In Response to the Queen's Speech

As always, the Queen's Speech this year is a mixed bag. Outlining in vague and pompous phrases the principle legislation for the coming year, it contains few surprises. The government has presented the speech as primarily interested in "fairness and the future". But does it live up to its billing?

Before getting into the contents of the speech, it is worth noting what isn't in. No mention of banning fox hunting, and, more significantly, no mention of corporate killing. It seems that under the New Labour definition of "fairness" it is still perfectly acceptable for over-privileged minorities to literally get away with murder.

The lead proposal of the speech is also lacking in fairness. Under the guise of enabling "more young people to benefit from education" the government proposes introducing not only a graduate tax, but a recessive one at that. The justification that this will put the universities on a "sound financial footing" seems unlikely, given the government habit of cutting other sources of funding when no one is looking. In the end, the government has produced a compromise that will satisfy no one. Universities can charge up to three thousand pounds extra, but only if they decide they can get away with it. Students will pay this back, but only when they get a below average wage of their own.

Fair? Not even close. A primary teacher will pay the same as a merchant banker for the dubious benefit of having a degree. Worse, since it doesn't matter whether the job you have actually depends on your degree, we will soon see hotel receptionists and assistant managers in burger bars paying more tax purely because they once tried to better themselves.

The problem is that there is a crisis in funding higher education. To see why, you need to look at a little modern history. Not so long ago, bank managers did not generally have degrees. Nor did hotel managers. Nor did a wide range of other occupations that are now expected to spend three or four years acquiring a bit of paper. Why did it change? Simply because the companies involved don't want to pay for on the job training - they want someone else to create perfect employees for them. Where it gets sinful is that the government has very kindly complied.

The funding crisis has occurred because universities are increasingly used as direct training for work establishments. Courses exist purely for the benefit of a small number of employers, but they won't pay for them. The tax payer doesn't want to pay for them, so who will? The current answer is the students. Except, this year's student is next year's tax payer. This might be an amazing let off for the current crop of tax payers, but we're storing up trouble for our children. Its a fiddle. The government is moving the tax burden on a generation, and hoping that voters won't notice. Let's not pretend that the result of this bill will be anything other than higher taxes for the average tax payer to pay for higher education. It'll take fifteen years for this to be true, but that is the only possible effect. In order to try to hide this from us, the government is introducing a bureaucratic nightmare where a person's tax owed will depend not just on salary, but on what they did in the past, and how much tax they've already paid. Simpler and fairer to simply be honest and raise taxes in the first place. It isn't like anyone is going to be fooled anyway.

It would be a brave government indeed that would raise taxes without attempting to hide it from the public. Yet there is an obvious alternative. Rather than tax the student, tax those who benefit from a highly educated public. Indeed, who demand that we attend university in the first place. Tax the employers. Ultimately, it is they who will pay anyway, in higher pay and lower free cash in the public purse. A tax on companies, especially the larger companies who could afford to pay for their own training yet prefer to shift that burden on to the tax payer, would be a fitting means to fund higher education.

Other inequalities are to be found in government plans for the NHS. Despite the claims that foundation hospitals will increase patient choice, few people have a practical choice as to which hospital treats them. A two-tiered health service can only increase the postcode lottery in health provision.

Then there's ID cards. The government will press forward with their vague plan to introduce further big brothers into our lives. Never mind that there are no justifications for this intrusion. Never mind that similar measures have been used to repress groups across the world and across the centuries. Never mind that the much publicised "biometric data" cannot possibly uniquely identify anyone in a country the size of Britain. Lets put some figures on that - even the best iris scanners can only reach 99% identification reaches. Which means that there are more than half a million people in Britain who my iris scan would be confused with. Finger print scanners are worse - nearer 80%, meaning that as many as one person in five would be identified as me!

It is unfortunate that the inequalities of the government's plans stand out so clearly. In many ways, the Queen's speech sets out a progressive program, with rights for same sex couples, the disabled, witnesses and victims, and children being introduced or strengthened. Yet the corner stone legislation of the coming parliament overshadows these measures, leaving us with a random collection of liberal and oppressive policies being enacted, and important issues ignored. The impression we are left with is of a cowardly government, willing to be progressive on relatively uncontroversial areas, but bowing to big business and right wing ideas when pressured.

Graham Robinson. 26th November 2003.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.