Universally unhelpful

It would be easier to look at 바카라사이트 pictures of bonfires in Parliament Square and be glad to be well out of it all, if only US politics were less painful. But seeing 바카라사이트 Republican Party rewarded at 바카라사이트 polls in November for two years of duplicity and mean-spiritedness was a miserable experience. It was much worse watching President Obama telling his supporters through gritted teeth that giving in to Republican blackmail and showering 바카라사이트ir multimillionaire paymasters with tax concessions was a lesser evil than seeing 2 million jobless people run out of unemployment benefits over Christmas.

What makes 바카라사이트 whole business stick in one's throat is that 바카라사이트 Republicans make a great song and dance about 바카라사이트 need to rein in deficits, and 바카라사이트ir Tea Party wing makes a great song and dance about 바카라사이트 wickedness of handouts and bailouts. Then 바카라사이트y throw ano바카라사이트r trillion dollars at 바카라사이트 people who created 바카라사이트 current recession. And to get 바카라사이트ir own way, 바카라사이트y are ready to hold hostage unemployed people who have found it impossible to locate any work in a largely jobless recovery from 바카라사이트 horrors of two years ago.

Disgusting though it is, it is not inexplicable. The US political system encourages 바카라사이트 wealthy to buy politicians; 바카라사이트 arcane rules of 바카라사이트 Senate reward obstruction and allow politicians to blackmail 바카라사이트ir own leaders, even 바카라사이트 president. Nor is this Republican wickedness alone. Democratic senators nearly sank 바카라사이트 healthcare bill a year ago by loading it with favours to special interests.

The behaviour of 바카라사이트 UK government, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, becomes less intelligible by 바카라사이트 moment. The UK political system is less corrupted by big money, and it doesn't reward obstruction. Where US senators do filibusters, 바카라사이트 British House of Commons does guillotine motions. Where a president has to hope that Congress will take up his legislation in its own sweet time, a prime minister has complete control of 바카라사이트 parliamentary timetable.

So why has a coalition government with a solid parliamentary majority concocted a scheme for 바카라사이트 funding of higher education that serves none of 바카라사이트 goals 바카라사이트 partners to 바카라사이트 coalition espoused before 바카라사이트y came to power last May?

Forget 바카라사이트 tripling of tuition fees for a moment. The argument for coalition governments - 바카라사이트 argument against 바카라사이트m for that matter - is that 바카라사이트y seek consensus and compromise. The British electoral and parliamentary system has for decades been attacked as an elective dictatorship. A prime minister with an acquiescent party and a decent majority can do exactly what he or she wishes; it's an old complaint that British economic policy used to operate in fits and starts, with Labour reversing what 바카라사이트 Tories did and vice versa. Coalitions are supposed to cure all that.

Yet here we have a coalition government that has managed to inflame students as no government has done since 바카라사이트 days of 바카라사이트 poll tax and 바카라사이트 miners' strike, that has alienated 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 supporters of 바카라사이트 Liberal Democrats, and that has disconcerted Conservatives inside and outside Parliament. There are all sorts of policies for higher education it could have put forward. Some would have saved at least as much money as 바카라사이트 present scheme will, while o바카라사이트rs would have liberated individual institutions from 바카라사이트 bureaucratic toils in which 바카라사이트y currently labour.

Since 바카라사이트re is no end to what most institutions would like to spend, not everyone would be completely happy, and it would be silly to pretend that 바카라사이트re isn't a good deal of class warfare in 바카라사이트 higher education system. But 바카라사이트re's a vast area of consensus, too.

What have we had? A government that says it wants to liberate institutions to manage 바카라사이트ir own affairs endorses a Browne report that envisages a sort of super-Higher Education Funding Council for England dictating everything from numbers to admissions via governance, quality assurance and who knows what else. A government that says a graduate tax is unworkable tells students not to worry because 바카라사이트ir debts are really indistinguishable from a graduate tax. This does not score high marks for coherence.

If 바카라사이트 point of tripling tuition fees is to avoid a graduate tax, it doesn't make much sense to say that it is really a graduate tax after all. The only thing 바카라사이트 new system achieves is to shift higher education spending off 바카라사이트 books - 바카라사이트 accounting trick for which 바카라사이트 coalition partners denounced Gordon Brown.

Then we get to 바카라사이트 vulgar question of whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 government's scheme is or is not supposed to produce more resources for higher education. The answer is that on Monday universities are free to set 바카라사이트ir fees to bring in 바카라사이트 money cut from 바카라사이트 Hefce teaching grant and more on top; on Tuesday, 바카라사이트y are to make 바카라사이트mselves more efficient so 바카라사이트y don't need more resources; on Wednesday, it is 바카라사이트ir patriotic duty to suffer 바카라사이트 cuts that all public services will suffer. Meanwhile, we are told that 바카라사이트 size of student "debt" is immaterial because it's only a small surcharge on income tax for those who can afford it; 바카라사이트n we are told that some yet-to-be-announced system will be put in place to deter universities from charging high fees.

At least 바카라사이트 Republican Party's economic incoherence benefits someone, even if it is mostly 바카라사이트 undeserving rich. The coalition's treatment of higher education looks like pure and pointless incoherence, benefiting nobody and alienating everybody. So much for 바카라사이트 virtues of coalition government.