It does not matter that the Manifesto may have actually said that top-up fees
for university education would not be introduced into this Parliamentary
session, and the proposals from Blair would not become legislation until the
next if they were adopted; many of those who voted for Labour on the back of
this pledge feel cheated and lied to, and many who didn't vote Labour see it
in the same light.Many see it as disingenuous that what was said in the Manifesto is so patently
different to the long-term policy plans. Had the Manifesto said, "No top-up fees
this session, but there will be in the one after that", then people would have
known what they were voting for and what they would be getting.
With Labour's reliance on 'spin' being seen more evidently as time goes on,
it is not hard to see the pledge as a cynical attempt to get voters on-side.
Anyone who disagreed with top-up fees would be inclined to support
Labour's take on the matter, and yet when elected, once more, the Party stands
at odds with those who put it into power. Say the good things, forget to mention
the bad; but is it a fair representation of what the actual policy was to be ?
We all know that the world moves on, and what one would like to do may not be
what is possible when the time comes, but to overturn a promise before trying
to find a way to keep to it makes that promise look hollow
and worthless. If one makes a promise and doesn't stick by it, then what is the
value of making such a promise in the first place ? It can often be an
uncomfortable position, but when we make a promise, we must suffer the
consequences of having made that promise and stand by it, or be seen as
untrustworthy or fraudulent.
Blair will of course argue that he's not breaking any promises, because any
change that will take place will be after the current promise runs out, but it
is the spirit of the promise that everyone saw, and Blair riding roughshod over
people's expectations is not going to do him any favours.
Blair can stand up with a smugness of knowing that he is right on a
technicality, and although he may not think he's saying, "Gotcha !", that is
exactly what the electorate will be thinking. It is a poor man, and an even
worse Prime Minister, who takes it upon himself to rub the voters up the wrong
way, to bite the hand that feeds. Those who supported the perceived Labour
policy of "no top-up fees" will be feeling as suckered as they would be having
been punched in the face by someone who promised they weren't going to, and
finding that promise only applied at the time they said it.
That Blair can even stand up and so blatantly act in a manner which many see
as inconsistent with what they believed to be Labour policy will rile many,
and only further accusations that he is behaving in a Presidential manner.
Just who is Blair that he thinks he can dictate what he wants to the people of
Britain ?
University Top-Up Fees - Why they are wrong
Top-up fees are a strange thing to introduce for a government whose
number one priority is, "Education, education, education", and is seeking to
see 50% of school leavers enter higher education. How moves to charge students
to enter education is conducive to increasing education attendance is beyond
analysis - It's like charging people to vote in order to increase turn-out.
Top-up fees are wrong because they place a financial burden upon the individual
and that financial burden is seen as being too onerous by many, who will
consequently not pursue the education they would have if top-up fees were
not in place. This amounts to restricting education to those who can afford it,
which is fundamentally wrong. All education should be free to everyone who wants
it.
Top-up fee levels can be set by individual institutions and can therefore be
used as a filter to preclude those who do not feel they have, or will have, the
financial resources to attend particular institutions. It will create
multiple streams of education for the well off and the poor, rather than giving
access to students based upon ability alone. All students should have
access to the most suitable institution without regard to their financial
status.
Those institutions raising larger top-up fee incomes will be better off than
those who do not charge at all, which will better place the institutions who do
charge when it comes to recruiting staff, with the highest calibre staff being
drawn to the institutions who can afford to pay more. Institutions who charge
top-up fees will therefore attract the highest calibre staff and those who
don't will get the lower calibre staff. Those who are taught by lower calibre
staff are likely to get a lesser quality of education. The result is that those
who can afford to pay will receive an excellent education while those who can't
won't.
Educating people is of benefit to the whole of society and it is therefore
right that the whole of society should pay for that education, not just the
individual who receives it. Even if one were to agree that we should all pay for
what we receive; it is inequitable that someone should pay for their
education and then see society freely benefit from their investment.
Most people do not develop their full potential of their
own accord but only when encouraged to do so. Introducing schemes which
discourage some from continuing education, and thus fulfilling their potential,
is wrong when we should be introducing schemes which encourages attendance in
education and fulfilment of their potential. Failure to do so is a loss for
individuals and society. Rather than making people pay to go into education, we
should be paying them to do so.
