Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[PJL]

In a sense it doesn't really matter since we are talking about economics rather than education per se. The point is that foreigners are willing to pay large sums for a British education, it is a profitable export industry that provides many good jobs and we can use the foreign exchange to buy the stuff that we are relatively bad at making.

However the point of education isn't meant to be to make money in itself but to create the conditions (educated workforce, innovation, etc...) by which other segments of the economy can enjoy success.

Fair enough that Britain is doing well selling this 'product' to foreigners. But are we sacrificing our broader economic success and the wellbeing of our people as a result?

Is there so much extra value from all those Chinese students paying big money to get a bit of paper from Teeside University (completely random example name, no comment on its actual quality) to make it worth so many local students paying £9k a year for worthless degrees in finger painting  rather than getting polytechnic qualifications that directly set them up for skilled work?

I can easily see Michael Gove and other Tory ministers making the same point you have made, especially the last paragraph.

[Josquius]

In big news at the moment, the Tory defection is pretty dodgy.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/08/keir-starmer-sparks-labour-anger-with-decision-to-admit-natalie-elphicke

Keir Starmer sparks Labour anger with decision to admit Natalie Elphicke
MP says many in party think rightwing Tory defector is 'vile', while shadow minister asks: 'Are we welcoming Farage next week?'

Keir Starmer is facing shadow cabinet anger for welcoming into his party a rightwing Conservative MP who has repeatedly attacked Labour over migration.

Natalie Elphicke became on Wednesday the second Tory MP in two weeks to cross the floor of the Commons, dealing another major blow to Rishi Sunak.

Starmer welcomed Elphicke to the Labour party at prime minister's questions and said the Conservatives were "failing to keep our borders safe and secure".

Elphicke quit the Conservatives with a broadside against Sunak, saying that under his leadership the Tories had become "a byword for incompetence and division" and had abandoned the centre ground.

But Starmer's decision to admit her to Labour has been met with bafflement and consternation from his MPs, including some in the shadow cabinet and on the frontbench. MPs and shadow cabinet sources expressed reservations about her past comments and conduct.

Labour sources said Starmer had met a hostile response over the defection at a gathering of the party's parliamentary committee. They said he was challenged about Elphicke's values and whether a rightwinger with her record should be welcome in the Labour party.

One shadow cabinet minister said: "People are upset and angry right across the party about the decision."

Another shadow minister said: "Logically or politically, we didn't need this ... I worry that they'll not have done sufficient due diligence on her." They added: "Her hard-right views are a big red line too. Are we welcoming Nigel Farage next week?"

Welcoming Elphicke to the Labour party at PMQs, the Labour leader asked Sunak: "What is the point of this failed government staggering on ... [when] the Tory MP for Dover, on the frontline of the small boats crisis, says the prime minister cannot be trusted with our borders?"

Conservative MPs were flabbergasted by Elphicke's defection. She had been a member of the rightwing European Research Group of Tory MPs and a vocal proponent for tougher rightwing politics. One minister said her move marked the "new ERG wing of the Labour party".

Critics pointed to Elphicke's comments on migration and strident criticism of Labour's policies. A year ago she wrote an article for the Daily Express calling Starmer "Sir Softie" and accusing Labour of wanting "open borders". She wrote: "Not only have Labour got no plan of their own to tackle illegal immigration, they simply do not want to."

In 2021 she clashed with the England footballer Marcus Rashford, who she said should have spent more time "perfecting his game and less time playing politics" – a reference to his campaign for free school meals – after he missed a penalty at the Euro 2020 final. She later apologised.

One Labour MP said there was significant anger among some women in the party about the decision to admit Elphicke. "Most of us on the backbenches struggle to get any contact at all from the Labour leader or his team – perhaps if we were to stand in front of a few more flags or join the [European Research Group]?"

An MP on the left of the party added: "I think many in the party think it's disgusting, that we don't need people like that in the Labour party, and that she is absolutely vile ... Who in their right mind thought this was helpful?"

