Just what the doctor ordered

Protestors outside the Department of Health
Image credits: 38 Degrees

During a recent homecoming, former Health Secretary and Exeter Alumnus Andrew Lansley spoke to James Roberts, Features Editor, about the Guild, government and a picture of his brain 

Andrew Lansley is the former Health Secretary, who prescribed harsh treatment for the NHS and was duly struck off. After just over a year shrouded in the relative safety of a minor Cabinet position, Lansley’s name still inspires unrelenting rage in fogeyish surgeons and militant revolutionaries alike. As we sit in the Amory building awaiting his arrival, it’s clear from the hastily printed A4 flyers being thrust under the audience’s noses that many on campus have not forgotten the man that tried to ‘privatise the NHS’.

Despite the obvious pockets of ire, it’s immediately clear that he feels back on home turf at Exeter. “It has changed a lot since the late 1970s,” he observes, “but it’s nice to be back”. Lansley hasn’t visited as much as some of our other prominent alumni, but Exeter remains his political birthplace.  “I was elected Guild President and won by 12 votes,” he recalls with a wistful air, “I won mainly because of a lack of appropriate candidates”.  Perhaps less has changed than he might imagine. Indeed, in his time at Exeter, he may have had much in common with those currently stuffing Amory with anti-government WordArt. “I remember a sit-in protest that we did at Northcote House – I slept under the Vice-Chancellor’s desk,” Lansley chuckles. It might be only fitting then that the rebellious Guild President turned Conservative Health Secretary is given a taste of his own medicine.

Outside of his political activism, Lansley suggests he didn’t particularly shine as an undergraduate. “I was lucky to get in,” Lansley explains, “I didn’t get the grades but I got in anyway. I got C, D and E at A-Level, but (Professor of Political Theory then and now) Iain Hampshire Monk interviewed me and I got a place”. In spite of this, Lansley can’t help admitting that “political theory wasn’t so important, but my degree did teach me some good stuff about government and politics”. His degree did just that, taking Lansley all the way up the Civil Service food chain before his switch into politics. For many, it is his extensive time working behind the scenes which has given Lansley the eye for detail which has thrust him forward in frontline politics.

As a senior government bureaucrat, he decided to jump ship to work for the Conservative Party. “I was a civil servant,” he recounts, referencing revered political sitcom Yes Minister, “and I had to decide whether I wanted to be Sir Humphrey or Jim Hacker, and I wanted to be on the pitch playing the game rather than watching it from the stands”. Starting his new career playing political football, Lansley emerged from the tunnel to find himself facing the biggest match of his career, in the 1992 General Election. The stunning and undoubtedly unexpected Conservative victory rewarded Lansley with a place on the Tory A-list, a CBE and a minor stroke. “I was given a picture of my brain,” Lansley exclaims with alarming glee, “having pictures of your body parts is one of the weird parts of being a politician”.

While working for the Conservatives, Lansley remembers a young David Cameron working for him in his research department. Is it strange now to think that Cameron has asked Lansley to serve under him? “I can’t have been a bad boss then,” Lansley jests, with an almost uncomfortable chuckle. One cannot help but wonder if this extraordinary role reversal occurred to Lansley when Cameron replaced him with a new Health Secretary in late 2012.

Image credits: NHSE

Lansley’s time as Health Secretary has defined his place British politics. While Labour was in office, he spent six years shadowing the job yet lasted only two contentious years in government. “Politicians should do their jobs for a while and it makes sense for a shadow to do that job before they take it on in government,” he explains, at the same time noting of his own departure that “the ideas that one person could stay on as the Conservative health spokesman for a decade or more is ridiculous”. As the subject of scattered personal attacks, including the ‘Andrew Lansley rap’ and a relentless heckling from an elderly woman outside of Downing Street, hatred for the former Health Secretary has gone viral. Somewhat exasperatedly, he asserts that, “every Health Secretary has wanted to do what the same thing that I did”. His face slowly reddening, voice breaking into frustrated incredulity, he continues, “it is extremely irritating. Other Health Secretaries don’t get the ‘selling the NHS’ nonsense. If I’d done what other Health Secretaries have done, they’d be burning effigies of me!” Though Lansley has considerable knowledge of the symptoms and believes his reforms were exactly what the doctor ordered, the prognosis from the public was not positive.

As the only Permanent Secretary in the Civil Service to become a Cabinet Minister, and with the conscientious approach to match, does he resent his vilification in the media? “You have to be resilient,” he insists, “when you’re sitting round the Cabinet table, everyone has had this kind of attack. It’s not a matter of if, but when”. Unsurprisingly then, Lansley, himself going from Guild to government, is full of discouragement regarding a career in politics, warning simply, “Don’t do it. People go into politics for the celebrity aspect now, but people are used to having a go at celebrities”. While he’s no celebrity, Lansley has become regrettably accustomed to the chores of unending media attention and varying degrees of public venom, despite what we have found to be a decent, considered and mild manner. “Do politics because you believe in it, because you have the political virus,” the former Health Secretary pleads, “politics is not about self-interest, it’s about having inspirational ideas to try and make things better”. Lansley certainly understands those things better than most. For him, his attempted NHS reforms seem to be the culmination of a career founded in radicalism and guided by meticulous public service. Perhaps then, when our next Health Secretary is inevitably accused to trying to ‘sell off the NHS’, spare a thought for the former Health Secretary that was dead on arrival.

