AV, or not to be?

The time has now come for the UK population to come together, make a momentous decision and take part in a national referendum. “But the ‘X-Factor’ has finished and ‘Britain’s got Talent’ has yet to begin”, I hear you all cry.

No, this national vote isn’t as interesting as dancing dogs and emotionally unbalanced singers; but it will decide whether we change the way we elect our political masters in the future. So on balance, it is probably worth taking a look at the debate.

The current voting system is called First Past the Post (FPTP) and is pretty simple to explain. You put an X next to the person you want to win and the person with the most votes is declared the winner.

FPTP works very well in a system where two political parties dominate the election process, but where several parties compete, as is increasingly the case in the UK, it becomes more problematic.

The downside to this system is if you support, for example the Green Party, and your area is dominated by Labour and Conservative voters. Then voting Green is in all probability a wasted vote. Green voters in that area would have to decide whether to vote with their conscience, or to vote tactically for either the Labour or Conservative candidate.

Another failing of FPTP is that if there are more than two parties with broad support in a constituency, then the person elected could be chosen by as few as 20% of the voters; the remaining 80% are in effect ignored. In 2005, for example, George Galloway polled the votes of only 18% of his constituents, yet ended up in the House of Commons.

FPTP favours parties who concentrate their support in geographical areas. So Labour from the urban conurbations and the Conservatives, from large rural counties, have many more seats in Parliament than their votes would otherwise justify. The Lib-Dems, whose support is spread evenly across the country, have far fewer seats than they might otherwise expect.

The Alternative Vote (AV) has been proposed to remedy some of these problems. Under AV a voter has to rank candidates in order of preference, so 1 next to their favourite, and 2 next to their second choice and so on. Listing preferences is optional, if a voter only approved of 1 candidate; they could just put 1 next to their favourite.

If after the votes have been counted, one of the contenders has over 50% of the vote, they are declared the winner. If not, the last placed candidate is eliminated and their second preference votes are distributed to the remaining candidates. This is repeated until one person gets over half of the votes.

So taking the example of our theoretical Green voter under an AV system, he or she could vote Green with their first preference. They may decide that the next closest party to their views is the Lib-Dems and rank them as their second preference and their third choice may be Labour.

When the votes are counted, none of the candidates passes the 50% mark and the Green in last place gets eliminated. In the next round of counting, our voter’s second preference is added to the Lib-Dems, but still no one has passed the half way line. In the third round, our Green voter’s support is transferred to Labour, who this time receives over half the votes and is declared the winner.

It is worth reiterating that each round of the process is a new vote. Those people who voted Labour have done so three times in this example, and our Green only voted Labour in the third round. It is a method to stop the big parties hovering up tactical votes and then ignoring those voters and pretending they are their own.

This sounds more complicated than it actually is, but it has the effect of forcing the main parties to broaden their support to people who vote for smaller parties. It also means that people who, under FPTP, vote tactically can now register their support for their closest ideology and use their preference votes for their tactical choice.

AV is certainly not a great panacea to cure our democratic ills, but it is in my opinion a small change which can make a significant improvement. I have been told that AV is not proportional representation, and that it should therefore be opposed. Is this not letting perfection be the enemy of the good (to mangle Voltaire)? It is much better than the status quo, and all reformers should support this change. It is not that AV is so good, but that FPTP is so damn bad.

I have lost count of the times that I have heard Labour supporters tell me they are going to vote no, to give Nick Clegg ‘a bloody nose’. Really? Some Labour supporters are planning to vote against a system that they proposed, to spite the Lib Dems, and thereby miss the opportunity to give the Conservative Party a broken jaw. If that is the case, then Labour really has now become an irrelevance to political discourse.

As the No campaign has been busily peddling a quote from Churchill where he criticises AV, I’ll close with his thoughts on FPTP. Speaking in 1909, he said: “The present system [FPTP] has clearly broken down. The results produced are not fair to any party, nor to any section of the community. In many cases they do not secure majority representation, nor do they secure an intelligent representation of minorities. All they secure is fluke representation, freak representation, capricious representation”.

Now that’s sorted, we can get back to more popular elections. I wonder if there will be a dancing dog again this year?