A former shadow minister said: "Many of us didn't fight Momentum only to see our leader welcome Reform in the front door."

Another source of controversy is Elphicke's record of defending her former husband, Charlie Elphicke, whom she succeeded as MP for Dover after he was suspended from the Conservative party over sexual assault allegations. He was found guilty two years later.

Shortly after his conviction, his ex-wife defended him in an interview with the Sun, saying he was "attractive, and attracted to, women" and that had made him "an easy target for dirty politics and false allegations".

In the summer of 2021, she became one of several Tory MPs who were given suspensions from the Commons and told to apologise for being found to have tried to influence a judge presiding over his trial.

The Guardian view on MPs crossing the floor: a triumph of political theatre over substance
Read more
Starmer's spokesperson defended the decision to admit her to the party. "It's a sign of the progress that we've made that people recognise that on some of the key challenges facing the country, the Tories have failed," he said.

"Here is someone who is willing to make the significant step of switching across to Keir Starmer's changed Labour party and that's something we're very happy to see."

A Labour source said Elphicke would not be fighting her seat at the next election, and had not been offered a job or a peerage, but could informally advise the party on housing policy. She is understood to have met Starmer once before crossing the floor.

Elphicke is the third former Conservative MP to defect to Labour during this parliament. On 27 April, the former health minister Dan Poulter joined Labour with a swipe at the government's record on the NHS. In January 2022, during Boris Johnson's leadership, the MP for Bury South, Christian Wakeford, defected citing the then prime minister's "disgraceful" conduct.

It is indeed very strange that Labour is allowing admission of someone from the right of the Tories (and she would join them). Surely a 'reform uk' defection would have made more sense for her?
The left of labour are throwing a fit and...their concerns are not without merit.

In a sense it doesn't really matter since we are talking about economics rather than education per se. The point is that foreigners are willing to pay large sums for a British education, it is a profitable export industry that provides many good jobs and we can use the foreign exchange to buy the stuff that we are relatively bad at making.

However the point of education isn't meant to be to make money in itself but to create the conditions (educated workforce, innovation, etc...) by which other segments of the economy can enjoy success.

Fair enough that Britain is doing well selling this 'product' to foreigners. But are we sacrificing our broader economic success and the wellbeing of our people as a result?

Is there so much extra value from all those Chinese students paying big money to get a bit of paper from Teeside University (completely random example name, no comment on its actual quality) to make it worth so many local students paying £9k a year for worthless degrees in finger painting  rather than getting polytechnic qualifications that directly set them up for skilled work?

I can easily see Michael Gove and other Tory ministers making the same point you have made, especially the last paragraph.

Some Tories have been known for bouts of sanity. :p

The overall broken system was the Tories doing originally though and another wing of the party would find this kind of questioning of the system to be heresy.
I'd say my view is rather more old school socialist.
Education one of the 4 (?) primary factors in ensuring economic success, any 'selling' of it should be a nice bonus rather than the sole goal.

[jimmy olsen]

Lol

https://twitter.com/leftiestats/status/1788538401873903941?s=21&t=rGfbArCioMiWx3c5Afnaag

[Valmy]

I can see why the Conservatives aren't in a hurry to have an election.

[jimmy olsen]

Don't Sinn fein have 7 or 8 seats? Tories would be in 5th place. 

[Barrister]

So the next election is projecting to go very badly for the Tories, but the idea they're going to win 6 seats and be the 4th or 5th party in Parliament seems unlikely.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

[Josquius]

I recall back in the noughties when I'd dream of a golden age where the Tories are dead and buried and the Lib Dems take their place as the other main party.
If only the Lib Dems had their shit in order then we could actually be heading there.

But yes. The Tories have a floor that is even harder to break than the Labour one.

