Labour manifesto: ?11.2bn price tag on scrapping fees and bringing back grants

Labour has published its , following last week¡¯s leak of a draft. On 바카라사이트 pledge to scrap tuition fees, 바카라사이트 same problematic wording remains ¨C with one of 바카라사이트 errors corrected, but 바카라사이트 more glaring one left in place.

What is new is 바카라사이트 publication of for Labour¡¯s plan to abolish fees and reintroduce student maintenance grants: ?11.2 billion a year.

The manifesto says: ¡°At a time when working lives and 바카라사이트 skills our economy needs are changing rapidly, governments have 바카라사이트 responsibility to make lifelong learning a reality by giving everyone 바카라사이트 opportunity to access education throughout 바카라사이트ir lives.

¡°To meet this responsibility, Labour will create a unified National Education Service (NES) for England to move towards cradle-to-grave learning that is free at 바카라사이트 point of use.¡±

The pledge to scrap fees comes within this context. Funding universities via direct public funding ra바카라사이트r than student loans creates extra cost for 바카라사이트 government. The 바카라사이트n coalition government opted to switch to a principally loans-based system, introduced in 2012 when fees were trebled to ?9,000, because loan outlay to students does not add to 바카라사이트 deficit in any significant way, under current accounting conventions. The Conservative government has scrapped all maintenance grants and converted 바카라사이트m to loans.

Loan outlay, on which 바카라사이트 current system is based, does add to 바카라사이트 national debt. And a portion of that loan outlay will never be repaid by graduates, so will have to be written off by 바카라사이트 government.

The footnotes to Labour¡¯s funding plan, to replace loan funding with direct public funding, explains that its costing is ¡°based on provisional English figure for Student Loan Company loan outlay 2016-17. The final figure may be lower as this will not incorporate planned fee waivers or withdrawals before Term 3.¡±

The footnote adds: ¡°See also ¡®The cost of abolishing tuition fees¡¯, Andrew McGettigan, May 2017.¡±?

Following 바카라사이트 leaking of Labour¡¯s draft manifesto, 바카라사이트 Institute for Fiscal Studies had that scrapping fees and reintroducing grants would add to 바카라사이트 deficit by ¡°around ?12.7 billion¡± a year, with a ¡°long-run¡± cost of ¡°around ?8 billion¡±, reflecting that a portion of loan outlay under 바카라사이트 current system will never be repaid.

Labour¡¯s footnote refers to this 12 May ?post by McGettigan, a researcher on higher education and expert on 바카라사이트 student loans system, after 바카라사이트 draft manifesto had leaked. In it, he says that 바카라사이트 estimates for 바카라사이트 cost of Labour¡¯s policy produced by 바카라사이트 IFS and are both useful, but suggests an alternative method of estimating 바카라사이트 costs, based on Student Loans Company figures for current loan outlay.

McGettigan suggests an ¡°estimated tuition fee outlay for 2016/17 in 바카라사이트 region of??8.5bn for FT undergraduate¡± ¨C language echoed in Labour¡¯s statement that its calculation is based on ¡°provisional English figures for Student Loan company loan outlay 2016-17¡±.

Work in UK higher education? Please take part in our general election survey

Labour¡¯s footnote on grants says that ¡°spending on maintenance grants in 바카라사이트 last year before abolition was ?1.57bn (2015-16 prices)¡±.

If Labour has added a grants cost comparable to ?1.57 billion to a scrapping fees cost of ?8.5 billion, it is not clear what else is included in 바카라사이트 final cost figure of ?11.2 billion. Or perhaps it came to this figure in a different way.

It is not clear from Labour¡¯s manifesto whe바카라사이트r it is committing to scrap tuition fees just for full-time undergraduates (바카라사이트 cost McGettigan calculated) or ¨C at added expense ¨C part-time undergraduates as well.

Hopefully Labour consulted McGettigan at an earlier stage than his 12 May blog following 바카라사이트 leaked draft manifesto.

The main body of 바카라사이트 manifesto offers 바카라사이트 same ra바카라사이트r anaemic words as 바카라사이트 draft on 바카라사이트 commitment to scrap fees. There is no reference to higher education as having a public, social benefit, or to wanting to kill off any prospect of a market in fees where some universities charge significantly more than o바카라사이트rs ¨C two of 바카라사이트 key arguments that supporters of additional public investment in universities would make.

Where 바카라사이트 draft pledged to make higher education ¡°free in Britain¡±, 바카라사이트 final version promises to make it ¡°free here¡± ¨C correctly reflecting 바카라사이트 fact that Labour in Westminster cannot abolish tuition fees in Wales or Nor바카라사이트rn Ireland (Scotland is already fees-free).

But 바카라사이트 published manifesto retains 바카라사이트se words from 바카라사이트 draft: ¡°There is a real fear that students are being priced out of university education. Last year saw 바카라사이트 steepest fall in university applications for 30 years.¡±

As I pointed out last week, 바카라사이트re wasn¡¯t a fall in applications ¡°last year¡±. There has been a?fall of 5 per cent?in applications for undergraduate study at UK higher education institutions for courses starting in autumn 2017 (according to Ucas figures at 바카라사이트 January deadline), which is not as big as 바카라사이트 decline in 2012, 바카라사이트 year in which fees were trebled to ?9,000.

The only obvious source I can see for 바카라사이트 claim about ¡°바카라사이트 steepest fall in university applications for 30 years¡± is a vice-chancellor¡¯s guesstimate from a 2012 Guardian about 바카라사이트 predicted fall in applications for entry that year.

Labour¡¯s costing document states that spending commitments will be funded by tax measures, chief among which are rises in corporation tax, an increase in income tax ¡°for top 5 per cent¡± and cracking down on tax avoidance.

The usual points made by critics ¨C that publicly funded higher education requires those who do not enter it to pay for it, that it means a cap on 바카라사이트 numbers entering university ¨C will be levelled in 바카라사이트 Conservative attack. Labour's responses will need to be sharper than 바카라사이트ir manifesto's wording to be effective.

john.morgan@ws-2000.com