Evesham United 2 Stourbridge 3

Evesham’s manager Paul West will look back on this game and wonder where his team were in the first half. With a litany of defensive errors and an absence of attacking competence by the Robins, the game looked to be a decidedly one sided affair.

A passage of smart interplay carved the Evesham backline apart and Zac Costello’s clumsy lunge left the referee with little option but to point to the spot. Linden Dovey dusted himself down and calmly sent the keeper the wrong way.

Evesham were restricted to hopeful long-balls and Stourbridge’s goal was rarely threatened. Stourbridge were playing with purpose and occasional style, however it was a long ball from the Glassboys which led to their inevitable second goal, scored by Ryan Rowe.

Evesham were poor and made two changes on 37 minutes, and a third at a half time where Stourbridge looked good value for their 2 goal lead. The introduction of Evesham’s Ghanaian trio produced a very different second period, and David Accam pulled a goal back almost immediately.

The Robins pushed for an equaliser, but their lacklustre defence allowed an unmarked Nathan Bennett to head home at the back-post, against the run of play.

Evesham continued to press, but it took until the 86th minute for Accam to add his second goal, teed up by a mishit shot by Shaze which wrong footed the keeper. In the 5 minutes of injury time, Evesham could, perhaps should, have levelled this game but Lewis Solly would not be beaten again.

After the final whistle, Sam Mensah’s offensive gesture to the ref earned him a straight red card, much to the delight of the vocal Stourbridge fans.

Paul West said after the game: “I’m disappointed with the result, with the penalty decision, with the sloppy goals and I’m very disappointed with Mensah’s sending off”. He added: “In the first half we were simply not good enough and defended poorly, we were making under 13’s errors. Rowe has been prolific for Stourbridge this year and we could not contain him”.

He said: “At half time I told the lads to stand up and make it difficult and that it was imperative that we got the next goal. All credit to them, they were much better in the second half”.

When pressed about the red card incident, he said: “I believe he gave the ref ‘the finger’, so he deserved his sending off. I can’t condone what he did, he’s young and a bit naive and I’d put it down to frustration. We will deal with this internally and he will be disciplined, I already have to make 6 or 7 changes a game and this has made my job harder”.

West paid tribute to Dean Richards, his best friend and former Bradford teammate who sadly passed away on Saturday following a long battle with illness. “We were very good friends and I spent his last week with him. I hope the world of football gives him the recognition that he deserves and my thoughts are with his wife and children”.

EVESHAM:
Vaughan, Costello (Shaze 37), Hyde, Daniel, Jones, Spencer (Mensah 37), Blake, Wilding, Palmer (Accam 45), Brown, Noubissie Subs not used: Skyers, Dinsley.

GOALS: Accam 48, 86.

STOURBRIDGE:
Solly, Dovey, Oliver, McCone (Connor 41 (Cooper 57)), Smith, Bennett, Lloyd, Broadhurst, Rowe, Drake (Plinston 89), Craddock Sub not used: Slater.

GOALS: Dovey (pen) 13, Rowe 34, Bennett 62.

REFEREE:
Robert Ellis

The Observer Years: Orwell

(Observer Books, £8.99)

Students of the English language, and for that matter politics, will be well aware of George Orwell’s published books. Orwell was, after all, kind enough to leave us some essays which outlined his thoughts on the literary process, and sets for us some rules on good composition. 

A wise man once told me that Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’ and ‘Why I Write’, should be part of all aspiring non-fiction writers’ essential collections and memorised to heart before their pen has ever been set to paper.

Those who have read Orwell’s books may be less familiar with his work as a journalist and as a prolific critic of literature. Writing for an eclectic range of titles, including: The Adelphi, The New Statesman, New Writing, Horizon, Tribune and Contemporary Jewish Record; Orwell’s collection of articles and essays should be regarded with the same reverence that his polemic books enjoy.

In the ‘Observer Years’, Orwell’s insightful contributions to the Sunday newspaper from 1942 to 49 have been comprehensively compiled. In 2 sections, divided between articles and reviews, this book is ideal to dip into for brief distraction - what I term as a bathroom book - but it should be noted that it is difficult to put down.