James Roberts, Features Editor

Find Exeposé Features on Facebook and Twitter.

US Government Whatdown?

Democrats and Republicans are fighting each other here on Capitol Hill…
Image credits: whisky21178

Confused about the Americans? Wondering what their government is playing at? Don’t fear, Online Features Editor Imogen Watson is here!

If you have ever watched The West Wing, you might remember the don’t-mess-with-me way in which President Bartlet stares down the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives and denies his last-minute blindsiding demand for a budget decrease of three per cent, instead of the previously agreed one per cent. Without agreeing to it, he will be responsible, he is warned, for shutting down the federal government. “Then shut it down,” responds President Bartlet, and the lights shut off, one by one, to black. If you never have, just imagine it. Trust me, it’s cool.

Jump forward to 2013, and I like to imagine that in the current situation such a cutting response occurred in Washington, D.C as Republican and Democratic congressmen locked horns over the government budget and the federal government closed its doors, furloughing thousands of employees in the process, unpaid. But although it may be a fascinating story for politics students and interested members of the wider public as another one of those quirks in the American system of government, the reality is that it is the catalyst for a great number of problems and represents  a fundamental rupture between two sets of elected politicians.

As all governments do, the central government of the United States has to pass a budget to be able to run the country and pay its bills, including the debt and interest that it owes. This Act of Congress is the responsibility of the House of Representatives, and allows for the raising of the government debt ceiling. The Senate is supposed to debate it, but as a key part of the running of government, ultimately agree to it so the President can sign it into law.  This is where the current problem lies; between a Republican House of Representatives, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House, this essential bill has not yet been agreed.

For further explanation on the often-bizarre way in which the Americans do politics, allow me to return to another of Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing explanations. Imagine that the government has “maxed out the national credit card,” and to rectify it they have “a quick vote to raise the limit on the credit card”. Such a vote is usually held close to the deadline so that no member of Congress will attempt to attach a controversial amendment, which would cause other congressmen to vote against it and sink the budget, therefore causing something akin to “the immediate collapse of the US economy, followed by Japan sinking into the sea, followed by a worldwide depression the likes of which no mortal can imagine, followed by week two,” as Sorkin so reassuringly puts it.

Over one of these controversial amendments is exactly how the fallout has occurred, as congressional Republicans – who are not generally fans of President Obama’s healthcare reforms – have refused and continue to refuse to pass a bill without some form of defunding or dismantling of what they believe to be overly-socialist healthcare legislation and impingements on the freedoms of American citizens. Because Democrats and Republicans could not agree, as the 30September budget deadline passed, the government closed its doors.

It is not a great spectator sport either for the millions of government employees sent home without wages. Most of 400,000 Pentagon employees – mainly workers for the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense – have now been brought back to work and promised back-pay for their unforeseen time off, but they are presently the minority.

National parks, monuments and Smithsonian museums are closed, tours of the United States Capitol building cancelled, and the Lincoln Memorial cordoned off. National food programs aiding malnourished and poor pregnant women and new mothers are closed and state-run supplies are estimated to last a week; public health services, including the national influenza vaccination program, are shut; international travellers have been warned to expect severe delays through immigration – as if the wait were not already long enough.

And the Democrats here in the White House.
Image credits: Tom Lohdan

Week one of shutdown has not yet seen quite the aforementioned dramatic tales that Sorkin foretold, but the situation is not even gradually improving. Republicans and Democrats in Congress persist in arguing between themselves and with the Democrats in the White House; it is quite something when the leaders of the free world are reduced to that which resembles a playground scrap. Whilst the “he said, she said”  continues, the deadline of the 17 October to resolve the crisis looms, leering at lawmakers, at which point the United States of America defaults on its loans.

Everything would be funny if it were not so serious. Whilst the current shutdown of services is not ideal, a US default on its debt would be worse. As the world’s biggest economy and as the beginnings of global economic upturn are starting to appear, the last thing we need is for the USA to not be able to pay its interest and debt and see us all tumble back into financial despair. The Treasury echoes such comments, and in the meantime the Labor Department will not be releasing its September report on jobs, leaving businesses guesstimating what it might have said, and how best to react.

If the inconveniences were not sufficient, every additional day that it takes the legislature to reach a fair deal is a strain on international affairs: Obama has already cancelled a trip to Asia, including an economic summit, with the White House citing it a “consequence of the House Republicans forcing a shutdown of the government”, and referring to the “difficulty in moving forward with foreign travel in the face of a shutdown”. Japan and China have both spoken up urging the US to make a speedy agreement, with China’s vice-Finance Minister saying they were “naturally concerned about developments in the US fiscal cliff”.

