The current knock about in the press on public spending provides a good spectator sport for political pundits, particularly ahead of a guaranteed general election within the next 12 months. But for those of us with a vested interest in where the cuts will fall, these are worrying times, not least for the students I represent.
The expansion of higher education during the past decade is one of this government’s greatest achievements. While the 50% target for widening participation amongst young people has been derided by some critics as a crude instrument, or a figure plucked out of thin air, it has ensured that those with the ability to succeed have been offered the opportunity. While participation currently sits at around 43%, this must not be the ceiling of Britain’s ambitions for higher learning. It’s certainly not the ceiling of the ambitions of the record numbers of applicants applying to enter university this autumn.
This is why the state of the main parties’ policies on funding and expansion gives rise to real concerns for NUS. This weekend, Vince Cable again reiterated the Liberal Democrats’ policy position. They would abolish tuition fees, but at the cost of the number of places available. At their recent spring conference in Harrogate they explained that the funding shortfall would also need to be plugged by abolishing the Child Trust Fund and some tax credits. I wonder if students would be so keen to vote Liberal Democrat at the next election if they could see the sword of Damacles hanging above their heads, or those of their peers? Free participation for wealthy social elites is not a price worth paying at the expense of the poor; that approach is consigned to the history books and should remain so.
Similarly when the Conservatives talk about 10% cuts across the board, how many student places would face the axe? I agree with those commentators who argue that we need a more grown up debate about tax and spending in the current fiscal climate, but when a 10% cut to university funding could easily translate to 32,000 fewer students we have a right to demand more detail.
Student numbers pre-occupy my thinking, because if participation falls, the first to lose out would be those from the most under-represented backgrounds. That’s why NUS has published our own alternative proposals for funding universities that would avoid cuts in numbers.
It’s why we are also calling on the Labour government to look again at funding an urgent expansion in student numbers. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) reveals that demand for places this autumn is likely to exceed places. More than 20,000 applicants could find themselves without a place. We know that funding places isn’t cheap, but it is surely better than paying the short and long-term price of rising unemployment.
While there are some within the Labour movement who still question the wisdom of Labour’s 50% target, expansion remains an economic necessity and a social good. While we continue to argue with Labour ministers about how we do it, I regret that opposition parties continue to doubt that we should. Taxing the poor to fund universities? Cutting student numbers in the face of record demand? These are the real dividing lines at the next general election and why Labour needs to win the argument.