[jimmy olsen]

So the next election is projecting to go very badly for the Tories, but the idea they're going to win 6 seats and be the 4th or 5th party in Parliament seems unlikely.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

The predict 472 Labour seats and 85 conservative seats, but they also offer up high and low estimates. The high estimate is 545 seats. So, it's within the realm of possibility

[HVC]

Wonder how badly labour can mess up their majority term

[Richard Hakluyt]

If Reform stand down things would suddenly be very different. Starmers nightmare   

[Josquius]

If Reform stand down things would suddenly be very different. Starmers nightmare   

Assuming they'd just have their votes added to the tories.
There'll always be a fascist party of the moment. If reform decide they're tories afterall then you'll get something else popping up and grabbing 3% per seat.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know what you define as Northern Europe but by the only objective measure there is (PISA), the UK is 14th in the world and 5th in Europe - behind Finland, Estonia, Ireland and Switzerland but ahead of everyone else including Sweden, Netherlands, Germany and Norway. And that's despite Scotland dragging the scores down.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pisa-scores-by-country

Our universities are way behind the States in any rankings but way ahead of any other country in the world. Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial and UCL are all in the top 25, only one other European University (ETH Zurich) is.

Yeah I'd add that on the metrics we can look at in terms of an international comparison of higher education (research and international students), the UK does very well.

I also think the relatively high rates of minorities getting degrees (broadly speaking every minority group is more likely to go to university than white British kids) is also a big part of the relative success of integration in Britain compared to a lot of other European countries. And I think universities are the only tool I've seen the state use for "leveling up" or regeneration that I think has actually worked. It's why I think Hunt's idea of those "freeport"/"economic zone" areas being centred on a university is a really good idea.

There's a lot of problems in higher education. The finances are under huge pressure (I think some may go bust if things don't change) and there's been consequences from tuition fees that are negative on a sort of "marketisation" way. But, broadly, in lots of ways I think they're a bit positive and I think education policy is generally working - just look at Scotland: lower results, fewer university places and working class kids are increasingly locked out of them. Among young people (18-25), Britain has a similar rate of tertiary education as Canada, Korea, Ireland and Sweden and it is ahead of most of Europe. I think that's generally a good thing, especially given that we're a services economy.

I've found in other North European countries there's a lot more respect for vocational education with an actual clear and respected higher educational path available. In the UK we've this attitude that if you don't go to university then you're a loser and due to terrible policy decisions in changing polytechnics to universities and the various commercialisation that followed, we have a huge gap where we just aren't properly providing for young people in this technically-inclined higher-level niche.

I think this goes back to Confucianist Britain a little bit. So first of all most Further Education Colleges also offer degrees now. The barriers between "vocational" and "academic" education are pretty blurred now.

Similarly three quarters of students are doing what I'd call vocational subjects: medical professions, law, accountancy, business. That's excluding the creative degrees, so it'll be even higher than 75%. But those are not academia for academia's sake courses. And all the evidence is the expansion of universities has been demand led - it is what young people and parents want.

And again - not to get all Marxist - but I think that reflects our economic structure. We are services dominated economy and we have an awful lots of students studying services vocational subjects. The economic structure of some other European countries (particularly Germany) includes a lot more manufacturing (and a lot higher skilled manufacturing) - and their education system has people studying those vocationally. I think those structural factors matter more than anything else like attitude.

I think there could be an argument for a government basically saying that we, as a country, strategically need a certain industry and will commit to supporting the industry so there are jobs which, in turn, could support specialised education for the industry. I think there's been a recent proposal for that in relation to the nuclear sector which makes sense to me. But if you're just looking for growth and productivity I'd look at higher education and I'd look at the economy we've got, not what we wish we had.

Speaking of the fees they have been £9k for ages and many of our universities would go under without the fees charged to foreigners.

This is one of the big challenges and bluntly there's no obvious solution - read a really interesting piece by an education wonk on this and it's really difficult.

