme and more. These are hardly the actions of a government behaving dogmatically. It could have said to students: "Pay the fees on offer, or don't pay them, and take your chances in the job market", but it didn't. The best thing it did, as far as I'm concerned, is reallocate resources to the poorest. With the possible exception of key subjects/courses I can't see any pressing case for other subsidies.
There are plenty other systems, through the tax system for example, that would not be market-based, and would avoid many of the problems inherent in the system of top-up fees, but the government were insistent on using a market mechanism instead.
So, rather than adopt a simple, transparent system, with the minimum of bureaucracy, but with potential problems (e.g. a slight reduction in applications), we have to go back to the tax system, and back to widespread subsidies for people who don't need it, rather than people who definitely do, leaving HE establishments unable to signal the quality of their courses, or to fund improvements that can allow them to compete with foreign establishments (which aren't going to go away). You might not agree with all that, but these are points that can be made in a discussion of HE issues - introducing "free-market dogma" just kills sensible discussion, encouraging people to divide on ideological lines.
Of course, dogma is a pejorative word, but given that this was a rhetorical exchange I hardly think you can criticise either Byrne and Rammell or Cruddas for using rhetoric.
Rhetoric's boring. I want to hear someone set out a policy that might achieve something, or criticise another policy persuasively. As I alluded later on in my post, rhetoric and warm words leach politicians' statements of meaning. A lot of this is, of course, due to the assumptions and requirements of the mainstream media, who insist on parcelling up and "simplifying" complex (and interesting) responses for the benefits of the poor, dumb listener/reader, making especially sure to categorise all political messages so they can be more swiftly ignored by people who are only open to a limited range of views.
Surely this is less of a problem with CiF, so why aren't the articles any better??
B4L,
Firstly, it's surely obvious that a Response piece is literally just an opportunity for someone who has been personally criticised to respond to that criticism.
Perhaps we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, but in the constraints of a 500-word article I thought it was a pretty good riposte to Byrne/Rammell. I don't really get your objection to it, particularly as your own rebuttal of them seemed to basically agree with Jon Cruddas' points, just in a rather more woolly and self-righteous way, and then go on to claim that you didn't agree with him at all.
As for top-up fees, you argue that the government has subsidised the poorest, which is true (and, obviously, good) but nothing to do with differential fees, which in themselves have the opposite effect.
Also, I think it should be pointed out that many of the better elements of the system were introduced due to back bench pressure and other influences, rather than being part of Blair's original concept.
"With the possible exception of key subjects/courses I can't see any pressing case for other subsidies."
Erm, you're literally calling for the abolition of all subsidies for teaching in HE? That is a rather extreme position.
As for your other points, I'm afraid I simply don't accept that the current situation is "a simple, transparent sytem, with the minimum of bureaucracy", especially not compared with a simple statutory system where everyone was on a level footing.
You suggest that a reduction in applications is "a slight problem" but given that it's the poorest students who the ones who've stopped applying, and that the government's target is to increase applications considerably, I do not recognise your description.
It is perfectly possible to design a system of graduate contributions that subsidised those who most need it and taxes those who benefit the most. The government chose not too because they wished to create a market - I'm sorry, but that's surely not even a controversial point, given that it was one of the arguments that the proponents of top-up fees themselves used!
As to the context, the discussion was one of electoral strategy in which Byrne/Rammell proposed that we appeal to aspirant "swing" voters by talking tough on crime and immigration; Cruddas was effectively arguing that we should instead be looking for progressive policies that unite our coalition of voters, and cited top-up fees as an example of where the government had gone wrong by doing the opposite.
This was all in a discussion on broad electoral strategy - both Cruddas and Byrne/Rammell cited policies or issues as part of that debate, and Cruddas rightly said we do need a wider discussion on policy, one that hasn't really yet started. (Though bizarrely you attacked him for allegedly refusing to debate policy.)