It is a mark of how much the American right-wing despises Obamacare that they would risk a shutdown, the likes of which have not been seen for seventeen years, over it. Clinging gladly to the NHS (despite its problems), British perspective is difficult to reconcile with American concerns; it is irresponsible for a group of elected representatives – supposedly experts in the political field – to fight over a healthcare act widening access to health insurance, which was thoroughly debated and passed in 2010 and subsequently ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2012, resulting in a hijack of the ability of a government to actually govern. Whilst many congressional Republicans scream, Obamacare currently appears somewhat vindicated. Despite some start-up glitches, more than seven million people attempted to log into the new healthcare system online during its first three days of service.

For now, the end does not appear in sight and it is doing no one any favours, not least the politicians involved in the mess. Whilst the people they serve suffer the consequences of shutdown, they suffer the consequences of causing it as blame is apportioned to everyone to a greater or lesser extent. With the only solution being through Congress and President Obama able to use only his influence among the power games (Treasury Secretary Jack Lews has explained that, “There is no option that prevents us from being in default if we don’t have enough cash to pay our bills,”), with the tennis ball being thrown from one party’s court to the other’s and half-hearted attempts at stopgap measures to reach a deal, it looks like we are all going to have to hang on just a bit longer.

Imogen Watson, Online Features Editor

Features Exclusive: Interview With Ben Bradshaw MP

Image credits: Niklas Rahmel

During the summer, Exeposé Online Features’ Editors Meg Lawrence and Imogen Watson video-interviewed Exeter’s Labour MP Ben Bradshaw in his office in Parliament (with a little technical help from XTV). Here, he tells Meg Lawrence what he thinks about students, schools, streetlights and much more.

You can watch the video interview at the bottom of the page.

Friendly, down-to-earth, well-humoured and approachable, Ben Bradshaw is not your stereotypical MP. Relatively unmoved by the trappings of power and privilege the politician, who has represented his Devon seat since 1997, is as proud of his political achievements as he is of his city.

Away from the West Country, Bradshaw’s Westminster office is also relaxed. His young team are chatty and enthusiastic, and clearly share their boss’s political vision.

That vision is a healthy mix of political ambition and a desire to improve the life of his constituents but it is tinged by the frustration that is an obvious hangover of opposition politics. Higher Education, he fears, is a typical casualty of a government that has forgotten to look out for young people.

‘In a global economy it’s going to be increasingly important in my view that people are qualified up to degree level. We saw a big expansion in higher education under the Labour government, I worry that this has stalled under this government,’ he admits. ‘It is becoming increasingly more difficult for people not least to be able to afford [higher education].’

Bradshaw still stands by Labour’s aim to get fifty per cent of young people in higher education.  ‘If we’re to compete in the modern world in the future, in a globalised economy, we can either compete on the basis of low wages and low income… or on the basis of our knowledge and our skills,’ he says.

Bradshaw is against the recent increase in tuition fees and believes the Liberal Democrats have betrayed young people in a ‘direct deceit of the electorate’. He adds: ‘The Liberal Democrats made a clear pledge at the last election- you may remember Nick Clegg travelled around the country with his Liberal Democrat MPs holding up placards saying we will abolish tuition fees, and one of the first things the coalition did when they got into office was treble tuition fees.’

Given the chance of being in government, Bradshaw insists he would campaign to reduce tuition fees –  although he doesn’t think it will ever return to being as low as £3,000 a year.

Image credits: Niklas Rahmel.

‘The current Labour policy is to reduce fees to £6,000 as an initial step, but I think we need to look at much more imaginative ways to make the funding of higher education fairer. We also need to address very urgently the trend we’ve seen in the last few years of people from middle and lower income families being put off going into higher education because of fears of getting into debt.’

Bradshaw believes it is a ‘terrible tragedy’  that people are put off going to university for fear of getting into debt and although this hasn’t been apparent in his home constituency, many universities are struggling to fill courses with a 6.6% drop in applicants to university nationwide.

But Bradshaw warns that universities like Exeter cannot afford to be complacent. ‘Exeter University has done a great job under its current Vice Chancellor [Steve Smith] over recent years in terms of expanding access. It has spent a lot of money on bursaries for students, and has also encouraged more people from the local area to go to university, but we absolutely do have to keep an eye on this, because it’s always going to be tempting for universities when they’re cash-strapped, to focus on those students who they feel will bring in the most cash.’

With its high entry levels and expensive rents, Exeter has a reputation for being a middle class student magnet but Bradshaw believes the situation is improving. He says: ‘Certainly in the years that I’ve been a Member of Parliament, I’ve seen a big change in the mix of the student body, and certainly at the Freshers’ Fair every year when I go up. You still get quite a strong contingent of young people from wealthy dependent schools but there’s also a much bigger cross-section, and also a much more international student body given the success that Exeter has had in attracting overseas students which again has helped it perform as a university, raised money and boosted the local economy.’ Those within the University seem to share Bradshaw’s opinion that opportunities are becoming more equally accessible. Hannah Barton, the Students’ Guild President, commented: ‘Is vital that universities continue to work towards equitable access to higher education for state school pupils. We have the Office of Fair Access that helps students from all backgrounds to access higher education, and there are targets set by HESA that help to incentivise this work.’

Attracting international students is no easy task given that they could end up paying as much as £35,000 for a year of study, in comparison with the £9,000 that British students now pay. But that, Bradshaw believes, is why they are so attractive as a source of income.