The first part of the book contains Orwell’s articles, which range from Indian independence, the threat of Communist Russia, to political profiles. The larger part of this section, however, is a series of war reports dispatched from Europe as the Allies made their bloody way to Germany following D-Day. It is these that particularly catch the eye, as Orwell observes with his unnerving sharpness of thought, the complex post-liberation muddle of French politics. With his unswerving attention for detail, he regards the ruinous state of occupied Germany and the difficulties ahead in reconstructing this obliterated nation.  He also looks ahead to the 1945 General Election and curiously for Orwell, a man known for his strong convictions, does not make any firm prediction for the outcome.

The second part of this book concerns itself with Orwell’s book reviews, and whilst not as informative as his war reporting, does illuminate a keen intellect and an analytical mind. His reviewing style does not become mired with the miniature of the books detail, but instead Orwell analyses the themes and contrasts them with other authors’ ideas.  In many cases he looks at two contemporary books which tackle the same issue, with either similar or opposing conclusions.  It is clear that Orwell must have been a fertile reader, and whether tackling poetry, politics or potholing, among much else, his background knowledge was remarkable.

It is easy to understand how Orwell gained his reputation as a free thinking and uninhibited critic, as he does not shy from rebuking renowned authors. He dismisses ‘Vessel of Wrath’ by H G Wells as a collection of overpriced scraps, which are littered with tired and discredited ideas. Many critics would have been more reticent when reviewing a book from a feted author like Wells, and Orwell’s closing paragraph which acknowledges the prior greatness of his works, serves to rather emphasize the lack of esteem with which he held this particular offering.

The main virtue of ‘The Observer Years’ is to remind the reader that George Orwell was first and foremost a journalist. It was his abilities in the art of reporting which shaped all of his works, including his fiction. He had the gift of being able to describe what he saw with clarity, interpret a confusing world for his readers and then project the implications into the future.  This book may not be for everyone, but it is well worth reading.

England 59 Italy 13

As a change of pace from recent posts, and to show that there is more to life than politics, here is a match report from the England Italy game on Saturday:

Memories of the World Cup winning team of 2003 may seem a distant memory to most England fans. To reach the long envied heights of your sport playing ‘total rugby’, only to plunge so far and so fast, was a difficult adjustment for the Twickenham faithful to bear.

The stilted progression of both players and coaching staff through this lean period has attracted much criticism, none more so than Martin Johnson’s elevation to the top job. His belief in bringing young players into the set-up has at last been vindicated and the emergence of Chris Ashton’s raw talent will lead to greater expectation for this team.

This was Ashton’s day. He was always in the right place and his eagerness to play positively seems to have galvanised a back line which has often shown promise but lacked imagination. His four tries, the first time since 1914 this has been achieved, takes his tally to 6 after just two games and his ninth in 9 games. Here is a man in form. Ashton said: “I thought the time was right to do it”, when questioned about the continuance of his controversial swallow dive and played down his individual performance. He said: “I’m just glad to be in the team. A winning team and I hope to go on winning”.

Mark Cueto broke his run of 19 tests without a score and Ashton expressed his happiness for him, joking: “he’s getting on and needs to get tries while he still can”.

Toby Flood looks to be a new man. Against the Italians he was the play maker and most of the inventive play was initiated by him. His kicking now looks as assured as Jonny Wilkinson’s did a decade ago.

The forwards, up against the powerful Italian pack, dominated from the start. They have at long last stopped the chronic indiscipline which has plagued their performances over recent years. With the procession of needless penalties which keep the opposition’s score flowing now stemmed, England can now concentrate on their attack.

59 points did not flatter England and it was only the Italian’s obstinate pride which stopped the score being even greater.

England:
15 Ben Foden; 14Chris Ashton; 13 Mike Tindall (capt);
12 Shontayne Hape; 11 Mark Cueto; 10 Toby Flood; 9 Ben Youngs;
1 Alex Corbisiero; 2 Dylan Hartley; 3 Dan Cole; 4 Lois Deacon; 5 Tom Parker;
6 Tom Wood; 7 James Haskell; 8 Nick Easter.

Replacements: Steve Thompson (49 for Hartley); David Wilson (62 for Cole);
Simon Shaw (45 for Deacon); Hendry Fourie (62 for Wood);
20 Danny Care (55 for Youngs); 21 Jonny Wilkinson (55 for Flood);
22 Matt Banahan (49 for Cueto).