I have to say that (with the exception of top-up fees, where we just disagree) I really don't understand where you're coming from on this one - it just sounds like you want to take exception to everyone concerned and have come with a long rambling diatribe to that effect.
PC,
Firstly, it's surely obvious that a Response piece is literally just an opportunity for someone who has been personally criticised to respond to that criticism... Perhaps we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, but in the constraints of a 500-word article I thought it was a pretty good riposte to Byrne/Rammell.
I didn't see "Response", or "500 word limit" anywhere, so I tried to take the piece on its merits.
I don't really get your objection to it,...
My objection is that it has very little to say. "We should appeal to a coalition of voters" is a no-brainer, but in itself it doesn't tell me anything useful about policy. Jon gave far too much weight to this "traditional" idea, without justifying it, let alone saying what it meant. I wouldn't use those words, so have no need to define what traditional means, but if we're to take his piece seriously, we need to know what he means by them. I fear this was deliberately left vague.
As for top-up fees, you argue that the government has subsidised the poorest, which is true (and, obviously, good) but nothing to do with differential fees, which in themselves have the opposite effect.
No, a different, not an opposite effect. Subsidising the poorest doesn't mean that their fees for a Uni offering far more expensive courses, will necessarily be paid for in full. It depends on the case. We subsidise the poor because they need the greatest assistance; we don't charge differential fees at all - the Universities do - for the simple reason that they're *different*, and they have different costs/incomes, and the government doesn't feel it must interfere there. Why should all courses cost the same?
Erm, you're literally calling for the abolition of all subsidies for teaching in HE? That is a rather extreme position.
OK, don't run with that. I meant the subsidy of student fees, and don't claim to have a grasp of the entire HE funding system.
... especially not compared with a simple statutory system where everyone was on a level footing.
Because we shouldn't apply (and enforce) laws that aren't strictly necessary. I know some/many within Labour come from an opposite direction, but I believe markets and free interaction should be tried first, and that governments should only step in when markets fail, not the other way around.
And people aren't on a level footing. I don't see why we should subsidise those students with a strong financial backing.
You suggest that a reduction in applications is "a slight problem" but given that it's the poorest students who the ones who've stopped applying, and that the government's target is to increase applications considerably, I do not recognise your description.
I don't have statistics to hand, but there is a lot of misinformation around, partly emanating from the pressure group that chiefly campaigns against fees. Bear in mind, though, that some will decide to work rather than study, especially if the expected returns from a poorly-rated course aren't good. You can't exclude the state of the economy.
It is perfectly possible to design a system of graduate contributions that subsidised those who most need it and taxes those who benefit the most. The government chose not too because they wished to create a market
I don't see the problem even if they did want to create a market - or rather, reveal the graduate recruitment market that already operates. Doesn't make the policy dogmatic, nor does it explain why market-based solutions must be dismissed out-of-hand.
...we should instead be looking for progressive policies that unite our coalition of voters
Sorry, but that's just blather. Anyone on the left could say that and mean a different thing. What the Soviets called 'progressive' is probably very different to what I'd mention. I think asking the middle class to pay their way is progressive, but others might not agree. Someone needs to tell me what the policy is that will unite the Labour Party from one wing to another, as well as whether or not it's a good policy.
I really don't understand where you're coming from on this one - it just sounds like you want to take exception to everyone concerned...
I think we should expect a high standard of debate, and it was partly the emptiness of Jon's response (plus the 'dogma' bit) that suggested to me that he was just coasting along, saying things to keep Labour members sweet.
Or, to put it another way, don't you think we could have found a dozen posts from B4L - on that day alone - that were more thoughtful, and made a better cross-party Labour case? I think we could - marvellous things are produced every day, so why should we put up with hot air from politicians and think tankers, just because they have the pulling power required to get into the Guardian??
*
Sorry, Tom, haven't forgotten you.
"simple, transparent system, with the minimum of bureaucracy"
You obviously haven't come into contact with the Student Loans Company or university registration procedures lately!!
