UK Student Fees & Resistance
(Dec. 9) – Today, the House of Commons (the first (and only democratic) chamber of the UK Parliament) voted in support of two Bills that will see both significant rises in tuition fees for students wishing to undertake higher education and severe cuts to current levels of funding in education. Once implemented, universities will be entitled to charge students up to £9,000 a year. Whether they want to or not, this is something they will likely have to do in light of the impending cuts to current funding levels.
Sounds of relief from the Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition Government engulfed the House of Commons. 323 Ministers of Parliament voted in favour of the Bills and 302 against – giving the Government a majority of 21. In January 2004, when the Labour Government put forward a Bill increasing university tuition fees from £1,000 to £3,000 they also won, but narrowly – scraping through with a majority of five. Needless to say, therefore, today’s result is being celebrated as a success for the Coalition Government.
Media focus is on how Nick Clegg (leader of the Liberal Democrat Party and Deputy Prime Minister) was able to “reign in” his fellow party members who had wished to oppose the Bills. The reigning in has been reported essential to Nick Clegg’s political career - a personal victory saving him from political embarrassment. A simple reminder of his party’s pre-election manifesto (in which they promised to phase out tuition fees over six years, while setting up a national bursary scheme to support "strategic subjects" and students in financial hardship and to ring fence funding in the sciences (whilst saying nothing about decreasing funding in the humanities)) is, of course, the real embarrassment. Students from the Queen Mary’s College, University of London had bought a giant carrot on a stick – alluding to Nick Clegg’s u-turn. Leader of the opposition party, Ed Milliband commented on today being a sad day for democracy. Indeed, not only did the Liberal Democrats go back on an election pledge, but the party political “whip” system ensured that Ministers of Parliament that would otherwise have voted against the Bills, voted for it for fear of loosing their ability to represent their party at the next election.
In Parliamentary debates today, Nick Clegg asked students to consider the proposals in detail. He suggested that many of the protestors would be in a better position under the new proposals. This contention is ridiculous. The Institution of Fiscal Studies (IFS) noted that the Bill relating to funding, which will lead to the establishment of a National Scholarship fund (for least well off students), in fact provides a financial incentive for universities charging over £6,000 a year to turn away students from poorer backgrounds. Under reforms, the taxpayer would pay 12 months of fees for deprived students taking a degree course, while top universities charging more than £6,000 would pay for another free year. This is something they’re given no incentive to do. This is one of a number of "perverse incentives" the IFS has found in the more complex and less transparent scheme finally settled on by the Government.
The cuts disproportionately reduce funding for arts and humanities subjects. The sciences are deemed crucial for economic growth and necessary in the market and so saved. Colourful banners were on display at today’s protest. Many reading “Don’t Kill Culture”. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) Union attended the protest in solidarity with students and university staff. I attended the protest following an occupation of Birkbeck’s counsel room. The occupation, whilst only lasting for 24 hours, was incredibly inspirational. Solidarity was built amongst students and lecturers. We intend to continue to fight the austerity measures and look forward to building coalitions with other students and workers. http://openbirkbeck.wordpress.com/
The protest itself was not a positive experience. Once again, the police used the strategy of ‘kettling’ – blocking a group of protestors in an area whilst refusing to let others in. This created much confusion and fear. No one wants to be caught in an area for an unknown period of time on a, literally, freezing day. The strategy ensured protestors who were not caught within a kettle, disbanded out of fear of being trapped or formed smaller groups of protestors. These smaller groups were subject to similar kettling strategies leading to the further disbursement of protestors. The police have used this strategy before. They have used it effectively. I felt the frustration at not being able to march peacefully, and, whilst the majority of the protestors were peaceful in spite of aggressive strategies (at around 4pm the BBC suggested up to 98 per cent of the protestors were peaceful), a handful became increasingly violent. This, of course, attracted much negative media attention. There was an atmosphere of trepidation from the start with volunteers handing out details of ‘protest solicitors’ and a ‘protestors advice line’. There is justified fear of the police. Police and protestors were harmed today. We need to learn to respond in a way that is creative and does not resort to violence.



Two questions
By Roblin, Stephen at Dec 10, 2010 20:00 PM
This is an important finding. Has the media picked up on it?
Also, how with the National Scholarship fund help more well off students?
Stephen
Reply this comment
Re: Two questions
By Paul, Harpreet at Dec 14, 2010 10:05 AM
Thanks for your questions.
1. Here are some of the only media articles on the IFS' findings:
From these articles, you may note that, originally, their findings were used inaccurately to convey the message that the changes would lead to better protect those from least well off backgrounds - this was subsequently rectified.
2. The National Scholarship Fund will be set up for those from least well off backgrounds. It will pay up to £6000 in fees per year for these students. For a three year course this would total £18,000. However, the most renowned universities are likely to charge the full amount they are entitled to (up to £9000 or £27,000 for a three year course).
