Craig Oliver has his work cut out

Craig Oliver has a lot of work to do in his new role as the Tories' communications chief. Despite having ideas which could genuinely change the country for the better, No. 10 is failing to convey its messages to the public. The explanation of higher tuition fees - a policy that actually benefits the poor - was appalling. And we are seeing the same mistakes again as the Government directs too little attention to explaining NHS reforms, as well as its ongoing inability to convey the meaning of the Big Society.

The NHS reforms are suffering because Ministers consistently fail to explain them clearly. People want to be reassured that their services will not be cut. Frankly, the public does not care at all what particular structure NHS bureaucracy takes. They need to know that doctors support the proposals, and that their services will improve. To ensure the first one, the Government must get doctors - GPs in particular - on their side, and ensure that they fully understand the changes. The second will require simple and easily comprehensible messages about the future direction of the NHS. It is amazing that Andrew Lansley has been allowed to work for so long at these reforms and yet no-one has ever pressed him devise a way to encapsulate them in a simple media narrative. Hopefully this will now change.

The Big Society is an ongoing problem, which has suffered from incomprehensibility since its inception. No-one appears able to clearly explain it. And now with the Government starting to reduce the funding to local authorities it looks like a bad joke: your services will continue if you do the work yourselves. What the Big Society is about is responsibility. It's about the social networks we have - our families, our friends, our neighbours - and finding ways to ensure that all those people who live in the same area as you have help if they need it. The Government needs to move from the conceptual to the practical, and actually start to outline just how people can get involved.

So Craig Oliver will have to deal with all of this and more. Indeed, it seems that just to provoke another section of the public the Government has chosen to start a poorly explained programme to sell Britain's forests. There is not yet a coherent media narrative that explains why this is a good thing. There should be. In fact, there should have been one even before the measures were announced, because unless the public knows that a problem exists, they won't take kindly to changes to something they quite like. Craig Oliver must ensure that in the future, all announcements are solutions to clear problems, and that they can be condensed into a simple, clear message.

Problems with the Browne Review are a missed opportunity for the Lib Dems.

I have written before about the Browne Review and the coming changes to the way universities are funded, making it pretty clear that the deal was actually better for students than the one they get now. But two areas I didn't touch have been troubling me. First, I didn't look at the principle of whether students should have their university education funded. Secondly, there is one area on which Browne's reforms are very weak and the Lib Dems are fools for not noticing it.

Britain's current problems have arisen from a noble goal: to make university accessible to all. A consequence of this has been that the number of people going to university has increased. A lot. This may have been great for social mobility (debatable) but it was awful for the government's finances. There are now more people going to university than the state can afford. On the surface - and I think that this is where people are looking - this looks unfair. Before the expansion of HE students, who were rarely from poor backgrounds, got free higher education. Now university is open to all it suddenly isn't free.

The simple fact is that students never deserved state help. There is no reason why taxpayers should fund students. Why should the poor fund your university experience? Or rather, why shouldn't you pay for it yourself? You get a hell of a lot out of it - all the statistics suggest that graduates earn more than non-graduates. So why should non-graduates subsidise your education so you can earn more money?

They shouldn't. You should pay for your own studies.

My second point is this: there is a big problem with these reforms, but it's not with the top-up fees. That £9,000 figure has distorted the debate. Everyone is focussed on it. But the reason why £9,000 isn't a problem is because the government pays it for you up front, and you pay back when you're earning. If you do the sums, you'll see that someone paying back their loan earning £25,000 a year at the 9% rate on income over £21,000 will have to find just £360 per year. It's not the thing that makes university unaffordable.

The killer is what you have to pay UP FRONT when you're there. That is supposed to be covered by a maintenance grant and a means-tested allowance. But there is a real argument to say that the sums offered are not enough. For those with a household income less than £25,000 there will be a grant of £3,250. This is supplemented by a loan, which is to increase to an unspecified amount probably dictated by inflation and likely to be a little higher (for those with a household income of less than £25,000) than the current maximum of £3,497.

That's a little more than £6,747 a year. You can easily spend well over £4,000 on rent alone, particularly in London, leaving you with less than £3,000 to spend on food and clothes and heating all year. It's not enough. Most people will manage it because their parents will help them, which completely defeats the point. It's important to note that this isn't a new problem, it was part of Labour's initial reforms too: Browne's review just hasn't rectified it.

So students have focussed on the wrong thing. They've got caught up in an unwinnable debate over the £9,000 level and rejecting the bill outright, and have missed a real chance to make university more accessible to all. By lobbying hard students could have pressurised the government into increasing the maintenance grant and maintenance allowance.

