Why I support a graduate tax

How pleasing to see the HE funding debate garnering so much media coverage today. The ever-present issue in student politics of how university's should be funded is now firmly in the domain of public consciousness but refreshingly not because of a seemingly inevitable call for an increase in fees from Lord Browne. Instead this morning the former student leader in me ate his bran flakes with delight while listening to Vince Cable, Business Secretary, outlining his support for a potential graduate tax and his subsequent request to Lord Browne and his team of tuition fee reviewers to fully explore alternative funding models.

Crucially, Cable explained after a rather lenghty speech, what may seem like a radical departure from the current system is, in practical terms, not wildly different. Students already take a loan from the government and repay it to the tune of 9p in every £1 earned over the initial allowance of £15,000 per annum. Athough not established yet it is hard to see the new repayment system being much different to this one, the key issue being that those students who benefit financially in their work life from obtaining a degree will contribute more to the scheme whereas those who don't experience such monetary benefits will not be required to contribute so highly. Progressive, I like.

What it removes from the process is the decision to take the risk, often as an 18 year old, to burden yourself with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt to further your education. A huge decision for a young person to make, a dilemma that is undoubtedly making many think twice before embarking upon a HE course. Research would suggest that on average in a lifetime a graduate may only be up to £100,000 better off than a peer who doesn't have a degree. By increasing tuition fees, and in turn increasing student debt, we are only serving to close this gap and remove any financial impetus for people to continue their education. A graduate tax allows us to remove this gamble.

Finance and numeracy aside however we must not forget one key ethos, that education is a right and it not only benefits the individual, it benefits the whole country. Our greatest tool in improving our country is education and in all we do when discussing or reforming our HE system we must ensure that keeping education accessible to as many people as possible is at the heart of our endeavours.

The devil, I have been told by no more than 4 independent sources today, is in the detail. Indeed ahead of the detail of this potential system being produced I have 2 concerns. One is that the increased contribution that may potentially be asked of higher earners will serve to demotivate our top graduates from excelling themselves. Secondly that any graduate tax must not be completely open-ended, it would be beyond the realms of reasonable social responsibility to ask someone to contribute indefinitely and gratuitously to something which does infact have a tangible value attached to it. Both issues will hopefully be addressed as the debate continues and a firmer plan of implementation materialises.

Pandering to bigotry?

What I found most striking, indeed most morally abrasive, from this week's synod were attempts from the upper echelons of the Church of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, to establish some form of tepid middle-ground of equality. Ostensibly, this proposed compromise would allow for female bishops but would have them under male supervision should this be deemed necessary; surely this is just moving the goal posts and neglecting to deal with the actual issue of equality? It's akin to telling a suffragette they can have a vote then subsequently endowing the male population with two votes each, it achieves nothing, in fact if anything it places more hurdles on the path of those striving for equality.

The issue of unity in the church also grates on me. Don't get me wrong, maintaining a united church all singing from the same sheet, as it were, is the noblest of intents - but at what cost? In what other organisation would the top brass be pandering to sections of its membership whose views were inarguably sexist? Moreover, where else in our country would community leaders be attempting to placate these bastions of inequality with legislation rife with prejudice? It wouldn't happen, the law would be cited and these purveyors of archaic bigotry quashed. But our bigoted brothers threaten to leave the church? Show them the door I say, your prejudices have no place here.

The whole debate throws up even more questions about the relationship between church and state which I shan't attempt to tackle here but I will ask this; if the church is seemingly above the law in matters of equality then where else is it above the law? Where exactly is this exemption provided for?

As a closing remark I'd like to offer my congratulations to those open-minded and progressive people who have put into motion great reform in the church. You might just find your vote for inclusiveness is exactly that and new membership for a church that is increasingly beginning to champion equality far outweighs any loss suffered from any deserting zealots.

Welcome!

Hello kind people!

Welcome to my first attempt at keeping a blog. An enjoyment of student journalism at university compounded by lengthy arguments with the newspaper and news bulletins has spurred me into turning what have previously been bitesize Twitter musings into fully blown opinions.

I would say politics and sports are what grab my attention most although this is by no means an exhaustive list of my interests. Being a former student leader has given me an unshakeable interest in Higher Education and indeed education in a much broader sense.

Any of you who take the time to read my ramblings are always invited to comment, hope you enjoy!