It is not clear why top universities would accept students from least well off backgrounds if they could only pay (through the National Scholarship Fund) a faction of the total course fees . As such, they will have no incentive to take on students from poorer backgrounds. If the student will be personally responsible for paying the difference, they may be inclined not to apply to the top universities. In fact, whether students are entitled to the National Scholarship Fund or not, the significantly higher debt they would get into from going to a university charging up to £9000 per year may dissuade many students from less well off backgrounds and even middle class backgrounds from applying to the very best universities.
This may be something that is common in the States. My experience in the UK had been a very different one. I applied to universities in 2002 - the fees were capped at just over £1,000 per year. When deciding which universities to apply to, their fees did not come into the equation. I was not put off applying to Cambridge, Warwick, King's or LSE due to their fees. The fees at these universities were the same as lesser well renowned universities. There were other issues with obtaining a place at these universities (in that the State school intake at some of them was relatively low), but fees did not constitute the issue. I imagine that for those students looking to start university in 2012 - the fees universities charge will influence and perhaps even dictate where they decide to apply.
Harpreet
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Two questions
By Roblin, Stephen at Dec 14, 2010 14:43 PM
Reply this comment
Three Right Wing Parties
By Andrews, John at Dec 10, 2010 13:58 PM
Thanks for your great articles on Z.
The misleadingly titled Labour Party released the Genie when they allowed tuition fees to be set at £3,200 some years back. It is rich of them now to complain when Thatcher's second generation heirs (Blair and Brown were the first generation) treble the fee. As in the US, there is now only an electoral choice between a left leaning right wing party and a right leaning right wing party with the main players swapping roles with ease.
Don't be too harsh on those that resort to violence. Yes, I know that some people attend with mindless destruction foremost in their minds but others become violent as a result of the aggression of the riot police. They are quick to wield their battens and shields and to drive their horses into crowds irrespective of who is in the crowd. It is difficult to keep your cool when you are charged, at speed, by several large horses with psychopaths on board.
Best wishes
John Andrews
Reply this comment
Re: Three Right Wing Parties
By Paul, Harpreet at Dec 10, 2010 15:22 PM
I completely agree with your sentiments. I will be attending a vigil today for a student who has undertook brain surgery having been hit on the head when trying to get out of a kettle on Westminster Bridge. My friends had been trying to get out of Parliament square as they saw the police begin to engage in a kettling strategy. They decided to head further south to Westminster Bridge where they were trapped in another kettle (in freezing temperatures until midnight). When one of them tried to get out, they were hit violently. Although he was then allowed to leave the kettle, none of my other friends were allowed to join him. Luckily, his mother, who is a lecturer at Roehampton University and who also attended the protest, found him and took him to hospital.
I feel all too fortunate that I and some others decided to stay further back near St James' Park. Those that tried to head to Victoria were stampeded by police on horseback.
It was not a good day. Many protestors felt completely disempowered. Almost all that attended wanted to attend a peaceful protest. The police are saying that they never agreed for students to be able to access Parliament square and this is why they used harsh strategies. Their reaction to the students' (wholly predicable) desire to head to Parliament square was completely over-the-top, however.
I was aware of a group of people that spoke of their intention to get arrested the day before the protest. It is to this group my frustrations as regards violent tactics turn - not to the 98-99% that were there to engage in a peaceful protest and exericise their freedom of association and expression.
Thanks again for your kind words.
Best wishes,
Harpreet
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Three Right Wing Parties
By Garrigues, Chris at Dec 10, 2010 18:47 PM
That being said, it is too risky to refrain from exploring violence as a 'tactic' - even if only in theory or study - especially considering that the "spectrum" of what is considered violence is itself debateable. Sabotage vs "terror" vs guerilla conflict vs warfare, let alone self-defense, property destruction, and economic violence, don't even begin to account for the complexities and nuances of the debate. Further, we have to consider that the State, movement professionals, and other interests, have largely whitewashed the conversation with idolizations of Gandhi, King and a few others - leaving out the enormous contributions of those who may have not been so savory in their tactical choices. Of course, we can't overestimate either side in isolation.
In regards to UK students. I was a grad student in London a few years ago paying the non-EU tuition rate, which even then was larger (~12000 pounds) than what the domestic fee increase has arrived at not to mention the 2:1 exchange rate at the time. This coupled with 1-year living expenses essentially doubled my student loan debt after a mere 12 months. Although the most invigorating and worthwhile period in my life so far, it is also one of the most financially regrettable. I have made few serious life decisions since that did not incorporate my debt obligations - where to live, jobs to consider and accept, other debt to take on. That is my experience on the matter and which group I would have marched with in London is not clear in my head: theory vs practice is sometimes inconsistent and impatient!
Reply this comment
Increases and Cuts
By Phillips, Blair M. at Dec 10, 2010 05:17 AM
Raise Corporate taxation to 1970 levels and cut personal taxes as well. Get Corporations "out of" Universities and take away their right to "personhood". Their not people!
Great article Ms. Paul!
Reply this comment
Re: Increases and Cuts
By Paul, Harpreet at Dec 10, 2010 15:25 PM
I completely agree. In fact, the statement that was released by Birkbeck students following an occupation of the Counsel Room made such demands! http://openbirkbeck.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/statement-from-open-birkbeck/
Best wishes,
Harpreet
Reply this comment