University education - who 'pays' ?

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) today stepped forward to say University students in the UK should pay more for their loans and accept higher tuition fees as "inevitable".

The National Union of Students attacked their report as "gross hypocrisy" from the "fat cats at the CBI". The Association of Teachers and Lecturers attacked the proposals as "arrogant and elitist".

In my view the CBI is once again promoting the wrong strategy, and Robert Peston has today done a fantastic job in challenging this position in his blog ... and points to the issue of inter-generational social justice the CBI ignores ... I've included a few of his comments below:

'... More by luck than desert, the generation of Lambert, Balls, Laidlaw and even Peston have had it pretty good ... we had free university education ... we have saved for a pension over the many years of a bull market and when companies and the public sector felt obliged to offer gold-standard final salary pension schemes ... we managed to get on the property ladder before house prices became ludicrously inflated...

... It was our generation which royally messed up the economy with the inadequate governance that led to the credit crunch and the worst global recession since the 1930s ... but we're - on the whole - alright Jack, thanks to the accident of when we happen to have been born ...

... but those leaving school and university today face an altogether bleaker future: a drought of jobs; a bewildering and unappealing set of options for saving and investing; over-priced residential property (even after the "correction"); relentless fearsome competition from India, China, and so on ...

.. and there's the costs of providing a health service and welfare state to sustain an older generation ...

... so some may well argue that as and when a new government decides to make cuts or increase taxes - to fill the hole in the public finances created by the current generation - its first instinct should probably not be to penalise students ... shouldn't the older generation bequeath them something other than debt?'

and in response to his blog I added:

'Well put - an excellent article again ... and many great comments from bloggers too. IMHO setting a target of 50% of people going to university is a joke, the CBI comments are a disgrace and the Government need to think very carefully about what they choose to do in this area ...

... for instance young people also have a choice where they live (n.b. they can move anywhere in the EU without restriction), and if hard-working young people move out of the UK to work elsewhere then there will be few value/wealth creators at all here in the future and no-one to pay the taxes necessary to subsidise any public services at all (or to pay off any of the debts) ... and the whole system will continue a downward spiral ... until widespread protest/social unrest hits the streets ...

Instead of passing more debt on to future generations, what about introducing a new tax - a 'Land Value Tax'* (which a number of other countries currently have) ... as it's known to be particularly effective at targeting rich landowners who own most of the land, assets & wealth ... as this group can more than afford it, it can't easily be 'passed on' and they also can't avoid it - unlike most/all of the other taxes aimed at them**! ...

... It would raise large amounts of tax and would allow other taxes to reduce as a result. It would also push landowners to make more land available for housing - which would partly tackle the over-priced residential property market we still have too. A small fraction of this tax revenue could be used to subsidise free tuition fees and provide maintenance grants (e.g. more 'means-tested' grants) for future generations of value/wealth creators (e.g. so long as they are UK residents and continue to stay in the country) ...

... Let's also reduce the number of students going to University from the stupidly high target of 50%, support proper vocational apprenticeships and scrap/replace all the poor quality courses we see today e.g. most of the very expensive, and yet completely flawed, MBA programmes ... which teach students 19th century management practices instead of 21st century management practices (i.e. outdated courses, which partly got us in this mess, and which are often referred to as 'Maybe Best Avoided' - even without all the debt)!

* take a look at http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/08/land-of-free-but-whos-paying-for-it.html for instance.

** NB the Government have allowed 'land' to be one of the very few things exempt from inheritance tax too!

The BBC - part of the conspiracy preventing 21st century democracy

Following from my last post, and my previous points about the BBC failing in it's duties, Greg Dyke (former Director General of the BBC) has also today stepped forward to tell us the BBC is part of a "conspiracy" preventing the "radical changes" needed to UK democracy ... and he told a Lib Dem conference meeting he wanted a commission to look into the "whole political system".

But Greg Dyke also said 'I fear it will never happen because I fear the political class will stop it' and said 'major changes he had wanted to make to the BBC's coverage of politics had been blocked'.

He told the Liberal Vision fringe meeting about the expenses scandal and how it had changed voters' attitudes ... 'The evidence that our democracy is failing is overwhelming and yet those with the biggest interest in sustaining the current system - the Westminster village, the media and particularly the political parties - are the groups most in denial about what is really happening to our democracy ...'

Mr Dyke also said ... 'there had never been a greater separation between the 'political class' and the public. We want more influence over our lives and we are not just prepared to hand it over to this strange bunch of people who stand for Parliament ...

... I tried and failed to get the problem properly discussed when I was at the BBC and I was stopped, interestingly, by a combination of the politicos on the board of governors. Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests ...'

