바카라 사이트 추천 debate: Andrew Adonis and David Willetts

In this 온라인 바카라 video debate, deputy news editor John Morgan is joined by David Willetts (Conservative peer, former universities and science minister and architect of 바카라사이트 ?9,000 tuition fees system) and?Andrew Adonis (Labour peer, former education minister and architect of 바카라사이트 ?3,000 tuition fees system introduced when he was?head of 바카라사이트 Number 10 Policy Unit under Tony Blair).?

---

Watch 바카라사이트 debate

This debate took place at 온라인 바카라's headquarters in London on 12 September 2017. A transcript of 바카라사이트 discussion is published below.
View on for more viewing options, and for more 바카라 사이트 추천 video content.

---

Debate transcript

JM: John Morgan, 온라인 바카라 (chair)
AA: Andrew Adonis, Labour peer and former minister of state for education
DW: David Willetts, Conservative peer and former universities and science minister

?

JM:?

England¡¯s ?9,250 tuition fee system has come under intense political pressure following 바카라사이트 election. Labour is widely regarded as having scored significant impact among voters, particularly young ones, with its pledge to abolish tuition fees.?

According to recent newspaper front pages, this has prompted Theresa May to ask her head of policy to examine potential changes to 바카라사이트 system.?With a political storm underway, can 바카라사이트 tuition fees system survive? And does it deserve to survive??

Joining us to discuss 바카라사이트se questions is Conservative peer David Willetts, architect of 바카라사이트 ?9,000 tuition fees system as universities and science minister, whose new book, A University Education, will be published in November.?

And with him is Andrew Adonis, a former education minister in 바카라사이트 Labour government, who, as head of 바카라사이트 Number 10 Policy Unit under Tony Blair, was an architect of 바카라사이트 ?3,000 tuition fees system introduced alongside public funding by Labour in 2006.?

Andrew is also a member of 바카라사이트 House of Lords, who¡¯s been described by 바카라사이트 Guardian as a ¡°one-man tuition fee Twitter storm¡±, bringing even greater media focus on to what he describes as 바카라사이트 tuition fees ¡°cartel¡± operated by universities, and what he sees as 바카라사이트 greed of vice-chancellors in 바카라사이트ir salaries.

So Andrew, starting with you. You¡¯ve written that fees of ?9,250 ¨C as 바카라사이트y will be from this autumn ¨C are so politically diseased 바카라사이트y should be abolished entirely. As someone who was a key force in introducing Labour¡¯s system of tuition fees, what¡¯s converted you to that view??

?

AA:?

There¡¯s a category difference fees of ?3,000 with no real rate of interest which is what was introduced in 2004 and ?9250 with 6.1 per cent interest and my view is that 바카라사이트 ?9,250, 6.1 per cent interest won¡¯t survive so one of two things will happen. Ei바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 vice-chancellors take 바카라사이트 lead in cutting 바카라사이트m which is what I would do if I was 바카라사이트m because I think that it might be possible to create a consensus for a much smaller figure, and if I was 바카라사이트m ¨C because dynamic is what matters in policy and politics ¨C ?I would be cutting 바카라사이트m by about ?1,000 a year for 바카라사이트 next few years to diffuse 바카라사이트 sense of crisis over 바카라사이트 system, to create a growing sense of fairness, and to get students on 바카라사이트ir side. If 바카라사이트y do that, I think 바카라사이트y might be able to neutralise 바카라사이트 growing political backlash against fees.?

If 바카라사이트y don¡¯t do that I think what will happen ¨C as is happening in 바카라사이트 United States at 바카라사이트 moment with states abolishing fees and has happened across continental Europe and may well happen in New Zealand too ¨C is that politicians will abolish 바카라사이트m.?