Bradshaw adds: ‘If you’re in a situation like Exeter University where you’re wanting to ensure that British youngsters who have got the talent and ability can go to university and not worry about the cost, and you want to provide bursaries and support for those people, and at the same time you’re facing government cuts, one of the ways that you can raise income is with foreign students, and don’t forget a lot of those foreign and overseas students will be coming on bursaries themselves from their home governments.’

Whether a home or international student, a common dilemma for any graduate is the growing prospect of unemployment. Bradshaw outlines the steps necessary to reduce unemployment: ‘The most important thing is to get the economy growing and get a proper industrial strategy in place where we’re investing in those areas – the environmental technologies, the creative industries and so forth, which will provide the well-paid graduate jobs for the future. That’s what the government needs to do.’

The issue of unemployment in recent years has stretched far beyond graduates. Between the months of May and July this year, 960,000 young people aged 16-24 were unemployed, and whilst overall unemployment may be dropping – which the Prime Minister calls ‘encouraging’ –  youth unemployment is on the rise.

‘There’s a particular problem at the moment. The number of young people in long-term unemployment has trebled in the last three years. Many of these people are people who don’t have very good qualifications, they may come from families where there’s a history of unemployment going back generations, and governments need to focus on them and boosting their skills.’

Ironically, it may be these forgotten and often overlooked individuals who will eventually bring about change, Bradshaw believes. ‘Because young people have been bearing the brunt of this government’s austerity policies… there is a renewed interest of young people in politics; wanting to get involved and make a difference.

‘I’ve never bought this idea that young people these days are apathetic or they’re cynical or they’re turned off politics… Certainly whenever I go around schools in Exeter or to the College or the University I find young people not only engaged but actually much better informed and better educated than I think they’ve ever been. Young people don’t always necessarily see a vehicle for their political activism or idealism through political parties; they often feel more comfortable in channeling their energy into charity work or single-issue organizations. I think again that’s a natural progression and a lot of people come to party politics through individual campaigns.’

Online Features Editors Meg Lawrence and Imogen Watson with Ben Bradshaw.
Image credits: Niklas Rahmel.

Exeter’s Students’ Guild President shares Bradshaw’s enthusiasm that young people are involved in politics. She says: ‘I think students are often engaged politically without even knowing it. Although they may not align themselves with a political party or political beliefs, by participating in any of the Guild’s democratic processes they are engaging in some way. I think this should be encouraged and we should continue to raise awareness of this so that students’ voices can be heard as much as possible.’

Certainly, Exeter University students don’t hesitate to be involved in campaigning and political organisation. The SOS (Save Our Streetlights) campaign has empowered students and raised awareness. On the issue, Bradshaw says: ‘I think the Devon County Council… needs to proceed very cautiously on this, and yes the students have run a very effective and I think justified campaign, not the least given some unfortunate incidents on women after dark which have happened on campus and off campus.

‘Good street lighting in areas where students are going to and from late at night is really important, not just for their safety but also for their sense of well-being. To be perfectly honest I cannot see that by switching off streetlights across Exeter that the County Council is going to be saving an awful lot of money, or an awful lot of carbon omissions. I can think of many better ways in which they can do that, so I hope they will listen to the concerns of students in Exeter and also listen to the concerns of Exeter City Council which is very worried about this.’

Ben Bradshaw’s interest in Exeter students is also apparent on a personal level. His internship scheme, open to Exeter students of politics and international relations, gives invaluable experience. He says: ‘I have been very lucky with the people who have come through the office… students have worked with me here in Westminster and also have shadowed me in the office in Exeter, getting an idea about what MPs do and how the political system works. I think they found that a valuable and worthwhile experience, and it’s always nice for me to have young people coming through the office. We tend to have volunteers and interns on a regular basis, and they’ve always got something new to bring.’

To contact Ben Bradshaw, or find out more about your local MP, follow this link.

Meg Lawrence, Online Features Editor

The Aid Epidemic

Image credits: frontierofficial

With his sister recently returned from Kenya, Liam Taylor asks if our good intentions actually do more harm to fragile nations around the world.

Where is Bongo Bongo Land? I hadn’t come across the phrase until I saw it plastered across the headlines after the controversial MEP Godfrey Bloom used it in his speech/rant (delete as appropriate) on foreign aid. The use of the phrase sparked controversy apparently everywhere bar his constituency, and led to a situation, then exacerbated by his stubborn defence of his remarks on the BBC, which culminated in an offer to personally apologise to the ambassador of Bongo Bongo Land himself (who unfortunately could not be reached for comment).

I guess he was unable to use the excuse that he was merely referring to the late President Bongo of Gabon, as a former Tory MP claimed when he used the phrase the last time it caused controversy, and figured that was next best option. I leave it up to you dear reader to decide whether the comments were racist or not. This article is concerned with the heart of the issue, not the semantics.