Tuition fees worked - they did what they were supposed to do. They doubled funding per student in real terms (when the rest of the public sector was facing austerity) and saw a big increase in student numbers - particularly working class and minority students (where Scotland is a sharp contrast). But they were always based on a lie because basically the repayments were pretty progressive - they only kicked in at a decent wage, they weren't really "debt" and they'd be written off after 30 years. So built in to tuition fees was the fact that a large proportion (well over 50%) would not be repaid ever. The universities got the money and the government would write a lot off eventually. The ONS (technically correctly but unhelpfully) basically said this is a loophole and a fiction that keeps debt of the government's books - so they're now counted as borrowing. The government has since made it far less progressive - it kicks in at a lower wages, only gets written off after 40 years, there's higher interest (collectively, this means women pay more than men). In part, that's because the alternative was to put a cap on numbers which would be even less popular - but you still see it circulating on the right about "shit degrees".

As you say, especially the more prestigious universities, have focused on expanding their international students because they pay a lot more (UCL for example earns more from funding grants, research grants and contracts and international students than from domestic tuition). The impact of tuition fees not increasing with inflation is mainly felt by lower tier universities who earn more money (up to about 50%) from domestic tuition and less from research, international students etc. Plus there have been impacts from marketisation.

It's unsustainable and a university is going to bust at some point, but the problem is none of the solutions are particularly attractive. You could put a cap on student numbers which'd be very unpopular with parents and young people (as I say, expansion has been demand driven and actually they're mainly doing vocational courses as you say). You could go back to funding universities from direct taxation - but this goes back to why tuition fees were created which is that there's limited resources and when universities have to fight for funding with the NHS or schools, they normally lose. You could have a graduate tax but you'd have the same issue because unlike tuition fees it would just go into general taxation and not be hypothecated for universities.

I think the best you can do is probably try to restore the proressiveness to the tuition fee system (with extra loans and grants for lower income students) - but that all of that probably needs to be linked to inflation. You probably need to have some level of protection of say, I don't know, two thirds of places on any course being for domestic students - in part so especially the prestigious institutions don't squeeze domestic students, but also so, say, a financial crisis in Asia doesn't lead to UCL collapsing. And I think without going back to a cap, there probably needs to be some degree of central planning on places and courses.

So the next election is projecting to go very badly for the Tories, but the idea they're going to win 6 seats and be the 4th or 5th party in Parliament seems unlikely.

Yeah this is based on one poll which had Labour 30 points ahead - 48% to 18%. Also you can't just plug numbers from a poll into a seat calculator - having said that the latest YouGov MRP had Labour on over 400 MPs v 150 for the Tories. It is looking very bad.

Having said all that I think it could go worse than expected for the Tories. Two factors that I think are potential concerns for the Tories are Sunak and the party base. Sunak doesn't perform well with the media or the public when he's challenged. He comes across very impatient, quite snippy and pretty dismissive - which I think, when you're already known as possibly the richest PM in British history, is not a great look. I think it's very possible that his campaign implodes in an unpredictable way and he ends up making Theresa May look like JFK. On the party front, in the last few years the Tories have lost about half of their council seats. Those councillors are the backbone of local parties (I think this was the best argument for Sunak going early) and a lot of Tory activists are angry at the government, they're unhappy. Many of those councillors and local activists will (rightly) blame MPs and the national government - see that leaflet I posted earlier. I think there's also a real possibility that the local parties just don't turn out to campaign - they don't door knock and canvass and get the vote out. Again, not sure on the impact that could have.

Although my default guess is that the polls will narrow as an election approaches and the Tories will recover a bit - I have no evidence that that's happening. But it is what normally happens - so, of course, it might not.

[Sheilbh]

Separately just saw this and think it may be unique. Caney Island council has no Tories, Greens, Lib Dems, Labour or Reform councillors. The Tories had 9 councillors, but they lost. So it is entirely dominated by the People's Independent Party and the Canvey Island Independent Party, who are in coalition


I've not been there but I think I've been to a wetland/mudflat reserve nearby and feel confident in saying it's a weird place

Edit: Clarification on that image from the PIP (shocked to discover that it sounds like they're NIMBYs ):

Peoples Independent Party
@PIPCastlePoint
1/2.The chart is the wrong way around. PIP has 24 seats and CIIP 15. The parties have been in coalition administration since May 22 during which time they have transformed the council structure saving £500k per annum, closed inherited funding gap, frozen council tax, plus
2/2. Maintained all services and even took on more services defunded by Essex County Council. Are bring forward a new local plan in April 2025 which is based on the boroughs needs rather than developers wants.