Italy:

5 Luke McLean; 14 Andrea Masi; 13 Gonzalo Canale;
12 Alberto Sgarbi; 11 Mirco Bergamasco; 10 Luciano Orquera; 9 Fabio Semenzato;
1 Salvatore Perugini; 2 Leonardo Ghiraldini; 3 Martin Castrogiovanni;
4 Carlo Antonio Del Fava; 5 Quintin Geldenhuys; 6 Valerio Bernabo; 7 Alessandro Zanni;
8 Sergio Parisse (capt).

Replacments: 16 Fabio Ongaro (66 for Ghiraldini);
17 Andrea Lo Cicero (49 for Bernabo); 18 Santiago Dellape (46 for Del Fava);
19 Robert Barbieri (56 for Lo Cicero); 20 Pablo Canavosio (78 for Parisse);
21 KrisBurton (79 for McLean); 22 Gonzalo Garcia (62 for Sgarbi).

Referee: Craig Joubert (South Africa).

The emergence of Social Liberalism

For a recent essay I had to answer the question 'was the new Liberalism simply a response to the emergence of socialism?'  Here is a precis of some of the more interesting aspects:

Liberalism’s evolution during the latter half of the Nineteenth Century can be defined as what John Stuart Mill describes the ‘struggle between liberty and authority’. He argued that individuals should be free from the state, provided they do not harm another’s liberty; they should even be free from control if they cause harm to themselves.

Mill went on to warn against the consensus of majorities and assumed wisdom within society, which he believed leads to an assumption of infallibility in dominant ideas and a suppression of free thought. Mill suggests that this creates conformity which stifles progress, and therefore that individualism is desirable in society.

William Gladstone’s Liberalism was characterised by support for free trade, mistrust of imperialism and a desire that the ‘state withdraw where it had no business to meddle’. As the ‘franchise’ extended and clerical workers gained political influence, the Liberal Party became divided between the conflicting interests of property and supporters for various reforms.

The party’s politicians became more concerned with notions of rights and justice; the Radicals were particularly interested in social equality, ending Britain’s urban deprivation and extreme poverty. Gradually during this period British Liberalism evolved from being predominantly the champion of individual rights, to an ideology which was concerned for the rights of the many, leading to the first elements of welfare.

New Liberalism somewhat evolved from the progressive Liberals desire to reunite the Liberal Party with a socialistic and individual liberty agenda. However they rejected socialist theory in its ‘universal’ application as they were deeply sceptical of the Labour Party, which they believed to be uninterested in the rights of the individual.

The economist John Hobson’s work became influential with the Progressive Liberals as he argued for a new economic strategy which sought for the government to take a greater role managing both the public’s consumption, as well as encouraging the public to save. This would ultimately lead to a shift in ideology for the Liberal Party, away from a Laissez-fair to more interventionist policies.

Hobson went on to argue that he believed that there were ‘compatibilities’ between socialism and Liberalism, however he did not believe there were ‘interconnections’. He believed that the ideologies of Liberalism, which take personal freedoms as its aim and socialism, which to varying extents, seeks to ‘subordinate’ the individual towards a collective state effort are not as contradictory ideals as they may appear on first inspection. Hobson thought that a compromise which could unite these two ideologies of the individual and the state, could lead to a ‘rationalisation’ of capitalism and build a more ‘cooperative’ society in Britain.

Leonard Hobhouse’s vision of a Liberal rationalisation became known as ‘social liberalism’ and was designed as an answer to the philosophical issue of whether any connection between Liberalism and socialism existed in reality. Hobhouse argued for three principles of ‘rational reconstruction’. These consisted of an effective social system, the liberation of individuals, and a ‘philosophic socialism’ which sought a government which operated for the ‘common good’.

The Twentieth Century has paradoxically seen Liberalism decline across most of the world as a political force exclusive to Liberal Parties; whilst liberalism has become the dominant background theory which pervades political thought across the political parties and is now the accepted ideological framework for most modern societies.

It is to this curious contradiction that ‘new’ or ‘social’ Liberalism developed, being characterised by a strong moral and social ethos, concerned that society reflects the efforts of individuals and eliminates illegitimate advantage. There is a desire for fairness and welfare; but with a central theme of supporting the moral significance of the individual. There can be no liberty, if the individual does not have decent housing, is not given a good education, and is not protected from exploitation. This new Liberalism accepts the intervention of the state, to provide fair conditions so that every individual has the opportunity to enjoy and explore their liberty.