Not long after the media flurry surrounding the controversy died down my sister returned home after a summer of charity work in Kenya, a country I suspect some would consider a province of Bongo Bongo Land. The problems that the media back home deems worthy of making a fuss about, the occasional daft utterance from a politician seemed rather trivial to her, at least compared to the real problems faced in the less fortunate parts of the world. It is no secret that Kenya is by no means a rich country, to put it mildly. It receives over two billion dollars each year in foreign aid and is the second largest recipient of US aid to Africa, behind only Egypt. Like many countries in the region it has also been plagued with corruption.

Kenya can seem like two completely different lands. The westernised boarding school in Nairobi that my sister stayed at on her first night could be indistinguishable from anywhere in England save for the rather nicer weather. Yet other parts conform more to the stereotype of popular culture. A land of mud huts and endless savannah, where basic necessities like running water are luxuries and old plastic bottles are considered a sturdy construction material. In Nairobi itself this difference is perhaps even more glaring, where modern skyscrapers and office blocks stand side by side with hastily built shacks made from salvaged scrap. Indeed that kind of contrast is far from uncommon in the region. When I was in South Africa a few years ago (for the much less noble reason of a holiday) there was a stark difference between the westernised tourist areas and the slums on the outskirts of the city.

 

In a way it helps to put things in perspective. It’s easy to forget how good we have it in the grand scheme of things, how protestors in New York or outside St. Paul’s are part of the wealthiest one per cent in the world and how even the poorest in this country are comfortably in the top ten per cent. Many of the villages rely on subsistence farming, lacking the convenience of modern technology they rely on their own back breaking labour. In one village that my sister spent time helping in, a single mother of five had to single-handedly toil on a maize field all day just to grow enough food to survive. Yet even donations of modern equipment do little help; a tractor is of little use without the parts or know-how to fix it when it breaks, or even how to use it in the first place. Indeed the most advanced piece of technology my sister came across out there was an old toaster. Growth away from subsistence is not done any favours by the western world’s insistent protection of its own farmers from foreign goods.

Image credits: eGuide Travel

When my sister first told me she was going off to do charity work in Kenya a couple of thoughts crossed my mind. The first was the most obvious, that this was a really good thing to do. But I have to admit there was also a cynical part of my brain that thought “how much help can you really be? After all, what do you know about digging wells or building schools? The closest you’ve come to hard labour is helping our parents with the gardening. Surely it would be better to send them the money you’re going to spend on flying out and living there?” While it sounds bad there was some logic behind this thought. After all it is a common problem after natural disasters that lots of well-intentioned volunteers show up unprepared and without any training. The result being that actual charity workers have to waste time babysitting them, instead of helping the victims, and waste precious resources feeding them and patching them up when they hurt themselves.  There was also an element of concern that she might get eaten by a lion when she tries to pet one. Although I’m glad to say that the cynical side of me was wrong.

Empathy, the desire to help others less fortunate than ourselves, is of course very commendable and it is one that nearly every person has no matter their beliefs or where they lie on the political spectrum, if anywhere at all. Of course not everyone can go out to Africa and physically help, so this empathy manifests itself in other ways such as charitable giving. But sometimes that cynical part of us raises its head, “what good can my tenner a month do?” So that same feeling of empathy makes us demand that more be done, that government fixes it. We rely on the ‘wisdom’ of the bureaucrat in Whitehall rather than the experience of the volunteer on the ground. It feels good to be absolved of responsibility, we did our part and if it’s not working it’s not our fault, it’s the government’s fault. It’s the government that isn’t doing enough, isn’t giving enough and can never give enough.

Remember earlier when I talked about the vast divergence between the richest and poorest parts of Kenya? Just why is there the gap? Is it an inevitable part of development? Is it because there still is not enough aid? If so, how is it that Asia has managed to lift millions out of poverty without a penny of aid? $2 billion can a build a lot of schools and hospitals, yet they are conspicuously absent. Perhaps you also remember the rampant corruption I mentioned. Well put the two together and perhaps you start to realise how it’s possible that after decades of receiving billions in aid the average Kenyan hasn’t become any better off. Kenyan corruption may be bad, but it is small comfort that it is not as bad as other parts of Africa. Indeed one prominent Zambian economist argues strongly that the corruption is so bad that the corruption (amongst other things) actually makes aid harmful to African countries. It may be possible that handing over large sums of money no questions asked can create the conditions that fuel corruption, sort of like the way vast natural resources can become a curse for poor countries.

All the arguments for greater aid have at their heart the best of intentions, just like the well intentioned clothing drive that has a minor side effect of putting the indigenous clothing and textile industry out of business and inadvertently costing lots of jobs. There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So perhaps it’s time to rethink our approach to help those that need it most. To stop focusing on intentions and start looking at results.

Liam Taylor

 

What is a degree worth?

Image credits: bobaliciouslondon

Fran Lowe discusses the increase in tuition fees to £9,000 a year, analysing whether it was necessary and the position it places students in today.

In December 2010, the government famously made the decision to increase university tuition fees to £9,000 a year. With effect from September 2012, the first batch of Freshers paying the trebled rate has now completed its first year.

At the time, it was one of the most headline-grabbing and controversial issues of British politics: 50,000 students, including myself, took to the streets of London in November of that year to protest. What’s more, the issue caused disputes within the House of Commons itself, with 21 Liberal Democrats and 6 Conservatives rebelling and voting against the motion while others abstained, meaning that the Tory majority was reduced from 83 to a measly 21.