An amendment of this sort would have been politically acceptable, in a way that rejecting the bill never could be. Not only would this have been a great benefit for students, it also would have been great for the Lib Dems, who are crying out for something positive to mask the bitter taste of this bill. I hope they realise it before it's too late.

As a footnote, I've read with some amusement that students at my former university UCL have been occupying a room (or something) in protest at the tuition fee increases which will be voted on in the Commons on Thursday. Some of the brave souls have come up with this song to mark the occasion. Favourite lines include (and I apologise in advance for the swearing, but it is, apparently, how you show solidarity, or make a valid political point, or something):

"We're all in this together as the proletariat." Sung while wearing a cricket jumper.
"The proletariat have nothing to lose but their chains, working men of all countries unite." Impressed they got a melody out of this line. 
"Fucking Tories." So edgy. 
"Theresa May is a whore", which seemed a bit excessive to me. 

Anyway, decide for yourself if you think people on the lowest incomes should subsidise this lot:

Press before Parliament

I've blogged before about the eternal struggle some wage to stop the government trailing their policies in the press before they announce them in Parliament. 

I'm pretty unconcerned about it. Frankly, I think that because it is unrealistic to assume that the government can keep major policy initiatives totally secret it is inevitable that they will release details themselves so that they can try and control the press agenda. Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't mean they are disrespecting Parliament either. 

I bring this matter up again because on Wednesday the details of David Willetts' announcement on university fees - made in Parliament directly after PMQs at 12.30pm - was all over the papers that very morning. 

The point I'd like to make is that I believe debate in the Commons benefits from these briefings. Politicians on all sides have the chance to prepare their questions and are not forced to react instantly. Surely it is the information that is important here, and the sooner MPs (and the public) know about it the sooner they can prepare their arguments. 

PMQs - 3rd November 2010

Today's outing was totally lacking in direction - Ed Miliband appeared not to know which topic to ask questions about. Problem was that Cameron didn't get into a groove and made some odd jokes which didn't really land in return. Ed started with two questions on Yemen and the recent terrorist plot involving cargo flights into the UK, which were interesting, but lacked a cutting edge as he was just asking for information.

He then switched to Tuition Fees, which was today's big news, and asked two questions about that. First how the government was going to balance its commitment to build trust in politics with election promises not to raise tuition fees and secondly, and much more effectively, by pushing at the Lib Dems by questioning how this policy would go down in Sheffield (Nick Clegg), Twickenham (Vince Cable) and Eastleigh (Chris Huhne).

Cameron wasn't in full flow at this point at all. He came up with some weak line about how the policy would create strong, well funded, and independent universities before making a very lame joke about the 'Milibandwagon', which didn't even make sense. But he picked up, accusing Ed Miliband of breaking his word by going back on the Labour manifesto and asking the Labour leader to join the consensus on university reform and stop playing games.

But then Miliband again switched direction and asked if, in a time of austerity, it made sense for the PM to put his personal photographer on the civil service payroll. He made his best attack of the afternoon with a gag about the photographer 'doing a nice line in airbrushing' (which was hilarious) next to his worst line, a rehash of the old 'I ask the questions' from four weeks ago.

This got Cameron a bit flustered, and he responded by saying that Ed Miliband hadn't got any answers, which didn't make sense as he'd asked him a question about his photographer and this is Prime Minister's Questions. He rolled out some figure (£5oo million) as an example of how much Labour spent on communications in government, and then proceeded to talk about how Miliband was dodging the debate on Tuition Fees.

The debate ended with Miliband pushing on the photographer and accusing the PM of causing Broken Britain by breaking his promises on VAT, Child Benefit and Tuition Fees. Cameron pulled out one of his better lines by accusing the Labour leader of being opportunistic, full of 'lame soundbites', against everything and for nothing.

What I don't understand is why Miliband didn't push further on Tuition Fees. He could have raised a cheer from his backbenches with a line about the poor being squeezed out, or about the rich being able to pay up front and avoid debt, but he didn't. In a way it helped, as the photographer joke was his best of the exchange and salvaged it for him, but it was a pretty directionless performance against a Cameron who was not on top form and really could have been beaten today.

A score draw.

Students! Stop and think: Browne's reforms are great!

I wanted to begin by saying that I really don't understand why students dislike the Browne proposals. But the truth is that I do understand. I understand that students have seen the figure of £30,000 widely quoted and correctly worked out that this is more than they pay now. It then occurred to them that there would be no way for poorer students to afford that because they don't have £30,000. Then they heard someone mention a 'free market' and 'choice', and that made them really mad. So they decided these reforms are regressive, bad Tory cuts which will harm the poor and make university elitist.