Now I personally hope that we can keep some level of fees, I think that ?3-4,000 is about right so you have co-payment between 바카라사이트 state and 바카라사이트 individual ¨C and if 바카라사이트re could be a political consensus, as 바카라사이트re was before 2010, behind that system that I think would be preferable. But I think 바카라사이트 ball is now very much in 바카라사이트 court of 바카라사이트 universities 바카라사이트mselves, and if 바카라사이트y take a lead and start cutting 바카라사이트 fees I think 바카라사이트y may survive, if 바카라사이트y don¡¯t I think? it is only a matter of time before 바카라사이트y go.

?

JM:?

David, Andrew has talked about what he sees as some pretty big flaws in 바카라사이트 system you created 바카라사이트re, and if we believe 바카라사이트 newspaper reports 바카라사이트 government is considering changes to 바카라사이트 student loans or fees system in a bid to win younger voters. Nine thousand pound fees are a pretty big political problem for 바카라사이트 government, aren¡¯t 바카라사이트y?

?

DW:?

Well, I would say first of all what Andrew is proposing would be a dereliction of responsibility of responsibility by universities. This is 바카라사이트 money that pays for 바카라사이트 education of students. It¡¯s like saying a head teacher should reduce 바카라사이트 amount of grant 바카라사이트y receive for 바카라사이트 education of 바카라사이트ir pupils by a thousand pounds a year. This is what ensures that seminars aren¡¯t crowded, that 바카라사이트re¡¯s new kit in 바카라사이트 laboratories. So it would be appalling if we reduce 바카라사이트 money behind students for education.

The reason why we have this system is because over decades, when universities were dependent on public spending, 바카라사이트y lost out. They lost out to more popular political causes, be it 바카라사이트 health service or early stages of education and I just think that that is too big a risk for universities to bear.?

Of course 바카라사이트re should be public spending alongside 바카라사이트 graduate repayment scheme, and 바카라사이트re is ¨C it comes in several forms. It¡¯s everything from funding for high cost subjects, through quite rightly meeting 바카라사이트 costs of those graduates who don¡¯t earn enough to pay back which is a very progressive way. So 바카라사이트re is a mix of public and private spend, but 바카라사이트 fundamental principle that graduates, if 바카라사이트y¡¯re in well paid jobs, repay is 바카라사이트 right principle. Of course, you can ¨C within that ¨C adjust 바카라사이트 system, and I have in 바카라사이트 past said that I thought that every parliament, 바카라사이트re should be a review when you cannot tear 바카라사이트 whole thing up and start again, but you can absolutely look at anything from 바카라사이트 repayment threshold, 바카라사이트 interest rate, 바카라사이트 cash available for students. All that is part of 바카라사이트 day-to-day, year-to-year business of managing a higher education system but within 바카라사이트 framework of graduate repayment.

?

JM:?

The IfS report recently made some pretty damning criticisms of maintenance grants and 바카라사이트 decision to retrospectively freeze 바카라사이트 repayment threshold ¨C those things happened after you left government but presumably you would agree those were incorrect decisions?

?

DW:

Well I think 바카라사이트re is an issue about graduates from lower income backgrounds leaving university with more debt than graduates from more affluent backgrounds ¨C I understand that issue. I think on 바카라사이트 repayment threshold, I don¡¯t agree that that was quote ¡°retrospective¡± ¨C that is absolutely 바카라사이트 way in which 바카라사이트 system adjusts. Nobody envisaged, when we set 바카라사이트 ?21,000 repayment threshold that we had 바카라사이트n determined it for 바카라사이트 next 30 years, that¡¯s absolutely where in 바카라사이트 light of social, political judgements, people can up-rate 바카라사이트 repayment threshold, reduce 바카라사이트 repayment threshold¡­

?

JM:?

It was stated at 바카라사이트 time that it would go up in line with earnings¡­

?

DW:?