This therefore perhaps explains the peculiar situation in Britain, whereby political parties of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ appeal to the ‘centre’ in general election campaigns; as the public now feel so secure in their liberty that they believe that so long as these freedoms are not challenged, then a party which is defined by personal freedom is somewhat irrelevant.

It is inaccurate and simplistic to describe new Liberalism as simply a response to socialism. New Liberalism is influenced by similar aims and shares the principles of equality and social justice with socialism; however its abhorrence of authoritarianism and class conflict combined with a strong belief in liberty with individual personal freedom, creates a coherent and independent political ideology which is in itself distinct from socialism.

Do the Lib-Dems need media tuition?

Ed Miliband recently told Labour MPs that being in opposition is crap. After 60 years out of office, many Liberal Democrats would no doubt sympathise with that sentiment, but it has to be said, that being a Liberal Democrat has lately been a bit crap too.

On the whole, I have been fairly pleased with the Coalition, which has delivered a number of policies I have wanted to see for some time: from a less authoritarian state, taking low paid workers out of tax, reform of political institutions, changes to the benefit system, prison reform, to the pupil premium. For the party which finished third in the General Election, this is a good return.

Tuition fees however, is the hot topic which looks likely to cause the Lib-Dems serious and long term political damage. This is especially galling, because the policy negotiated has some really positive aspects. If the Coalition had bothered to ‘go on the offensive’ rather than talking to themselves, then the spin from Labour and the NUS could have been exposed.

Aaron Porter: President of the NUS, member of the Labour Party, and if he follows the path of many of his predecessors, recipient of a safe Labour seat sometime in the not too distant future, has been eager to play down any progressive elements of the policy Instead he chooses to express it in as much inflammatory language as he can muster. The NUS have proposed a graduate tax, (as have I), but they have not explained to students that they would pay as much, if not more, under such a system. In essence, both systems are virtually identical.

The problem for the Lib-Dems is not that they are proposing this policy, but that they were naive enough to sign those NUS pledges. The leadership desperately tried to discard the albatross of scrapping tuition fees, on the grounds that it was impossible to implement in the real world of government. But the Lib-Dems are democratic, and activists insisted they kept this policy – it was popular on the door steps and they were realistically unlikely to get into government. The leadership made the same assessment and the MPs signed the NUS pledges. The fact is that the Lib-Dems did get into government and now have been ‘mugged’ by the realities of power.

Let’s be clear. If Labour had won the election, they would be implementing this exact same policy. They promised there would be no tuition fees in 1997, won the election and brought in tuition fees. They promised they would not bring in top-up fees in 2001, won the election and gave us top-up fees. They created the Browne Report, to push the decision to raise fees until after the election, and a graduate tax was not even part of its remit. Under Labour, the Browne Report’s only possible recommendation could have been to raise fees. Labour’s policy now, is rank and naked opportunism – they have twice made election promises about higher education funding, and then broke them whilst in majority governments. They now are pillorying the Lib-Dems for not keeping to their manifesto commitment, as the party which finished third in the General Election.

How Clegg must regret those pledges. It feeds the strong narrative in the leftish media of ‘Tory cuts and spineless Liberal lickspittles’, or simply the ‘Con-dems’. The Tories are indifferent about all this, they are supported by the vast majority of the media, but for the Lib-Dems this is damaging. Much of this could have been avoided by better leadership; talking to the voters rather than concentrating on Coalition management and the party taking better control of its media image. The Lib-Dems are still operating as a second opposition, not as a Coalition partner in government and if this does not change soon, the Labour spin machine will crush them.

Cuts: This is just the begining

So we have now had the Comprehensive Spending Review. Gideon has swung his axe - with half a million public service workers set to lose their jobs and perhaps another half a million jobs at risk in the private sector. There has been an interesting game going on in the media, trying to pin down just who exactly is responsible for the position the UK now finds itself in.

The Coalition tells us it was all Labour's fault; they were profligate with public money during a boom. Labour on the other hand, say that the Tories are cutting for ideological reasons; they want a smaller state and are making the cuts for this reason alone. The Trade Unions say that this mess was caused by the banks; the banks created this crisis and it is public service workers who are paying the price.

