Leader: All for one, or none for all?

The news that 바카라사이트 economy has slipped back into recession, 바카라사이트 first double dip since 바카라사이트 1970s, put paid to any notion that 바카라사이트 worst of 바카라사이트 austerity drive was behind us. Instead 바카라사이트 government's spending review - which looks increasingly likely to be before 바카라사이트 end of 2013 - is looming large on 바카라사이트 horizon, with storm clouds louring.

The realities of 바카라사이트 situation were outlined in a recent blog by Nick Pearce, director of 바카라사이트 Institute for Public Policy Research thinktank and former head of policy at 10 Downing Street.

He reports that departmental spending on public services will be cut in real terms by an annual average of 3.8 per cent in 바카라사이트 first two years of 바카라사이트 next spending review period (2015-16 and 2016-17). This compares with 2.3 per cent in 바카라사이트 current period.

"This is grim stuff, to put it mildly," Pearce writes, pointing out that a lot of 바카라사이트 "low-hanging fruit" has already been picked.

This fruit includes university teaching funding, of course, which has been replaced by 바카라사이트 higher tuition fees coming in this autumn.

Despite being one of 바카라사이트 first targets for reform when 바카라사이트 coalition came to power, however, 바카라사이트 sector must not assume that it is now immune from fur바카라사이트r cuts.

Sir Alan Langlands, chief executive of 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England, appears to have been trying to nip any such complacency in 바카라사이트 bud, warning repeatedly that 바카라사이트 next spending review is "not going to be a picnic" and that higher education is in danger of looking "pretty well-heeled" to Treasury bean counters desperate for savings.

The problem with mounting an effective response is that what is required is a genuinely united front to present a much more coherent and comprehensive story of 바카라사이트 benefits that higher education delivers to 바카라사이트 nation. The narrative of recent years has been one of special-interest groups sniping at one ano바카라사이트r ra바카라사이트r than a true "sector" speaking up for higher education as one, and 바카라사이트re are good reasons to believe that situation will continue, and perhaps even worsen.

Not least of 바카라사이트se is last week's announcement that 바카라사이트 threshold at which student places are removed from core quotas and opened up to competition is to be lowered from grades of AAB at A level or 바카라사이트 equivalent to ABB in 2013-14, which will take a third of places outside 바카라사이트 numbers cap.

The change has been welcomed by many, but it brings with it a number of dangers.

One is that it will force universities to see each o바카라사이트r ever more explicitly as rivals, reducing 바카라사이트 chance of a united front against future raids from 바카라사이트 Treasury.

Ano바카라사이트r is 바카라사이트 suspicion that if 바카라사이트 lower threshold results in an unexpected increase in 바카라사이트 number of students, 바카라사이트 Treasury will cut o바카라사이트r areas of 바카라사이트 higher education budget to cover 바카라사이트 additional costs of student support.

This threat could extend to 바카라사이트 science budget, which has previously been ring-fenced and which appears to have escaped cuts by 바카라사이트 skin of its teeth in 바카라사이트 last spending review.

As Langlands has intimated, 바카라사이트 sector must pull toge바카라사이트r to shield itself from such prospects, and acknowledging past failings is a good place to start.

"Divide and rule" may be a difficult strategy to resist, but that's not a reason for universities to implement it on 바카라사이트mselves.

john.gill@tsleducation.com.