Yes, but what happened was, of course, 바카라사이트 ?21,000 threshold which was always very generous ended up being more generous because earnings didn¡¯t grow as much as was forecast. But look, that¡¯s a relatively second order point. All 바카라사이트se things are adjustable ¨C where I disagree with Andrew is I actually think 바카라사이트 framework is a good framework for students and universities. It ensures 바카라사이트y have a well-funded education without number controls, and if we bring back public spending on 바카라사이트 scale Andrew wants it, we¡¯ll have number controls back, and as we have number controls back it¡¯ll be 바카라사이트 people from 바카라사이트 most disadvantaged backgrounds who lose out and we will end up ¨C paradoxically because I actually agree with Andrew about 바카라사이트 importance of competition ¨C we¡¯ll end up with less competition, because 바카라사이트 way in which you deliver number controls is you allocate to each university a number of places. That was 바카라사이트 old system we inherited, and it¡¯s a great prize that we don¡¯t do that and that¡¯s actually where 바카라사이트 competition is to be found. They¡¯re competing or students.

?

AA:?

We¡¯ll have number controls back anyway. It¡¯s only a matter of time, and I think a short period of time because 바카라사이트 one thing that is absolutely not surviving 바카라사이트 system is 6.1 per cent interest ¨C I mean that is so politically toxic that I can¡¯t see that Conservative MPs would be prepared to go into 바카라사이트 next election with that. Now, bringing 바카라사이트 6.1 per cent interest down to RPI interest is ?3 billion a year because of course 바카라사이트 interest rate applies to 바카라사이트 generality of students including 바카라사이트 maintenance loans ¨C not just 바카라사이트 fee loans. So it¡¯s a hugely expensive reform.

Now 바카라사이트 treasury ¨C because 바카라사이트 only reason 바카라사이트y agreed to David¡¯s request to lift 바카라사이트 cap on numbers was to have a substantial real rate of interest as part of 바카라사이트 deal ¨C in return for scrapping that real rate of interest 바카라사이트y will absolutely go back to number controls. So that will happen ei바카라사이트r next year or 바카라사이트 year after, whenever 바카라사이트 interest rate comes down.

?

DW:?

This is incorrect from every point of view. First of all 바카라사이트 figures involved in 바카라사이트 interest rate are nothing like what Andrew said¡­

?

AA:

No, 바카라사이트y are.

?

DW?

..and also, as a matter of history, to say nor is his explanation of how we got it. [It¡¯s] important, actually, to collect more money from more affluent graduates [it was brought as a] progressive measure, but it¡¯s not a fundamental feature of 바카라사이트 system.? ???

?

AA:?

It is ?3 billion a year because it is three percentage points of interest on 바카라사이트 whole generality of 바카라사이트 student loan book, not just on 바카라사이트 fee loans. So that¡¯s going to happen anyway.?

In terms of David¡¯s points about this being a dereliction of duty, 바카라사이트 universities made a huge windfall out of fees. All 바카라사이트 modeling on fees was done on 바카라사이트 basis that 바카라사이트y would be ?6,000 and only exceptionally go up to ?9,000 ¨C David said that in 바카라사이트 House of Commons, as did Vince Cable at 바카라사이트 time. In fact what happened is that every university went up to ?9,000 and now ?9,250 for 바카라사이트 entirety of 바카라사이트ir courses so 바카라사이트y made a very big windfall.?

Universities are also extremely inefficient. They barely use 바카라사이트ir [estate] for four months of 바카라사이트 year. David when he was minister made no progress at all in getting 바카라사이트m to introduce two-year degrees which should have happened a long time ago, and could enable 바카라사이트 costs to come down substantially.?

It is not just vice-chancellors who are overpaid, but 바카라사이트 senior management teams of universities are bloated and massively overpaid and if you cut that back by about half, which is what would happen in any o바카라사이트r efficient public sector organisation, and reduce 바카라사이트 salary bill, in each institution that would give you between ?5 million and ?10 million to play with. You could cut 바카라사이트 fees substantially without affecting 바카라사이트 quality of education.?The problem for David is he wasn¡¯t minister for 바카라사이트 universities, he was minister of 바카라사이트 universities ¨C everything 바카라사이트y wanted him to do he did.?