Back then the tuition fee raise was highly contentious, and huge numbers of voters still have not forgiven the Liberal Democrats for failing to fulfil their election promise to vote against it. The issue is still hotly debated and controversial three years on, especially now we are in a position to look back on the last year’s tuition and ask the question: was it really worth nine grand?

At the time, the increase of fees to £9,000 was justified as necessary to help universities sustain their finances, and this does seem reasonable: the price of everything is, as we all know, constantly increasing, and if British universities are to remain competitive on the world stage, they need the money to continue their ground-breaking research and teaching. What is debatable is how much of this funding should come from the government, and how much of it we should provide ourselves.

The way the loans are paid back was also changed: for Freshers paying £9,000, you don’t start repaying until you are earning £21,000 a year, and even then it’s such a small amount that you really won’t miss it from your pay-packet. What this means is that in reality, the chances of ever actually paying off our debts are depressingly slender. However, never actually seeing the money makes the whole thing a lot easier to handle: it is not as though we could have spent it on anything else.

But even that could be subject to yet more change: there is talk of moving the pay-back threshold to as low as £18,000 a year. The government’s reason for this suggestion is that, unsurprisingly, under the current system an estimated forty per cent of the money lent to students will never be paid back. So, by getting graduates paying earlier, hundreds of millions can be saved. Bad news for us students?

There is still hope, as the chances of this making it through Parliament aren’t great: the Liberal Democrats are determined to reject it, largely due to still having egg on their faces from the tuition fee raise. With new policies every year and u-turns to be seen everywhere it begs the question –does anyone really know what they are doing?

The rise to £9,000 was also meant to strike a balance between the need for extra funding and allowing poorer students to still be able to go to university, and indeed universities were only allowed to charge the top price if they made a huge effort to be more inclusive and accessible. A year in, we can now see how this has worked in practice: looking at Exeter University, has there really been a noticeable change in the student demographic? It seems that in reality, universities are charging the full price without too much effort to be more inclusive or make themselves more appealing to those who at present might feel alienated by the sky-high fees.

It remains true, however, that something did have to be done about tuition fees, as they couldn’t remain so low forever. Ed Miliband admits that a return to lower fees would be unlikely should Labour take office at the next election. Maybe it was the way the government went about it, by trebling the fees in one hit rather than gradually increasing them over a number of years that makes nine thousand pounds such a difficult pill to swallow. There is clearly no denying that this is a seriously difficult topic for any government to handle, and whatever they do there will always be opposition.

Perhaps, then, we ought to look to other nations for inspiration. In the US, fees are unashamedly high. The University of Princeton website admits that it is ‘costly’, an understatement when you learn that a year’s tuition will cost just over $40,000 (that’s about £26,000). Suddenly £9,000 a year seems reasonable, and I am left wondering what I spend so much of my time complaining about.

But in Germany, you will find fees much cheaper. Although the prices vary between states, they are significantly lower than ours, ranging from 100 to 2000 Euros a year. A year at Universität Heidelberg will cost €126.50, which is currently about £108. German fees make £9,000 seem unnecessarily expensive, although it does seem too good to be true that you can buy a year at university for little more than the price of a Jack Wills gilet.

What is perhaps most interesting is the Australian model: the University of Melbourne, for example, has a three-tiered charging system, depending on your subject. This basically means that humanities and arts students pay the least, with medics and lawyers paying almost twice more. Although most students study a combination of different subjects under the Australian system, this does seem to mean that you really are getting what you pay for in terms of contact time and equipment.

Perhaps this subject tiered system is something we could introduce in the UK? As an English student myself, I get roughly ten hours contact time a week, which works out at over £60 an hour. As far as equipment goes, we are lucky to see a free lecture hand-out. Contrast that to, say, the Engineers: with about three times the contact time and more fancy equipment than you can shake a stick at, it becomes fairly clear that who is getting value for money, and who is subsidising someone else.

However, introducing such a system would come with the huge risk of discouraging students from taking on the more expensive courses. It may mean that we could find ourselves, in ten years’ time, in a country overrun with linguists and literature boffs, but crying out for doctors.

Arguably this comes down to a question of how much you love your subject. If you have had a burning desire to be a doctor all your life, then no matter what the fees, you will likely pay to do a medicine degree. Personally, the idea of spending three years of my life chatting about literature makes me very happy, so I don’t mind too much that I’m in about £14,000 of debt before I’ve even turned nineteen. Essentially, if your subject is right for you, it is worth whatever they want from you.

Fran Lowe

A Pretty Poor Italian Job

With the Italian Parliament in deadlock, Sophie Duncan reviews the campaigns in Italy’s recent general election

Much hinged on the result of the Italian general election last week.  Whoever won would not only have to tackle a debt burden that is among the worst in Europe, but must look to restore faith in a political class on which many citizens have all but turned their backs.