'Hi, can I find out where my loan is please?'
'OK. Can I have your secret answer please?'
'Only if you tell me the secret question'
'No, there isn't one'
'THEN WHAT DOES THE QUESTION ANSWER?'
'you should have got it in a letter which we sent to your campus adress'
'Students tend to move out of halls BY HALFWAY THROUGH SUMMER.'
'Oh, I see'
*Tom puts downs phone and attempts to storm out, but the payment registration que is blocking the corridor*
"I didn't see "Response", or "500 word limit" anywhere, so I tried to take the piece on its merits."
You may notice that the column underneath the letters page in the Guardian is entitled "Response" and as the paragraph at the end of the article explains, it is intended to provide people who have been personally criticised with a chance to reply specifically to the arguments used against them.
The Byrne/Rammell piece was just an opinion article from the paper's comment pages. Both are obviously subject to word limits, though Byrne/Rammell would have had longer.
Then again, there are fairly strict word limits for CiF too. This is not always a bad thing of course - there's nothing better about a long rambling article than one that's concise and to the point.
I'll come back to your other points when I have time later...
You may notice that the column underneath the letters page in the Guardian is entitled "Response"...
Aha, that explains the confusion: I don't read the Guardian, I only (occasionally) look at CiF, and that doesn't say "Response".
Concise is great, but that's not the same as short - depends how much one has to say. I'd rather not leave points or nuances out in the name of brevity, especially when one has a blog that can be used to cover the issue in full, and when other people aren't covering the same ground, even if it does cut one's readership by 50%.
Hope that clears up that point anyway - saying the article should have been more expansive is just plain silly, it was an article with a word limit and a specific brief to address Byrne/Rammell's arguments on electoral strategy.
Within those parameters, I still think it is a bizarre accusation to accuse Cruddas of not saying anything. What he's saying looks pretty damn obvious to me - rather more obvious, I might say, than attempting to discern the key points from your post above, which I note stretches to c1250 words.
"Jon gave far too much weight to this "traditional" idea, without justifying it, let alone saying what it meant."
The article contains the word "traditional" three times, but in each instance it is either quoting or referring to Byrne/Rammell's original piece.
"We should appeal to a coalition of voters" is a no-brainer, but in itself it doesn't tell me anything useful about policy."
It seems pretty obvious to me - Byrne/Rammell are saying that we should take the concerns of a few select groups - which they take to be immigration and crime - and then say what the voters want to hear on them.
Cruddas is saying that of course we need to win the floating voters but that instead of simply indulging their supposed prejudices (which Byrne's analysis of is anyway questionable) we can try to do that by finding policies which appeal to them by addressing their material concerns on a basis of left-wing values. He gives housing as one example of how to do this, and suggests we need a debate on others.
He further makes the point that while the ministers are saying that we have to target swing voters and we can't afford to have any progressive policy stances, they are quite happy to upset swing voters when they have decided a certain policy for their own reasons, such as top-up fees.
Which brings us on to that issue.
I'm not going to go through it line by line, but I will say that I think you've demolished a number of straw men while completely ignoring any of my arguments.
I don't oppose top-up fees because I want to subsidise middle class students or any such nonsense, and I'm perfectly happy for the well off who go in to HE to contribute towards the costs of providing it. My argument is about *how* to do so, and a market-based system of top-up fees is a terrible way to do it, because it helps the rich and punishes the poor - both students and Universities.
I'm not going to get any further in to it than that, unless you're actually going to engage rather than mindlessly repeat assertions and misrepresent what I'm saying.
"Or, to put it another way, don't you think we could have found a dozen posts from B4L - on that day alone - that were more thoughtful, and made a better cross-party Labour case? I think we could."