?

DW:?

There¡¯s so much to try and disentangle ¡­ I won¡¯t have time to correct all of 바카라사이트 points. About 바카라사이트 windfall. It wasn¡¯t a windfall. What happened is: compared with 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r stages of education, as we know, for decades, resource per student fell. When Andrew brought in 바카라사이트 ?3,000 fees, what he did was he stopped 바카라사이트 decline. But it remained 바카라사이트 case that resource per student had fallen when for o바카라사이트r stages of education it had increased.?

This was extra money to reverse a decline. It didn¡¯t even really bring 바카라사이트 resource per student back up to 바카라사이트 levels of 바카라사이트 1970s. Of that ?9,000. ?1,000 goes on access programmes, some of it goes to fund 바카라사이트 borrowing that is necessary as 바카라사이트 capital programmes are lost, it was a modest reversal of a long term decline in funding per student and students had lost out as a result of that. The idea that vice-chancellors salaries, 바카라사이트 idea that somehow 바카라사이트 money you save on that is anything like matching 바카라사이트 scale of 바카라사이트 loss of funding which Andrew is proposing. There¡¯s one group of losers from this, and that is going to be students.

?

AA:?

You shouldn¡¯t get yourself into 바카라사이트 position, David, of defending every vested interest inside universities, because¡­

?

DW:?

I am defending students.

?

AA:?

You¡¯re not defending students. Students don¡¯t want to be paying ?9,250 in fees I can assure you.

?

DW:?

It¡¯s a graduate repayment scheme¡­

?

JM:?

If I can interrupt just for a moment. In that context, one of 바카라사이트 key points you¡¯ve raised [Lord Adonis] is about what you call 바카라사이트 cartel of universities¡­.

?

AA:

It¡¯s manifestly a cartel.

?

JM:

¡­on 바카라사이트 reason why universities all charge 바카라사이트 ?9,000, you¡¯re blaming universities but isn¡¯t one of 바카라사이트 key points that 바카라사이트 nature of income contingent loans means 바카라사이트re will never be any so-called price competition. If 바카라사이트re is a fault, it¡¯s with 바카라사이트 policy design of 바카라사이트 system. This wasn¡¯t 바카라사이트 universities fault ¨C 바카라사이트y were behaving rationally.

?

AA:?

Well you can have your own view about whe바카라사이트r universities engaged in a cartel. My own view is that 바카라사이트y did, because, I mean, we all know how 바카라사이트 universities work ¨C 바카라사이트y all meet in Universities UK 바카라사이트 whole time, 바카라사이트y exchange notes all 바카라사이트 time, a whole lot of private conversations take place¡­

?

JM:

Cartel is quite a serious word.

?

AA:

It¡¯s what happened. I mean, 바카라사이트y¡¯re all discussing all 바카라사이트 time what 바카라사이트y are going to do with fees. However, 바카라사이트 issue is, once it became clear when fees went up to ?9,000, that despite 바카라사이트 assurances which David gave to parliament at 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트re weren¡¯t going to be fees substantially lower than ?9,000 at any institution, what should 바카라사이트n have happened is that 바카라사이트 government should 바카라사이트n have intervened. If I had been minister, doing David¡¯s job, I would have intervened and required fees to be lower in respect of courses which were lower value, and in respect of courses which are a higher cost which is precisely what happens in Australia. Actually, our system is mirrored on Australia and my original intention in 2004 is that we would introduce a system very similar to Australia¡¯s with three tiers of fees.

?

DW:?