Hard times: Turin is losing out to foreign competition and poverty-stricken Naples is seeing more and more violence. Picture credits: Megan Little

In Italy, each day brings fresh economic speculation and public indignation.  Signs of the country’s financial woes are everywhere: Turin, once a thriving industrial capital, is losing out to foreign competition and Naples, one of the poorest cities in Europe is plagued by outbursts of violence.  For far too many Italians, a secure income is extremely hard to come by.  Many are resorting to cash-in-hand jobs on the black market and, in doing so, fuelling an annual tax evasion bill that runs to over 200 billion euros.  With the Italian banks unwilling to loan, an increasing number of people are turning to the mafia for money.

However, Italy has other problems besides those economic.  During the build-up to this election, the country’s political integrity has dominated headlines, often for all the wrong reasons.  One controversy after another has drawn attention away from the key issues that voters want to see addressed.

First there was the removal of a number of politicians from the ballot lists, for reasons relating to fraud and illicit dealings with the mafia.  According to La Republica, at least 80 potential candidates were deemed ‘ineligible’.  Among them was Nicola Cosentino, a former minister who served for several years under Silvio Berlusconi, and who was sentenced to four years in prison for fiscal fraud.

Then there was the scandal surrounding Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s oldest bank.  It was revealed that the institution had concealed a number of loss-making risky trades to which the Italian Government, under Mario Monti, is suspected to have turned a blind eye.  As Mr Monti was running for re-election, this did little to boost his popularity.

But he was not the only candidate to have seen his campaign tarnished.  Next came the turn of the master of political incorrectness – who, amazingly, has also put his name forward, Silvio Berlusconi.  In comedy they say that timing is essential. Mr Berlusconi may have timed this gaff to perfection, but what he said could not have been less funny.  On Holocaust Remembrance Day, the former Prime Minister claimed that the discriminatory racial laws imposed by Benito Mussolini were a black mark against a leader who “in so many other ways did well”.  Mr Berlusconi went on to say that, despite the deportation of thousands of Italian Jews, Italy does not hold the same amount of responsibility as Germany because its role in the Holocaust was “partly unwitting”.  The press, both in Italy and elsewhere, reacted accordingly.

Beppe Grillo, the comedian-turned-politician leader of the Five Star Movement. Picture Credits: Niccolo Caranti

And it was not long before they were handed another Berlusconi blunder, not by Silvio but by his brother, Paolo.  It is widely suspected that the former had the election in mind when he forked out 20 million euros to bring Mario Balotelli, one of the liveliest personalities in football, to his own team, A.C. Milan.  If so, he will not have been best pleased by his brother’s casual referral to the player as the “little black boy”.  Then again, far be it from Silvio to criticise.

“Exactly what sort of world is our political class living in?” read a recent headline in La Stampa.  One would be inclined to agree.  With the main parties struggling to run a clean campaign, this election has offered others the opportunity to give them a run for their money.  One such is the Cinque Stelle, or Five Star Movement, led by comedian Beppe Grillo.  Having made it his mission to speak in almost every piazza in the country, the charismatic Mr Grillo denounced the dominant parties and called for a greater level of political representation on the part of ordinary citizens.  The party did gain a sizeable presence in the new parliament.  And if Cinque Stelle delivers on its promise to give Italian citizens a greater say in how their country is governed, that would by no means be a bad thing.

Oliver Cary: Has the coalition achieved its aims for education?

In the first of his column posts, Oliver Cary reviews the coalition’s progress on its aims of 2010.

The recent Mid-term review represents a chance to evaluate how far the coalition government has come to achieving its aims of 2010, and Michael Gove’s significant changes in Education have been hounded by criticism. Although much of this has centred on his proposed ideas to improve our system, there is understandable criticism of his policy that had already seen tangible changes.

Attempts to make more university places available may be possible, but raising fees to £9,000 has caused public protest and there are still vacancies at a quarter of Russell Group universities this academic year. The government’s aim for prospective students to have access to data of student satisfaction, costs and graduate salaries appears promising, but success for the institutions is measured by league tables.

Increasing university contact time, a common occurrence for students this academic year, is supposed to justify the increasing fees. How useful is this extra contact time? Many university standings come from postgraduate research results, as each institution has to meet its quota of outputs. David Priestland suggests that universities attempt in ‘gaming’ the system gain better standing in league tables, rather than giving more constructive contact time.

Photo credits to Babro Uppsala

Various changes to schools have also taken place, and the introduction of free schools and academies since September 2011 has also been criticised. Taxpayers have been sceptical of funding new Maharishi schools that teach transcendental meditation as part of their curriculum. New academy parents appear to appreciate their 5 year old children learning basic Mandarin, but there are still places not being filled at these schools.

Although many would argue that Mandarin in primary schools, and meditation that keeps students balanced through secondary education are unnecessary, Gove, however, seems to be too radical in his efforts to maintained a tight curriculum. His proposed Ebacc, an English Baccalaureate to start in 2015, has already been petitioned against. Those from the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers petitioned against marginalising subjects which do not form part of the Ebacc, and the petition gained 20,000 signatures in its first two weeks. Stephen Fry, who gave his support to the petition, stated via Twitter that the Ebacc would ‘pose a real threat to the status of creative subjects and vocational education.’