He said ... 'the expenses scandal had been 'British democracy's Berlin Wall moment' but he feared the opportunity to change the system was fading away. He called for an end to pathetic jeering, shouting and childish behaviour and the pomp and ceremony in Parliament ...

... an independent commission should look at ideas such as moving the seat of democracy out of Westminster, a fully elected upper chamber with no whipping system, proportional representation, cutting the number of MPs by half, and reforming their pay and expenses, he added. It's time to be radical. Our current model was designed for the 18th Century. It doesn't fit 21st Century Britain' ...

And he added ... 'We want more influence over our lives and we are not just prepared to hand it over to this strange bunch of people who stand for Parliament because they have been knocking on people's doors for 10 years ..'

and went on to say ... 'A lot of the BBC governors were also what I call semi-politicians and they liked the present system and.... maybe they were right - it's not the job of the BBC to change the political system and to start questioning the political system ... I happen to not agree with that but, you know, we didn't get anywhere' ... and he added ... 'In the end political journalists live in the same narrow world as politicians do and they don't see a need to change because they think it's the world. They just don't understand that out there it's very different.'

Change - a challenge indeed ... however happen it will, and aided by the internet & 21st century technology, politics & power will eventually change forever ... and with Greg Dyke's comments today we are a little more wiser about the real BBC (and BBC journalists - particularly their 'political' journalists) and the role (or lack of a role) they are playing ... which, if nothing else, confirms what most of us in the blogosphere already know ...

Referred to on Robert Peston's 'What future for media and journalism?' blog.

Media and Journalism - what future ?

Robert Peston recently tried to answer the above question in the Richard Dunn Memorial Lecture at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International Television Festival ... and for me the main points he made were really about the future of journalism:

"... It was plainly in the public interest to disclose the weakness of our banks. And the primary justification - for me - of this kind of story is to democratise information that matters to all our livelihoods, which would otherwise be available simply to a few bankers, hedge funds and government officials ...

... what matters is what has always mattered - the facts, the story. The skill for a journalist is unearthing information that matters to people and then communicating it as clearly, accurately - and if possible as entertainingly - as possible ...

... for me, the blog is at the core of everything I do, it is the bedrock of my output. The discipline of doing it shapes my thoughts. It disseminates to a wider world the stories and themes that I think matter ... it connects me to the audience in a very important way. The comments left by readers contain useful insights - and they help me understand what really matters to people. That is not to say that I give them only what they want. I retain an old-fashioned view that in the end the licence fee pays for my putative skills in making judgements about what matters. Most important of all, the blog allows me and the BBC to own a big story and create a community of interested people around it. Sharing information - some of it hugely important, some of it less so - with a big and interested audience delivers that ownership and creates that committed community ...

... more than ever we need a choice of providers of high quality, authoritative news. The question is how to ensure there are enough competing groups with the resources to invest in news - because it is far from cheap to supply people with the information they need to take control of their lives and hold big institutions to account ...

... in my area, of financial journalism - but I think this argument can be extended - there is more-than-ever a requirement to fulfil that traditional purpose of serious journalism, to empower people to participate fully in democracy ...

... there was a time when jobs were for life and a decent income in retirement was guaranteed by a benign employer, with the welfare state rescuing the unlucky or feckless few. Those were the days. Whether it's pensions, or buying a house or acquiring new skills so that we can remain in gainful employment, the onus has been put much more on individuals to make decisions that will determine whether they'll be prosperous or paupers. But are we equipped to make those life-determining decisions? ...

... what I am talking about here, as you know, is the importance of public service journalism, about informing and educating the public so that there is democratic participation in big decisions about the future of capitalism. Now at a time when the future of the financial underpinning of the economy is in question, so too is another part of the fabric of our society - the part that transmits not money but the news and information we need to hold powerful institutions to account. And for me, the issue is all about securing the greatest access for the greatest number of people to a diversity of competing high quality news sources ...

... with financial paternalism in its death throes, just as we are being forced to take control of our financial lives as never before, are we sure that a wholly liberalised commercial news market would ensure that everyone has access to the kind of news and financial information they need and deserve? ...

... will the new paid-for online model inform and educate on hard issues - financial matters, but also medicine, the environment, education and so on - that matter to us, or will it concentrate on the more sensationalist and titillating bangs for the buck? And even if paid-for online services do endeavour to fill the gap created by the death of financial paternalism, will millions on low incomes be excluded from access to this information? Should we be relaxed if 'can't pay' means 'can't know'? ...

there is a debate here about two kinds of fairness. There is the fairness of ensuring a level playing field for players in a commercial market. And there is the fairness of the distribution of information and knowledge to all who need it, irrespective of their material circumstances ..."