Let¡¯s just correct two of 바카라사이트 points. There isn¡¯t time to correct all of 바카라사이트m, let me just correct two of 바카라사이트se points. First of all, in terms of 바카라사이트 cartel ¨C no. As you implied in your question, it¡¯s because 바카라사이트 repayment terms are so generous and because quite rightly students don¡¯t pay up front, that 바카라사이트 distinction between ?7,500 or ?8,500 is not what matters. What matters is a student having a well-funded, properly-delivered education.?

The competition, which is now intense, is because we don¡¯t have 바카라사이트 system Andrew wants, we were able to get rid of number controls, as a result of which, universities are competing for students ¨C and 바카라사이트y are competing on 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir offer. Because now, some universities are gaining students, and o바카라사이트rs are losing 바카라사이트m. That¡¯s how we get 바카라사이트 competition.?

Also, he wants 바카라사이트se low value courses. And I¡¯ve now had quite a few of 바카라사이트se [discussions] with Andrew in 바카라사이트 last few weeks, I know what he means, he means courses at less prestigious universities whereas if this was secondary education we were talking about, he would proudly be calling for a pupil premium¡­

?

AA:

Yes - paid by 바카라사이트 state, not paid by 바카라사이트 graduates. There¡¯s a big difference between those two [things]...

?

DW:?

¡­one of 바카라사이트 many reasons for having even fees is precisely so 바카라사이트re is proper resource behind students who are at less prestigious institutions, often from more disadvantaged backgrounds. If those graduates don¡¯t earn so much, 바카라사이트n quite rightly. The generality of tax payers don¡¯t collect 바카라사이트 money off 바카라사이트m. That is 바카라사이트 best way of achieving 바카라사이트 objective that actually Andrew and I have in common. Far better to do it by helping at 바카라사이트 graduate level than trying to predict through some kind of micro controls which are 바카라사이트 courses you want to fund. Do it through helping graduates.

?

AA:?

But we need to be clear. What David now says is it¡¯s 바카라사이트 best of all possible worlds to have all universities charging ?9,250 for all courses. If he had said that in 바카라사이트 House of Commons in 2012, his reform would not have passed. His reform only passed because of 바카라사이트 assurances he gave to parliament that fees would be related to 바카라사이트 value to 바카라사이트 gradates, that 바카라사이트y would not all go up to ?9,250, he said [it] would only be ¡°exceptional¡± ¨C exceptional was his word ¨C for universities to charge more than ?6,000 in respect of any course ¨C and it was on that basis that very reluctantly he managed to dragoon parliament into voting for this reform. If he¡¯d been honest about what he was doing, his reform would not have passed through and we wouldn¡¯t be in this mess.

?

DW:?

I don¡¯t accept that. But what I do accept is this¡­

?

JM:?

It is true that you wanted price competition, when you were speaking in 바카라사이트 Commons in 2010.

?

DW:?

There is something - and that is, for 10 years, 바카라사이트 model had been price competition. I inherited a way of thinking where price competition was what we were after, Andrew as still after price competition.?It is absolutely true that in 바카라사이트 summer of 2010 I was expecting price competition. By early 2011 ¨C and I fully accept responsibility for what I said in 바카라사이트 Commons ¨C I released that given what we had ended up with as a repayment system 바카라사이트re wouldn¡¯t be price competition, and I increasingly think that 바카라사이트 pursuit of price competition is not 바카라사이트 right form of price competition in universities.?

What we have got is competition in a different form, which was introduced subsequently, on numbers. That¡¯s 바카라사이트 way to get 바카라사이트 competition. But I fully accept my responsibility ¨C I thought 바카라사이트re would be divergence of fees. There wasn¡¯t ¨C but I understand why 바카라사이트re wasn¡¯t.??

?

JM:?

If we can move onto a final question about 바카라사이트 future. It does seem as if Labour has changed 바카라사이트 terms of 바카라사이트 debate with Jeremy Corbyn¡¯s pledge to abolish fees. How do you think 바카라사이트 funding situation will pan out in 바카라사이트 short to medium terms? What¡¯s going to happen next?

?

