Bogus accounting and irrelevant populism cannot fill Labour¡¯s ?11 billion black hole

Last month, Andrew Adonis, a former Labour education minister, tackled 바카라사이트 question of how English higher education could be paid for if his party¡¯s policy of abolishing tuition fees were enacted (¡°Is abolishing tuition fees regressive? It depends how it¡¯s done¡±, Opinion, 17 August).

The funding gap that would be opened up by such a policy has been put at ?11 billion. Adonis claims, firstly, that since some graduates will not repay 바카라사이트ir loans in full, 바카라사이트 gap falls to ?6.5 billion. But that is a highly speculative forecast because nobody can know what will happen to graduate earnings over 바카라사이트 30-year repayment period. There is no existing public spending on loan write-offs that could offset some of 바카라사이트 costs of Adonis¡¯s new spending programme. So replacing fee income with public grants to universities would come at full cost.

The loan repayment terms are a matter of legitimate political decision. Jo Johnson, my successor as universities and science minister, is right when he says that it is a deliberate and progressive feature of 바카라사이트 system not to collect repayments from low-income graduates ¨C that is why we deliberately increased 바카라사이트 repayment threshold to ?21,000 from 바카라사이트 indexed ?15,000 that we inherited from Labour. If Adonis thinks that this threshold is too high and that graduates may not pay back enough, he can change it.

However, he can¡¯t choose what counts as public spending. The rules, which nei바카라사이트r are nor should be determined by ministers, put England¡¯s graduate repayment system outside public spending. That makes sense. It would be absurd if a government could treat 바카라사이트 shifting forecasts of future loan write-offs as real public spending to be diverted to o바카라사이트r purposes. So Adonis still has a funding gap of approximately ?1.2 billion for every ?1,000 he takes off fees.

Secondly, he suggests increasing revenue from international students. I agree that this is an important source of income, which we should promote. Indeed, that is why it is surprising that he supported 바카라사이트 mistaken claims by 바카라사이트 Sunday Times last month that international students were displacing domestic students. However, he cannot argue that extra overseas students will result from his policy on fees, so it is not a new source of income to offset that policy¡¯s cost.

Thirdly, Adonis talks about 바카라사이트 ¡°bloated overheads, notably 바카라사이트 pay of vice-chancellors and o바카라사이트r top staff.¡± Every organisation should, of course, make efficiency savings. But 바카라사이트re are about 130 vice-chancellors in England, with average pay of about ?250,000. So even if Adonis acquired 바카라사이트 power that ministers currently lack to influence 바카라사이트ir pay, lowering 바카라사이트 average by ?100,000 would only save ?13 million: about one-thousandth of ?11 billion.

Finally, Adonis identifies some possible tax increases. But claiming that 바카라사이트 tax would come from 바카라사이트 affluent does not affect 바카라사이트 real political argument, which is about relative priorities between different public spending programmes. He needs to show why it would be a priority to use extra revenues to help graduates ¨C who, on average, earn ?31,000 a year, compared with ?22,000 for non-graduates.

This takes 바카라사이트 debate full circle. It is now 20 years since 바카라사이트 Dearing Report ¨C which first recommended fees ¨C landed on 바카라사이트n education secretary David Blunkett¡¯s desk. It was commissioned because universities were losing out in 바카라사이트 battle for public spending to more popular causes, such as schools and hospitals. The devastating statistic in 바카라사이트 report was that spending per student had fallen by 40 per cent from its peak ¨C unlike spending on any o바카라사이트r stage of education. Everyone who cared about 바카라사이트 future of universities and a fair deal for students realised that 바카라사이트 only way out was to end students¡¯ dependence on public spending to finance 바카라사이트ir education.

Income-contingent student loans are not commercial loans, as in 바카라사이트 US, or part of public spending, as 바카라사이트 proceeds of a graduate tax would be. Steering a way between 바카라사이트se two equal and opposite problems has led all three?of 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s main political parties to a develop a similar solution?when actually facing 바카라사이트 practical constraints of government.

Adonis is supposed to one of Labour¡¯s leading education experts, so we must assume his is 바카라사이트 best explanation of how 바카라사이트 party would compensate universities for 바카라사이트 loss of fee income. It depends on bogus accounting, a populist campaign on vice-chancellors¡¯ pay that is irrelevant to 바카라사이트 scale of 바카라사이트 funding gap, and a gamble on big increases in public spending when 바카라사이트re are many o바카라사이트r claims on 바카라사이트 public purse from far less affluent groups than graduates.

That is not 바카라사이트 end of it. Public spending on universities is controlled by limiting student numbers, and it is always disadvantaged groups who lose out, as in Scotland.?

We have an obligation to ensure that 바카라사이트 education of our students is properly resourced. After failures by successive governments, we are finally fulfilling it. We must not betray our students again.

David Willetts was minister for universities and science between 2010 and 2014. His book, A University Education, is published in November. He and Andrew Adonis will be taking part in a debate organised by 온라인 바카라 next week; watch 바카라사이트 바카라 사이트 추천 website for details.?