Photo of the Day: Burnham in NHS Policy Shock

Andy Burnham, a candidate for the Labour leadership, has revealed a shocking new policy;

I didn't see that coming!

JR

Myth-busting Graduate Tax

So Vince, you want a graduate tax. Great! NUS also want a graduate tax. Million+ and the Universities Alliance agree too.

So what's the problem? Myths are flying around about how a graduate tax is doomed to fail, not least by the Russell Group (who represent a number of research intensive institutions). NUS have attempted to bust these myths by explaining a few things;

Six “Big Myths” about Graduate Tax.

Since Vince Cable’s announcement on Graduate tax, a whole host of distortions have been released designed to scare off those who want to see a more progressive system. Below we reproduce our favourite six of the graduate tax lies.

1. Most graduates would pay much more than they do now.
 This is nonsense. In the NUS proposal, earners in the lowest quintile would overall pay less than £500, those in the next quintile about half than now, and those in the middle quintile roughly the same as now- it’s only those who really benefit that would pay more. A graduate tax has also been described as “the student loan you never pay off”. This is also nonsense- in the NUS model there’s a 25 year limit and an overall maximum amount to ensure fairness.

2. The money would go to the state.
People would be right to worry about the money going to the Treasury- but that doesn’t mean the only other option is fees going to individual universities. In the NUS model, money collected would flow into a trust controlled by the higher education sector, which is legally independent of government and accountable to Parliament. This ensures hypothecation of resources to the higher education sector at a high level and ensures that overall control and shared responsibility lies within the sector.

3. Don’t we already have a form of graduate tax?
It’s true that the current system of fees and loans is paid back by graduates through the tax system- but “rebranding” the flawed system won’t fool anyone. The problems of a market in prices and prestige would remain- and as Vince says, “it can’t be fair that a teacher or care worker or research scientist is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon or City analyst whose graduate premium is so much bigger”.

4. It would starve universities of the money they need now because the returns come in down the line.
Vince Cable described this problem as “soluble”. He’s right. In our model the Higher Education trust would be empowered to issue bonds on the market, or to other investors, set against future revenues. It would also be empowered to operate an ‘opt-out’ scheme whereby the graduate contribution is waived where a student agrees to pay the ‘maximum’ amount to the trust in advance. These devices allow the money from graduate contributions to be ‘brought forward’, mitigating the risk of a gap in resources for institutions.

5. This is a huge threat to university autonomy who should receive the fees or contributions from their own graduates.
We prize academic freedom and autonomy in the UK, but to conflate these concepts with the student contribution system is dangerous and disingenuous. NUS wants to see a system where research is properly funded and excellence recognised, but that won’t be delivered through a market in prestige where the rich institutions get richer and vice versa.

6. A pure market in fees will make Universities more efficient and drive down prices.
There is no evidence from any other country that a market in Higher Education would work this way- and in fact most other countries’ evidence points to the opposite. The average annual tuition fee at a private university in the US currently stands at $26,273. That’s just tuition- before we add in books, living expenses etc. There is also no evidence at all that the “market” improves quality or that there is any link between the quality of teaching and the price paid. For a detailed look at the role of the “market” in HE, see http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/3115/Brokeandbroken.pdf

What a “real” graduate tax would look like.
Following Vince Cable’s comments on a proposed “Graduate Tax” in July, a debate has emerged about what a “Graduate Tax” or “Graduate Contribution” scheme might look like. Some voices would like to see a mere ‘rebranding’ of the existing fee/loan regime; others want more developed structures including much more use of the private sector in providing student finance.

A truly progressive graduate contribution must meet, in our view, five tests. No system that lacks any of these five features can properly claim to be progressive, and may well represent a more basic reform of, or simply a new representation of, the current system.

As the body that first introduced the notion of a ‘progressive graduate contribution’ into the debate alongside a clear and fully costed proposal for how it could be put into practice, we thought it would be worthwhile to issue a statement defining the key characteristics of such as system.

