The national party has produced a much-needed and interesting video interview in which former Oxford MP Evan Harris talks to Nick Clegg about university funding. I say the video is much-needed because Evan and Nick discuss the issue in some depth, including considering the merits of the system being introduced by the government, and where the Lib Dems as a party go on this issue from here. They’re well worth a watch.
You can watch the videos below (in three parts), or read a transcript HERE.
Advertisement
Impressive interview. Do a lot of people good whether they agree or not with tuition fees.
I have watched the two interviews and my views are thus:
Body language- as soon as tuition fees were mentioned the blinking of Nick Clegg’s eyes suggest discomfort and possibly deceit. Blinking is a natural process where the eyelids wipe the eyes clean, much as a windscreen wiper on a car.
Blink rate tends to increase when people are thinking more or are feeling stressed. This can be an indication of lying as the liar has to keep thinking about what they are saying
The shifting of position, crossing the other leg and looking down to adjust his tie all suggest feelings of guilt and discomfort.
I’ll say no more about body language. I have made my point that the coalition and the government deceived the people and they know it.
As Nick Clegg says at the beginning of the interview, LibDems came third, so we are governed by a body is a coalition of a party that had no overall majority and a party that came third. If we must have a coalition, if we must have electoral reform would it not be fairer to make it law that a coalition must be between the party that won most seats and the party that won the second highest number? Or perhaps fairer, where there is no overall majority, the coalition should be made up of elected MP’s from all parties, proportionate to the number of MP’s each party had elected, perhaps with a minimum to simplify the calculation and prevent a party with only one MP being disproportionately represented?
Nick Clegg (NC) says “I would love to be able to live in a world in which money was no object”. Why are so many MP’s afraid to say we will use the vast wealth owned by a tiny minority to allow the less well off to enjoy free education, free health care, well paid jobs created by the extra spending this redistribution of wealth will produce and perhaps most importantly a feeling of inclusion and fairness the lack of which is currently undermining society?
When the interviewer Evan Harris (EH) says “But of course any policy that funded higher education through taxation would tend to do that through taxation. Whether it be general taxation, a graduate tax which has some problems…” NC responds with “Yes but you’re then calling upon the tax contributions of people who don’t benefit from university to cross subsidise those who do.” NC either doesn’t understand or believes we are too stupid to understand that we all, university graduates, bin men, labourers, shop workers et al, benefit from universities, whether we attend or not; because the tax we pay to educate our neighbour’s child at university DOES benefits us all, for that child may go on to find a cure for cancer, a real alternative to fossil fuels or become a great philosophical leader of men and bring lasting world peace. Would NC or anybody argue we would not all benefit from such innovation? Should we not all contribute to that possible future we can all enjoy? Or should we make education elitist for those that can afford it and use their skills to benefit the already over-wealthy minority?
NC “but what I’m absolutely resolved to do is to make the argument next month, the month after that, the month after that, talking to people directly on their doorsteps, putting thing through their letter boxes, just patiently, calmly over and over again explaining little facts which at the moment are not getting heard at all” Goebbels would have loved our Nick. Propaganda’s strongest weapon, apart from misrepresenting the facts (and an uneducated audience!) is the repetition of misinformation until it becomes the accepted norm.
When drawn on the subject of wealthy people never having to have a loan because parents will pay the fees up front NC says “and there is your example, which is a specific one and actually doesn’t happen very much, which is in a minority of cases, which is a total lump sum up-front.” NC’s “which is in a minority of cases” is actually a majority of WEALTHY cases. It is ridiculous to say most people won’t pay up front, when in fact most poor people won’t pay up front (in fact most poor people won’t pay at all because they CANNOT AFFORD TO GO TO UNIVERSITY!) but most wealthy people will because they can afford to!
When NC says you cannot have a law making people have a loan rather than pay a lump sum and avoid interest, I have to say yes you can. I don’t say it would be fair, but parliament, if it saw fit could enact such a law. One could make up front fees liable to a tax greater than or equal to interest that would be paid on student loans. The problem with a law like this is the interest the wealthy would pay by this method would be a drop in the ocean compared to their wealth, and I guarantee they would find a tax loop-hole to avoid or offset the interest paid or tax liabilities. So rather than being impossible, such a law would be impotent and NC and the government know this because they also know how unfair the tax laws in this country are, being biased, as are most laws, toward the wealthy!
I now have some general comments to make regarding the interview and the question of education.
Before watching the interview, I had little knowledge of Evan Harris, apart from his being a member of the LibDem party. He seems, from the interview to be misplaced in his political alignment. He has the makings of an excellent socialist! Unfortunately because this was an interview of a (default) LibDem deputy prime minister by an ex-LibDem MP I have to question the validity of the interview. How many of the questions were pre-arranged? How many of the answers were, therefore researched and pre-written?
That aside, I have to say the whole idea of education as a commodity (this is what fees, upfront or otherwise means) is an anathema. Education if you can afford it. I qualify this statement thus; I am 53 years old; I have been out of work for some time. In 2008, aged 51 I decided to re-educate, because despite being a time-served moulding technician I was, to all intents and purposes unemployable. Even as a machine minder or labourer! So I began a part time course, two evenings a week to attain an HNC in Applied IT. Even this prompted the benefits agency to question my right to jobseekers allowance, notwithstanding I was still actively seeking work.
So I passed my HNC and enrolled on the HND top-up with a view to going on to study for a degree. This, of course would be a full time course. I am no longer considering this. Because, by the time I completed a foundation degree, I would be 55/56. A masters, probably approaching 60. At that age I cannot be, considering my other debts be taking on more. So thanks, Dave and Nick.
And thanks to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for continuing the disastrous policies of the previous Tory administration.
Finally, thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who set the ball rolling.
Now to the EMA. My son refused to stay at school for higher education. I convinced him to go on to college, where he obtained an NVQ level 3 in mechanics. Without the EMA he would have left school without any qualifications.
Tell me, honestly that loans and fees are educating the poor. Tell me honestly that this is not a deliberate attempt to keep the ‘great unwashed’ ignorant.
This is not just about education. This is about the restructuring and eventual dismantling of everything the less well off rely on- the welfare state.
I could write reams on the subject. But I will restrict myself to quoting this-
“The welfare of each is bound up in the welfare of all.”
Helen Keller
Pingback: University funding: Full length interview with Nick Clegg
Pingback: LDVideo: Clegg and Huppert on phone-hacking