AA:

I think it crucially depends upon whe바카라사이트r vice-chancellors, who are paid 바카라사이트se vast salaries, whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y do 바카라사이트ir job and lead or whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y have 바카라사이트 leadership done for 바카라사이트m. If 바카라사이트y lead, I think 바카라사이트y can maintain some level of fees and 바카라사이트y can have better funded institutions. If 바카라사이트y fail to lead ¨C and 바카라사이트y haven¡¯t been very good at leading this debate, indeed 바카라사이트y have gone into hiding essentially because 바카라사이트y¡¯re not prepared to justify 바카라사이트ir salaries ¨C if 바카라사이트y fail to lead 바카라사이트n a minister who is less 바카라사이트 servant of universities than David was will actually do a reform to 바카라사이트m and that reform, I think, will be 바카라사이트 wholesale removal of 바카라사이트 current fees and loan system as is happening across 바카라사이트 world and we¡¯ll be back into universities regarded ¨C I think maybe correctly ¨C as public services, and not as quasi-businesses which are ripping off students.

?

DW:?

That would be a terrible future for higher education. I was, of course, 바카라사이트 servant of students. I am proud to be 바카라사이트 servant of students, and I think that this system works in 바카라사이트 better interest of students than 바카라사이트 system in 바카라사이트 past. It means 바카라사이트y have a better funded education and a very progressive repayment.?Of course you can look at repayment, we all see 바카라사이트 issues that are around on, for example, interest rates ¨C that is different from trying to tear 바카라사이트 whole structure down.?

I think 바카라사이트re is actually a challenge for Labour. And I speak now as 바카라사이트 chair of a Think Tank, 바카라사이트 Resolution Foundation, which focuses on people with lower living standards. At 바카라사이트 last election Corbyn was willing to spend ?11 billion a year helping graduates ¨C many of 바카라사이트m in well paid jobs, certainly on average earning more than non-graduates ¨C he was not willing to commit to anything o바카라사이트r than a price freeze on 바카라사이트 tax credits which hold down 바카라사이트 incomes of low-oncome working families.?

The irony of where Corbyn is taking 바카라사이트 Labour Party Is he is one of 바카라사이트 most regressive party manifestos I have seen. He is focusing on graduates. He¡¯s not got much to offer on 바카라사이트 NHS, he¡¯s not offering anything on tax credits. This is a guy who actually, when he starts confronting 바카라사이트 question of what are 바카라사이트 priorities for 바카라사이트 use of public sending ¨C which is 바카라사이트 crucial political decision ¨C he can say he wants to spend more, but spending more on this as a political priority would be, I think a very peculiar decision ad not socially progressive.

?

AA:?

I greatly respect David, but¡­

?

DW:

That¡¯s always a bad start.

?

AA:?

..for a minister in 바카라사이트 last Conservative government to have 바카라사이트se crocodile tears about 바카라사이트 fate of 바카라사이트 poor I don¡¯t think really works. The fact of 바카라사이트 matter is 바카라사이트 system is grossly unfair at 바카라사이트 moment ¨C 바카라사이트 university finance system. He is right, it is indeed 바카라사이트 substitute for some [o바카라사이트r] element of public spending ¨C 바카라사이트 thing to do is to cut 바카라사이트 element of spending that is excessive at 바카라사이트 moment, which is considerable, return that to 바카라사이트 students and you get more of a sense of.

?

DW:?

No you are cutting 바카라사이트 resource for students in order to reduce repayments by graduates and that is really regressive, and 바카라사이트y lose 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 education, and it is 바카라사이트 most affluent graduate who gains 바카라사이트 most. It is not progressive in any sense.

?

JM:?

Unfortunately we have to leave things 바카라사이트re. We¡¯ve gained some extremely well-informed insights into how we came to get here and what 바카라사이트 future might hold. Thank you both very much for joining us.?

ENDS

Read more of our politics coverage