The ‘five tests’:
1. End the market in course or university prices- it puts students off
There should be no ‘sticker price’ variation between institutions or courses, and direct price variation should be actively barred within the system. This ensures that students choose courses for the right reasons and ensures equality of opportunity at the point of use.

2. Ensure that graduates on low pay don’t pay; and set a maximum for high earners
There should be a lower threshold of earnings below which no payments are collected, balanced by an overall, single maximum amount that any person can pay in total. This ensures fair and proportionate treatment for both low and high earning graduates.

3. Only charge students a percentage of their earnings for a fixed period- it’s progressive
Payment should be made at a fixed percentage of earnings above a threshold¹ for a fixed period. This ensures simplicity for users and also ensures that graduates with sustained high earnings pay the most overall, while those with sustained low earnings pay very little.

4. Don’t given the money to the state- ringfence it in a trust
Money collected should flow into a trust or other body that is controlled by the higher education sector, which is legally independent of government and accountable to Parliament. The trust or other body should itself determine the rules for distributing its funds to institutions. This ensures hypothecation of resources to the higher education sector at a high level² and ensures that overall control and shared responsibility lies within the sector.

5. Issue bonds to ensure that universities get the cash they need now
The trust or other body should be empowered to issue bonds on the market, or to other investors, set against future revenues³. It should be empowered to operate an ‘opt-out’ scheme whereby the graduate contribution is waived where a student agrees to pay the ‘maximum’ amount to the trust in advance. These devices allow the money from graduate contributions to be ‘brought forward’, mitigating the risk of a gap in resources for institutions.

Notes:
1. That is, above a threshold as per point 3; i.e. the contribution rate itself is fixed but the contribution as a proportion of all earnings is variable.

2. There is considerable suspicion about hypothecation of resources within the sector, and we recognise that hypothecation can never be guaranteed absolutely, as even structures set out in statute law may be changed. The structure we propose would be no more or less hypothecated than the resource flows involved in the BBC or the Child Support Agency.

3. The ideal investors in such a bond would be pension schemes in either the private or public sector (these schemes require investments that are long-term, stable and secure, with predictable resource flows, over and above large returns). This raises interesting possibilities for ‘inter-generational equity’ between graduates and pensioners.

We wait the outcome of the Browne review, but surely the graduate tax model will be the winning option!

JR

Saudi to Impose BlackBerry Ban

Saudi Arabia are to restrict the use of BlackBerry Messenger from this Friday. The ban will remain in force until the country's mobile phone operators "fulfil the regulatory requirements it has requested", although the authorities haven't said what these requirements are. This comes as the United Arab Emirates also threatened to block some BlackBerry services on Sunday.

The two states are unhappy that they are unable to monitor communications over the BBM service as data is automatically sent via an encrypted connection to Research in Motion's (RIM) servers outside the countries' jurisdictions. RIM are the manufacturer of the Blackberry smartphone.

Lets hope the UK government don't follow suit; they'll find all the rubbish that I send very boring indeed!

JR

Speed Kills, But Are Speed Cameras Dead?

The government have announced that they will not fund any new speed cameras. They want local authorities to divert funding to more educational ways of getting drivers to slow down.

My opinion is that speed itself isn't the problem, but the misuse of speed. Most divers have got up to 80mph on the motorway in dry conditions with good visibility; this is accepted by most to be comparatively safe. Obviously such a speed on a single carriageway A-road would be unsafe in almost all situations, but collisions don't usually happen in a straight line. Crashes generally occur when a vehicle takes a corner too fast, or attempts an overtake unsafely; so again it isn't the speed, but the misuse of speed.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that drivers shouldn't obey the speed limit, but the speed limit in itself is not the answer. I'd rather see more education for drivers to drive to the conditions of the road, and not punitive measures such as speed cameras automatically issuing points and fines.

JR