Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
The creation of chaos and the breaking into the Conservative Party’s headquarters in London, really gives the illusion that something must be really wrong — after all, England is a country famous for its ostensibly orderly behaviour and polite, stiff upper-lipped manners. Slashing higher education funding, a move that would make UK universities the least funded in the entire Organisation for Economic Development Co-operation and Development, tipped the balance of patience. Over 50.000 students took to the streets of the London to voice their opinions on the coalition government’s new plans to triple tuition fees for universities and planned cuts of 40% to universities.
Before the elections, every Member of Parliament for the Liberal Democrats promised to vote against any increase in tuition fees. They even discussed abolishing tuition fees altogether, so why the change of tune? They’re now insisting that the new system is “progressive and fair” a drastic contrast to the view of thousands of student across the UK — that the new system is stagnant, exploitative and blatantly unfair.
Since total spending on higher education is significantly dropping, it doesn’t make sense that universities will improve as a result of the proposed funding changes, the same argument put forward in 1998 when tuition fees were first introduced in Britain. Shifting the cost burden from (indirect) income taxation to (direct) consumption tax is an increase in the marketisation of education and will deter students from lower socio-economic backgrounds from attending university, especially those perceived as elite. Whilst there’s no denying that there has been an enormous expansion of university places over the past three decades, the people who have benefited most are those from the richest fifth of the population, making up nearly half of all university students, double the proportion of 30 years ago, compared to a mere 3% increase of students from the poorest fifth. A factor that will surely serve to only further increase the still imminent ‘eliteness’ of universities such as Oxbridge, or Imperial. A statement strongly put across by deputy general secretary of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) Frances O'Grady declared - “this is about turning our colleges and universities from places of learning and opportunity into finishing schools for the rich.”
An ironic side-effect that the UK Treasury seems to have overlooked is that, since the government provides student loans to cover tuition fees, the state’s frozen holdings will triple along with its tripling of fees. In other words, the plan that was intended to inject money into the hands of the government will have the opposite effect. The loan scheme is essentially a progressive tax scheme — except without the benefits of opening university doors for poor students. And what of the Postgraduate Students? The new scheme will significantly reduce the number of postgraduate students, deterring mature students from applying, and in a country renowned for its democratic freedom, how then can such fees be deemed acceptable? Or is the government prepared to overlook ‘The Right to Education’. It has been a long time since England has seen angry protesters reeking havoc across the country, yet, the action is justified. These cuts are wide-ranging and will profoundly damage Britain’s system of higher education. It is question of priorities, education or renew Trident? A program that will cost up to four times as much as the proposed education costs, a brutal statistic for any student and one that wholly justifies what just might be the beginning of the first British protest movement in decades.
You must log in to submit a comment.