Well, taking this particular debate about electoral strategy we wrote a piece which I obviously thought was perfectly reasonable, but did heavily quote Cruddas's article; Luke Akehurst wrote in support of Byrne/Rammell but mainly (and entirely reasonably) pointed people towards their article; NewerLabour did much the same with Cruddas; Stuart Bruce wrote a short and sharp attack on Cruddas - though his main criticism was a little bizarre at least it was to the point; Ministry of Truth wrote a very long but not uninteresting piece broadly agreeing with Cruddas and attacking Byrne/Rammell but also covering a number of other things; and you wrote a similarly long and rather opaque post to which of course I am replying.
So, all in all, though I'm glad the blogosphere provides space for more of a debate than that Guardian might provide for, and of course grateful to your efforts for facilitating exchanges between Labour blogs, I'm not too bothered that it was Byrne/Rammell and Cruddas in the Guardian who kicked things off.
He further makes the point that while the ministers are saying that we have to target swing voters and we can't afford to have any progressive policy stances...
Actually the Ministers said they didn't believe the interests of swing voters were incompatible with what they saw as being "traditional" values, but this just shows the pointlessness of these terms. You must be able to see that if we differ in our interpretation of "traditional" and "progressive", it's pointless to try to agree on which policies fall into those two camps, and therefore pointless to attach any weight to those two terms.
I don't oppose top-up fees because I want to subsidise middle class students or any such nonsense, and I'm perfectly happy for the well off who go in to HE to contribute towards the costs of providing it.
I outlined what I saw were the consequences of the existing funding arrangement. Few criticisms of variable top-up fees propose any alternative (so I don't think I was being entirely unfair in making my point about subsidising middle class students), apart perhaps from a higher rate of taxation on the rich as a way of raising revenue, built on the (pretty vague) assumption that higher earners must have benefited from higher education. Is this what you had in mind? You say you want the well-off to contribute, but of course this is incompatible with the status-quo.
My argument is about *how* to do so, and a market-based system of top-up fees is a terrible way to do it, because it helps the rich and punishes the poor - both students and Universities. [...] I'm not going to get any further in to it than that, unless you're actually going to engage rather than mindlessly repeat assertions and misrepresent what I'm saying.
Well, you might be right. I'm all ears, and have never closed down a discussion just because I've felt I was losing an argument. But you must explain how it is that *all* market systems will help the rich and punish (punish? a moral/legal term?) the poor, if you want to close off that option altogether. Perhaps some will, other's won't, but the current variable top-up arrangement is one that does appeal to me (on the basis of my vision of progressive values), and, frankly, I haven't heard anything to make me change my mind, and don't have anything new to think about. At every opportunity I've declared that my political views change and adapt, and all I'm looking for is someone to show me where I'm wrong.
You really shouldn't say things like "mindlessly repeat assertions", as if your correspondent (me) has no mind, and is less worth debating with than other humans. It's disrespectful - and illogical.
So, all in all, though I'm glad the blogosphere provides space for more of a debate than that Guardian might provide for, and of course grateful to your efforts for facilitating exchanges between Labour blogs, I'm not too bothered that it was Byrne/Rammell and Cruddas in the Guardian who kicked things off.
Thanks for that. I think we should be bolder in our defence of the writings of bloggers, and less quick to defend individual writers because of who they are. Part of the wonder of blogging is the wealth of good ideas, and the tearing-apart of bad ideas. It's a search for truth, in a way, and all contributions that attempt to add something - whether short, clear, sharp, gentle, rambling, or otherwise - that give people new ideas, or make them adjust their positions, is to be welcomed.
"Few criticisms of variable top-up fees propose any alternative"
I find this an extraordinary assertion. If it is not a deliberate misrepresentation then I'm afraid it is a sign of staggering ignorance.
Not least because you yourself then go on to immediately refute it:
"apart perhaps from a higher rate of taxation on the rich as a way of raising revenue, built on the (pretty vague) assumption that higher earners must have benefited from higher education"
Once again, a total misrepresentation. I for one have never come across anyone who argued for HE funding out of general taxation *because* higher earners *must* have benefited from higher eduction.