For the state to do something it needs money and therefore must raise taxes. Historically, governments have been able to gather slightly less than 40% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Conservative, as well as Labour governments have tried to increase this tax yield from time to time without success. They ultimately failed due to tax revenues reducing during recessions. Government spending over this period has been generally slightly higher than 40 % of GDP, and during Gordon Brown’s tenure, this rose to 48% of GDP. Some of this rise is directly due to the recession and some the ‘stimulus package’, introduced as an emergency measure to stop this recession spiralling into a depression. If we ignore this spending, there is still a 6% difference between what the government raises and what it spends, known as the ‘structural deficit’. This does not include PFIs or the bank bailouts, which are conveniently not on the government’s books.

There is a valid argument that Labour needed to run this structural deficit to repair the public services and infrastructure following 18 years of Thatcherite neglect. How well Labour spent its money is a contentious issue. Sir Philip Green’s review of government spending makes for interesting reading, and his conclusion that there was extravagant waste is supported by a decade of Private Eye articles.

There is a much deeper problem facing public services and government spending in the UK, which politicians have occasionally mentioned over the last 20 years, but have failed to properly address. We have an ageing population. The generation of ‘Baby Boomers’ are now approaching retirement and collecting their state pensions. As they leave work taxes will fall and government spending will rise. If we are to keep our pensioners out of poverty, then we will have to pay an ever larger slice of tax revenue on the state pension. This will mean that governments will have to do much less in other areas or take a lot more in taxes from a smaller working population.

What we have come to expect as the Welfare State has been facing this impasse from almost its creation, yet repeated governments have not faced the issue. I was taught about greying populations in a GCSE geography lesson in 1993, with all its obvious economic implications. It is perhaps the greatest weakness of democracy that politicians will always follow the path of least resistance. You don’t get many votes telling people the truth, asking for more money or reducing benefits. The politicians and the voters have instead thought only in the short term, preferring tax cuts and empty rhetoric about world class public services full of consumer choice.

The banking crisis was the trigger, but it is not as the unions are arguing, the cause of this mess. Blame lies with successive governments who have failed to reasonably prepare for an easily predicted problem. They were aided and abetted by a generation who have taken from the Welfare State, without adequately paying towards its sustainability. Their children and their grandchildren will have to pay higher taxes for inferior public services.

This spending review is merely the tip of the iceberg. The state will be reduced and the UK population is going to have a bleak few decades to endure. Many Tories will take pleasure in shrinking the size of the state, but where are the other options? They will probably go too far, too quickly, and we will need to be vigilant in protecting the most vulnerable in society and the most cherished of our public services. It is certainly unlikely to be fair and we are definitely not all in this together – however there seems to be few viable alternatives available.

Forget the cuts: tuition fees will be the first test of the Coalition’s resolve

Yesterday the Lib-Dem membership received an e-mail from Vince Cable ruling out “a pure graduate tax”, adding that “while it is superficially attractive, an additional tax on graduates fails both the tests of fairness and deficit reduction”.

What this actually amounts to, is that despite the best efforts of Vince and David Willetts, the Treasury would not wear a graduate tax. It was always going to be tough to get a ‘tax’ past the Conservatives, especially one which would disproportionately affect upper middle-class families. It would have also been difficult, as there would be an interim period between tuition fees being phased out and graduate tax funding paying into the system.

Vince cited three problems of a graduate tax, which he maintains would make it unviable. Some graduates would end up paying more than the cost of their education; UK taxes would not be able to be collected from foreign students; and a graduate tax would not help reduce the deficit over the next five years.

The first two reasons do not seem particularly insurmountable. I suspect that it would only be a minority of graduates on obscene salaries who would pay “many times more than the cost of their course”. Foreign students could pay the cost of their studies, in full, upfront. However it is the last problem which has decided government policy, a graduate tax would indubitably add to government spending over this parliament - but it would be progressive in the longer term.

Quite how this fits with Nick Clegg’s speech on the 18th of August, where he said: “governing for the long-term means thinking not only about the next year or two, or even the next parliamentary term. Governing for the long-term means recognising that the decisions of one generation profoundly influence the lives and life chances of the next”, is anyone’s guess.