They've thought about it for about as long as it took you to read that paragraph. Which is a shame. Because Lord Browne's reform is excellent.

The most important part is that you don't have to repay your loan until you earn £21,000 a year. That is brilliant. I wish I was that lucky. This measure, on its own, removes any argument that this reform unfairly impacts the poor. Because if you're poor all your fees are covered, and you don't pay back until you earn over £21,000. And if you're earning more than that you're not really poor any more are you! You've succeeded: you've come from a poor background, gone to uni, got a degree and got a good job after it. Well done.

And if you don't, then you don't pay. Your education will be free. FREE! What a great deal. £21,000 is so much fairer than the current £15,000, which almost all graduates will achieve. Yet even then, you don't just get a bill for the whole amount, you have a small percentage taken from your wages before you even see them. It will also increase with average earnings, so will not be fixed at £21,000 forever.

That leads into the second point about this system: you don't miss money you never had. The system will mean that university is FREE AT THE POINT OF USE. You will never see the money used to pay your fees, and you will never see the money that gets taken from your wages when you reach the threshold and start to pay your loan back. So much gets taken off in tax and NI anyway that having a little extra disappear to repay a loan - that helped you get your job earning over £21,000 - won't make any tangible difference. No-one is going to become destitute because of these repayments.

As I mentioned in my previous post, fear of debt has not put off poorer students from applying to university. In fact the opposite is true. Application numbers have increased dramatically. People clearly believe that university is a good path to success.

The problem with Browne's report is simply presentational. Using the words 'debt' and 'loan' makes students think, naturally, of a bank loan they must repay come what may. But this is not the case. It's not real debt, because if you don't earn over £21,000 it doesn't exist and whatever you haven't paid after 30 years gets written off.

There will also be more generous maintenance grants of £3,250 for students who come from households with incomes of less than £25,000. The upper threshold for students receiving partial maintenance grants will increase from £50,020 to £60,000, meaning more families will be get financial help. This will be supplemented by a flat-rate £3,750 maintenance loan which will no longer be means tested (yay!) and won't be paid back until you earn over £21,000.

The reforms also allow for funding to be extended to those completing part-time courses, who are not supported by the current system. This will make such courses much more appealing and will extend educational opportunities to millions of people who work and would like to do a part-time course but can't currently afford it. 

Browne's reforms also call for the universities to change some of their practices. For example they will be required to inform students up front how many contact hours they will have each week, so they can make informed decisions. There is also the hope, which may not be fulfilled, that universities will become more responsive to the needs of undergraduates. While this may not happen it is worth a shot, because at the minute they are not responsive and, frankly, inaction will not bring change either. 

Students will get their university experience totally free at the point of use and only have to pay money back once they earn over £21,000. Far from being penalised, the poor will be able to get the education they want knowing that it won't hurt them or their families financially. 

Today David Willetts will unveil the plan, and announce that when the reforms come in in September 2012 there will be two thresholds: £6,000 and £9,000 a year. Universities can charge what they like up to £9,000, but over £6,000 they have to demonstrate to the government that they are proactively encouraging students from poorer backgrounds. 

It already looks like one Lib Dem, Jenny Willott, MP for Cardiff Central and PPS to Chris Huhne, will resign over the matter. This is probably pretty helpful to the Lib Dems. Because of their election promises they can't be seen to totally support these measures even if the leadership does, and as their success in university seats is threatened they probably need a resignation to show students they care. It's a good move for her (she has a university seat in Wales) and for her party. I wouldn't expect to see any others go though. 

University Fees Reform

This is getting a lot/all of the press coverage today, and rightly so. It's a major test not of the coalition itself but of the way it works when Lib Dems oppose government measures. I'm not going to get into all of the details, rather I'd like to make a few points.

The first is that the NUS is saying that fear of debt will put off the poorest students and make higher education elitist. I can see their point but, frankly, I don't think they have any evidence of this. In fact, I think the evidence points firmly in the other direction, given that fees are at their maximum levels this year and there were too few places to meet demand. If there is funding available from the government (be it a loan or whatever) people won't be deterred from university.

The second is simply that I quite like the idea. Especially because I hope students being saddled with 30k of debts will be much more likely to demand a better standard of education from their universities. At the minute, class sizes are too big and time spent in seminars too small. This needs to change.

Thirdly, people already factor in financial costs when considering which university to apply to. It's a recognised fact that living in London is more expensive, and students there have long had a larger loan to cover their costs. People still go because of what it has to offer.

Lastly, I'm in favour of those who can being able to pay upfront. This is because not to do so would be to penalise the rich with no matching benefit to the poor, and that even if there was such a benefit, funding for universities is no place for wealth redistribution.