The reason for highlighting these statements in particular are because they allude to a more fundamental problem, not directly (but indirectly) mentioned, which is the demise of proper responsible journalism, and its increasing replacement with sensationalist / celebrity news reporting (e.g. headline grabbing) ... as highlighted by Jeremy Paxman as well in the 2007 James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture entitled "Never mind the scandals: what’s it all for" ... as well as Peter Sissons recently, whilst referring to the lack of unbiased journalism in the BBC with regard to climate change ...

Comment Added to Robert Peston's blog.

Challenging Poweromics ... and looking for Recovery

Insightful words were this week articulated by the head of Britain's trade union movement, Brendan Barber, as he pointed out the fundamental flaws in Politicians' actions over the last ten years ... as well as the fallacy in promoting the 'green shoots of recovery' ...

"Politicians bought the line that 'Finance' should be 'King' and deregulation the answer to every problem ... activities so well described by Adair Turner as 'socially useless' were seen as 'economically essential' ...

... set finance free we were told, have a bonfire of regulations, let the super rich get even richer ... it will somehow trickle down to the rest of us ... 'manufacturing is old fashioned', 'let the city rule', 'greed is good' ... these were the 'watch words' ... and those whose still preach that greed want us to forget the crash and tell us the economy is now in recovery ...

... but the economy has fallen off a cliff and the green shoots mean little ... when 1000's of people a day are joining the dole queue ... and rising share prices count for little when a million and more young people can't find work ...

and bumper bonuses ... an obscene joke, when it was our money that rescued to banks, and its our public services that are now being told they will have to face the consequences ...

... it's only when unemployment starts coming down, only when we create decent jobs that pay decent wages, and only when vital public services are safe from cuts, that we will be able to talk about a real recovery ..."

Wise words, well spoken, from a leader who can clearly see the wood from the trees ... but what's arguably most shocking & surprising of all is that he's describing the behaviour & actions of a supposed Labour Government (led by 'leaders' supposedly also brought up in the church!) who were once thought of as the voice of communities and hard-working people ... how things have changed ... and how things will have to change for us to get back on course ...

... but unfortunately none of the current politicians & bankers will do this for us ... it will require brand new leadership, new people who truly represent the voice of the people, to take responsibility and turn around our failing economy, and society ... we face a huge battle, a battle of values, one that needs to challenge Poweromics and the basic premise that 'greed is good' ... we need to quickly introduce Leanomics (and leanomics indicators such as the 'BUTS' test - where U refers to unemployment/untapped talent as mentioned above), else we will resign our economy/society to history ...

'For evil to flourish, all it needs is for good men to do nothing' [Edmund Burke]

Connection between 'worth' and 'reward' obscured

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams told BBC Two's Newsnight programme: "There hasn't been a feeling of closure about what happened last year" ... "We haven't heard people saying 'well actually, no, we got it wrong and the whole fundamental principle on which we worked was unreal, was empty'."

What we are looking at is the possibility of a society getting more and more dysfunctional if the levels of inequality that we have seen in the last couple of decades are not challenged. Dr Williams went on to say ... "It's a failure to name what was wrong. To name that, what I called last year 'idolatry', that projecting [of] reality and substance onto things that don't have them."

He also said that the crisis was a lesson that "economics is too important to be left to economists" ... and he went on to suggest there was a role for "awkward amateurs" in examining how the City operates.

Dr Williams also said there was a sense of "bafflement" and "muted anger" at the bonus culture and said "I think that's one of those things that feeds the... diffused resentment, that people are somehow getting away with a culture in which the connection between the worth of what you do and the reward you get becomes more obscure".

He could have gone a lot further, and questioned the value/ethics of building an economy based on 'gambling' (instead of adding real value for communities), and the legitimacy of gambling with other people's money ... allowing a small minority to profit greatly when it goes well, only to be bailed out by the vast majority (taxpayers) every time it goes wrong.

He didn't mention the need to split commercial banking from investment banking, but he did mention the importance of 'wealth creation' (value creation & well-being) compared to 'wealth manipulation', which I have referred to in past blogs ... Leanomics will need to replace Poweromics (in terms of 'economics') very soon if our nations are to have any chance of a survival, 'success' and a 'sustainable future'.

More people need to take responsibility and challenge what is happening (see 'for evil to flourish') and as far as having 'awkward amateurs' examining how the City operates - I couldn't agree more ... in fact Leanomics would naturally create this ...

As time goes on, and things get worse, such messages will get progressively stronger, highlighting the fundamental lack of ethical and moral values prevailing in our 'leadership', as well as the fundamental gap (and flaws) between 'creating value' and 'monetary reward' that current exist ...