This announcement will be of serious concern for the 57 Lib-Dem MPs, 54 of whom including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, signed the NUS pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees. If a graduate tax is dismissed, then tuition fees will undoubtedly have to rise, with some reports of students being charged £10,000 a year. Each of those MPs will have to decide whether abstaining will honour that pledge, or whether they will have to vote against the government.

This is a major headache for the Lib-Dem leadership, and if it is not handled well, Nick and Vince may find their party in open revolt. The abolition of tuition fees is a policy which has support from virtually all activists and by signing the NUS pledge, the MPs have no space for manoeuvre. They will either be disloyal rebels or proven hypocrites. Either way, this will provide a large stick for their opponents to beat them with.

The hypocrisy of the phone hacks

The last week’s news has been dominated by moral outrage. From the re-emergence of the News of the World phone hacking scandal to Pakistan’s cricket players allegedly taking bribes in a scheme to rig spot betting at the bookmakers - uncovered, ironically enough, by the News of the World.

The phone hacking scandal was reignited by the New York Times, which claims to have sources who tell them that Andy Coulson (editor of the News of the World at the time and now the Prime Ministers ‘spin doctor’) was not only aware of the practice, but was actively involved in it. It has always struck me as eminently believable that the editor of the paper was unaware of the ‘dark arts’ employed by his reporters on some of their biggest stories. He has adopted a position of outright denial and provided that he is telling the truth, all is well – if he is shown to be lying on the other hand, then he is finished.

All of which is fascinating, not to mention a headache for David Cameron. If Coulson should start sinking in this scandal, he should not expect a lifeline from the Prime Minister. I noted that 10 Downing Street has referred to him latterly as a ‘media advisor’ rather than his grander title of ‘Head of Communications’ which may be a subtle distancing, just to play it safe.

The fact that this story petered out initially is at first a little puzzling. You would think that the rest of the press would unite to strike a blow at the Murdoch Empire and pursue this story relentlessly. The Guardian, the Independent and the BBC have followed the story, but everywhere else an uncomfortable silence resides; which Charlie Brooker so eloquently described in yesterday’s Guardian as ‘an elephant in the room’. I’m inclined to believe Brooker’s assumption that maybe it is hard to criticise the dark arts when you have practiced them yourself.

This story now represents a battle between the remnants of independent and left leaning quality news outlets, with Murdoch and his perceived influence with the seats of power. They have perhaps decided to follow Benjamin Franklin’s advice at the signing of the Declaration of Independence - that it is preferable to ‘hang together’ rather than ‘most assuredly hanging separately’. They have found a line of weakness that strikes through to both the heart of Murdoch’s media operations and the Conservative Prime Minister whom he has supported and they are determined to draw some blood.

There is however a broader lesson to be drawn from this episode, neatly summed in the old proverb that ‘people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’. Everyone was quick to condemn Pakistan’s cricketers, but was what they did really any worse than the office worker who helps them self to the stationary cupboard's contents or the plumber who does ‘cash in hand’ jobs at the weekend, other than scale?  Was what they did worse than hacking into peoples phones, breaching their human right to privacy in order to sell gossip and tittle-tattle?

The Labour leadership candidates have been quick to jump on to this story, but as usual, for the wrong reasons. As long as politicians seek to score cheap points against their opponents in sleaze stories, they should expect their careers ruined when inevitably they fall foul themselves in the future. They would be advised to remember their party’s relentless pursuit of ‘Tory sleaze’ in the 1990s and Labour’s inability to avoid it themselves in the 2000s.

The phone hacking scandal isn’t a political points scoring opportunity – it is about ending a culture where certain journalists believe (or are encouraged to believe) that any means justify the end. That Coulson is now part of ‘Team Cameron’ should be a marginal aspect in this story. It is of more interest that the same organisation which illegally breaches people’s privacy to fish for scoops feels it is perfectly justified in entrapping dumb ‘celebrities’ in its sting operations.  Stings have their place in journalism; but the accompanying sanctimonious commentary by the News of the World when defending its stings and the mealy mouthed response to phone tapping scandal highlights remarkable double standards.

In favour of a graduate tax

The Business Secretary, Vince Cable, and Universities Minister, David Willetts, look to have pre-empted the Browne report on the future of university funding by declaring their preference for a graduate tax - or ‘contribution’ as they would prefer it to be termed. The disagreement over how higher education is to be funded and where the burden of that cost should fall has been raging for two decades now. Perhaps, if wisely implemented, a graduate contribution could at last settle this issue and provide a fairer method of paying for higher education.