The argument is that the easiest and simplest way to tax people who benefit from HE is through higher levels of taxation, i.e. what already happens. That's not predicated on an assumption that *all* higher earners have benefited from HE personally.
The point is just that if you accept Blair's original premise, that we're not investing enough in HE and that it is vital for the future of Britain to do so, then that's a pretty good argument for finding the money from the general pot.
"Is this what you had in mind?"
Personally, no, though there are a range of views among The Daily team so I don't claim to speak on behalf of them here.
My preferred solution is some form of graduate contribution - either through a version of the Graduate Contribution Scheme that has already been implemented in Scotland, or through some form of graduate tax.
This is the position of many opponents of top-up fees, particularly those in the PLP.
The problems with a market-based system of variable fees are numerous; firstly the sheer level of debt which hits the poorest the hardest; secondly that it incentivises those with the least money to choose courses by cost; thirdly that the revenues will be highest for the elite Universities who can charge the maximum fees and thus it is vicious circle in terms of the divisions between the providers as well as the users; fourthly that the Universities with the most disadvantaged intakes will have the least money to spend on grants etc which exacerbates the latter point; fifthly that by allowing each Uni to adopt their own schemes the entire system of student finance is far more complex and thus off-putting; I could go on, to be honest, as the problems are legion.
Many of these problems have been at least partially dealt with by the various ways in which Blair's original scheme were hemmed in due to backbench pressures, but that to my mind has just created a big mess, even if it in some ways improved the previous mess that was Blunkett's system.
The problem was that the govt entered the whole issue assuming that the problem was under funding for the elite universities rather than any wider considerations of social justice, let alone the HE sector as a whole.
Oh, and then there was the minor matter of our manifesto commitments and, being momentarily more pragmatic, its electoral impact.
"You really shouldn't say things like "mindlessly repeat assertions", as if your correspondent (me) has no mind, and is less worth debating with than other humans. It's disrespectful - and illogical."
I have to say that you seem to be extraordinarily pedantic about the use of individual words. I'm afraid it simply impossible conduct an argument in your comments section in that way. For the record, I obviously do not think that you have no mind, nor that you are less worth debating with than other humans.
I do maintain that you use both straw men and repetition though.
As for your broader point, it is just as silly to attack articles for being in the Guardian as it is to attack them for being by bloggers. I'm more than happy to have a pop at either when they deserve it. There are a few bloggers whose writing far surpasses that of the average broadsheet columnist, but equally well there's plenty of nonsense out there.
You seem to have a prediliction to attack people simply for being in the Guardian that is just as silly as the reverse, or at least that what seems to me to have driven your above piece.
What I'll take from your last comment, for further consideration, is the paragraph that listed alternative funding arrangements.
Frankly, generalisations about my competence, accusations of pedantry, criticisms of my choice of posts, writing style, and so on, I can take or leave. And generally leave.
I would not normally raise such matters, but the thrust of your critique of two ministers and a deputy leadership candidate was that they didn't write/argue very well, and chose the wrong thing to talk about, thus wasting their space in the Guardian.
You cannot then object if people assess your own commentary by the same criteria.
Don't think I said anything about your competence though - on the contrary, I would be the first to say that the site as a whole is a technically very impressive and useful resource.
... your critique [...] was that they didn't write/argue very well, and chose the wrong thing to talk about...
No, it was that the first piece was blinkered, while the second piece failed to criticise the former's failings, was vague, and came across as close-minded. The fact that you've defended the pieces compliments you, not the two pieces. It doesn't encourage me to think that social/economic/political problems will be dealt with any more thoroughly in future by the authors. Perhaps that's the media environment we inhabit, but it still doesn't make the articles valuable.
You cannot then object if people assess your own commentary by the same criteria.
If I felt I was missing the key issues, being imprecise, extensively using weasel or code words, or failing to show evidence that I had clearly thought about issues, or at the very least challenging others to do so, then I'd be concerned. I don't claim to be a "writer" - the fact that people find B4L useful is enough of a consolation for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home