Michael Gove’s policy may cause our next generation to become more disenfranchised from education than our own, and his policy has extended to teachers as well. Plans to introduce ‘performance-related pay’ schemes are intended to raise the quality of teaching, and whilst this is hugely desired, it puts further pressure on teachers. Additionally George Osborne’s plans to give head teachers full responsibility for distributing pay amongst staff have created controversy. Head teachers, with this increased responsibility, and little experience with finance, could lead to chaotic administration in schools.

The intentions of educational policy are always to raise standards of education, enthuse and re-engage society’s youth and justify government spending. Gove’s intentions are no different, but he has undoubtedly made himself unpopular. In recent polls by YouGov for the National Union of teachers, only 13% thought the Government were taking education in the right direction. Teacher morale has decreased over the last year and Christine Blower, chair of the NUT, believes this is the result of ‘continual criticisms and undermining of pay and conditions’.

Michael Gove’s plans and policy for changes in education are perhaps too radical, and attempting to achieve quick changes without proper consideration and review of results. In attempting make improvements at university, school and teaching levels he has created three separate avenues of criticism, and has lost considerable support for his policies in the process.

Making a date with the past

Oliver Cary discusses the Coalition’s plans for the History curriculum in British schools and the Chalke Valley History Festival.

The Government’s focus on the next generation in Britain is evident with a new curriculum in core subjects being established next year and a complete implementation across subjects by 2014. Intellectuals, professors and teachers are among those who are critical of our curriculum, and it is understandable as the prestige of British education has faded. In global tables South Korea, Japan and China are among the highest-rated, with Finland topping the table for the majority of the last decade.

Michael Gove, secretary of education, hopes that changes to the history curriculum will spark a more fervent interest in the subject. The current system is often argued to be too modular and specific, and Gove wants children to understand a narrative of British history. Poor knowledge of important people and no grasp of British chronology are central to complaints of the latest generation of young people.

Photo credits to Oliver Cary

At the Chalke Valley History Festival this June, discussion between field experts and the public was prominent on this very subject. The event, the UK’s largest history festival, boasted lectures from Sir Max Hastings, Antony Beevor, Amanda Vickery, Jeremy Paxman, Michael Morpurgo, Ian and Victoria Hislop, Tom and James Holland, and Dan Snow amongst others. In discussion with a member of the audience, Dan Snow remarked that narrative history teaching based around chronology lacks depth and students cannot fully appreciate the effects or nature of the topic. James Heneage, co-founder of the festival, believes ‘it’s easy to drill facts into children’ but enthusiasm is lost.

Photo credits to Oliver Cary

However, enthusiasm was present at the festival across all age groups. From schoolchildren listening to Tom Holland’s animated telling of the Odyssey, to veterans of the Falklands war listening to Rowland White describing the role of the heroics of Vulcan bombers in the Falklands. While outside the tents, War Horse displays, sword schools and WW1 trench warfare re-enactments took place to the crowds. Ian Hislop described the festival as ‘quite extraordinary…with a great audience’. If Michael Gove’s wish for children to learn Britain’s ‘story’ is to come to fruition, the Empire must be seen as fashionable, says Jeremy Paxman. Paxman, in interview at the festival, commented that imperialist history is tarnished by prejudice as modular history often reduces a national perspective of history. He believes that history in schools has to ‘succumb to a dull doctrinal set of prejudices that don’t inspire people’.

Photo credits to Oliver Cary

Nick Gibb argued in the Telegraph this October that this debate is not new, and the kind of debate through which student ‘self-discovery’ occurs is through teaching continuity and change, as instigated in the 1920s at Teachers College, Columbia, New York. Perhaps the central issue is not how history is taught but its short exposure to children in schools. James Holland, the co-founder of the Chalk Valley History Festival, thinks that lack of knowledge and understanding is because History is ‘one of the subjects that can be opted out of very early on.’ History should be made compulsory to 16, asserts Linda Colley, as ‘it is in many European countries.’ A continuation to GCSE level allows not only more time for students to become enthused by the subject but also for topics to be returned to in more detail. David Cannadine, professor at Princeton University, in the Telegraph November 2011 said the current curriculum lacks time to look a ‘the big picture’ and that Sir Keith Joseph and Kenneth Baker wanted history to be studied until the age of 16 in their School Curriculum of 1981.

The intentions of the new approach of the curriculum are admirable but Gove’s chronological and British-based course may lead to introspection, says Tom Devine, professor at Edinburgh University. While it is important to ‘engage with those things that seem to be important but are not properly addressed’, as Paxman argues about British imperialism, our society is diverse and appreciation of African and Asian history is also important. Benjamin Zephaniah criticises Gove’s desire to focus on British history, as the Empire was oppressive and a British perspective only tells ‘half the story’. He thinks a wider understanding of events, and of different cultures is important in British education and continues to say ‘black history is not just for black people’.

Although debate over the nature and method of teaching history has been longstanding, criticism will continue in this country as teachers attempt to find the best way to educate, enthuse and impart the knowledge of the past to children. However, it is universally agreed that ‘you need to understand your past to make sense of what you’re doing now’ says James Holland. This cultural literacy allows people to participate in society, and perhaps Michael Gove’s new curriculum would be praised if it made History compulsory to 16.