There are three models of higher education funding. The comprehensive system, wholly subsidised by the treasury - as it was in the heady days prior to tuition fees - where all taxpayers contribute. The current tuition fee system; where a student pays an ‘upfront fee’ towards part of the cost of their education. And the graduate tax system where a student pays either part of, or the total cost of their education, over their working life through a change to their personal income tax allowance.

“Why should the bin man pay for the doctor’s education?” was the argument against universally funded higher education, albeit if somewhat paraphrased. I suspect that if the bin man’s life was saved by that doctor, he’d think the money was well spent. However it does also seem a reasonable argument that a doctor, earning a vast salary, should pay back the cost of their education. The increasing number of students - four hundred thousand in the early 1960s rising to 2 million by 2000 - has seen the cost of higher education to the state soar. In this ‘age of austerity’ it seems unlikely that we will be returning to a comprehensive system anytime soon – as appealing as that may be to the student body.

New-labour seemed reluctant to break this universal model, but recognised the cost to the Treasury was untenable. The tuition fee could perhaps be an example of Tony Blair’s “third way”, which implied a compromise between left and right wing political ideologies. The problem with tuition fees is that a teacher or librarian has to pay the same amount towards their education as a doctor or stock broker, even though the financial rewards are hugely disproportionate.

By presenting tuition fees as a loan, rather than as a short term higher tax rate, students from poorer backgrounds are deterred from university due to debt aversion. To the disproportionately large number of public school students in British universities, the tuition fee must seem laughably small when compared to their school fees and constitutes a subsidy to the wealthiest section of British society, therefore acting as a barrier to social mobility.

The merit of the graduate tax is that it does not seem like a debt. In reality of course, it is identical to tuition fees. Both are paid automatically from your wages when you are earning above a certain level. The majority of students are financially better off under tuition fees, but this does not equate to a fair system and does not protect higher education in the long run.

Our higher education establishments require more money to survive and it seems fair that those students who gain the largest financial reward from their studies should pay the most back. Those vocations which require highly trained staff but will never be able to pay wages that reward that educational investment – librarians being an apt example – could be protected. A graduate tax could also enable a level of social engineering by rewarding ‘worthy’ careers – such as teaching or nursing (currently totally subsidised) – by applying a lower rate until their earnings pass a suitable salary mark. The previous government’s suggestion that degrees should be tailored to the market ignored this argument entirely. It seems to me that education should be more than just supplying business with fresh meat as it were. They also have a role to protect Britain’s cultural and intellectual traditions, not just creating legions of lawyers and brokers.

The graduate tax is not without its critics. It has been suggested that it would lead to a ‘brain drain’ as British students will work abroad once qualified to avoid repayment; most students will end up paying significantly more towards their education; and universities will lose direct control of the finances that tuition fees currently deliver to them. The brain drain argument is weak. Britain is an importer of graduates and has been happy to strip the developing world of skilled workers for 50 years. It seems unlikely that the highly paid graduate will abandon the UK on the basis of several thousand pounds repaid over a lifetime of earnings. As already argued, it seems fair that the more a graduate is rewarded on the basis of their qualifications, the more they should pay back to safeguard the future of higher education. The last criticism is perhaps the strongest. A graduate tax can only work if the money raised is ring fenced and ploughed back into universities. As with all taxes, there is always the risk that sticky Treasury fingers will divert funds from their original purpose.

The graduate tax should be a deal between graduates, higher education providers and government. Graduates need to recognise that qualifications in the majority of cases will lead to higher wages over their lifetime, but also offer more than just financial reward. Higher education has the potential to open and develop minds as well as providing the potential to add to our intellectual heritage and contribute to our societal well being. Universities will be financially secure, but must prepare students suitably for the workplace. Government must protect funding and apply a graduate tax in a fair manner which recognises worthy and specialised vocations and see that it is applied in a redistributive way.

Should the graduate tax – sorry, contribution – be applied in the way I have suggested, then I would welcome it. It is certainly better than ever increasing tuition and proposed top-up fees.  Most importantly, it will change the perception of higher education as a financial gamble and could then perhaps encourage greater social mobility in this country.