[Josquius]

The only reason I know Canvey Island.

Love the Judean Peoples Front vibes of the two parties there.
These XXXXX independents are usually Tory fronts so very curious.

Incidentally. At risk of turning this into the youtube thread, I meant to share this one before reading that...Had this channel recommended lately and a lot of what it says does make sense. Scary sense.

think this goes back to Confucianist Britain a little bit. So first of all most Further Education Colleges also offer degrees now. The barriers between "vocational" and "academic" education are pretty blurred now.

Similarly three quarters of students are doing what I'd call vocational subjects: medical professions, law, accountancy, business. That's excluding the creative degrees, so it'll be even higher than 75%. But those are not academia for academia's sake courses. And all the evidence is the expansion of universities has been demand led - it is what young people and parents want.

And again - not to get all Marxist - but I think that reflects our economic structure. We are services dominated economy and we have an awful lots of students studying services vocational subjects. The economic structure of some other European countries (particularly Germany) includes a lot more manufacturing (and a lot higher skilled manufacturing) - and their education system has people studying those vocationally. I think those structural factors matter more than anything else like attitude.

I think there could be an argument for a government basically saying that we, as a country, strategically need a certain industry and will commit to supporting the industry so there are jobs which, in turn, could support specialised education for the industry. I think there's been a recent proposal for that in relation to the nuclear sector which makes sense to me. But if you're just looking for growth and productivity I'd look at higher education and I'd look at the economy we've got, not what we wish we had.

Maybe. But at the same time we've we're rapidly toppling over the pit into a trades black hole. The last people to qualify over the apprenticeship system are hitting retirement age right now. Over the 80s we were training basically nobody and then when we realised this and started it again the numbers just weren't enough.

Fair enough to say we're a services economy so lots of people with humanities degrees is exactly what we need... but we also need builders.
And when many of these degree educated people are earning 30k a year in call centres vs. 70k a year for a decent plumber....It is in the best interest of many of them for this to be more of an even choice.

This is one of the big challenges and bluntly there's no obvious solution - read a really interesting piece by an education wonk on this and it's really difficult.

Tuition fees worked - they did what they were supposed to do. They doubled funding per student in real terms (when the rest of the public sector was facing austerity) and saw a big increase in student numbers - particularly working class and minority students (where Scotland is a sharp contrast). But they were always based on a lie because basically the repayments were pretty progressive - they only kicked in at a decent wage, they weren't really "debt" and they'd be written off after 30 years. So built in to tuition fees was the fact that a large proportion (well over 50%) would not be repaid ever. The universities got the money and the government would write a lot off eventually. The ONS (technically correctly but unhelpfully) basically said this is a loophole and a fiction that keeps debt of the government's books - so they're now counted as borrowing. The government has since made it far less progressive - it kicks in at a lower wages, only gets written off after 40 years, there's higher interest (collectively, this means women pay more than men). In part, that's because the alternative was to put a cap on numbers which would be even less popular - but you still see it circulating on the right about "shit degrees".

As you say, especially the more prestigious universities, have focused on expanding their international students because they pay a lot more (UCL for example earns more from funding grants, research grants and contracts and international students than from domestic tuition). The impact of tuition fees not increasing with inflation is mainly felt by lower tier universities who earn more money (up to about 50%) from domestic tuition and less from research, international students etc. Plus there have been impacts from marketisation.

It's unsustainable and a university is going to bust at some point, but the problem is none of the solutions are particularly attractive. You could put a cap on student numbers which'd be very unpopular with parents and young people (as I say, expansion has been demand driven and actually they're mainly doing vocational courses as you say). You could go back to funding universities from direct taxation - but this goes back to why tuition fees were created which is that there's limited resources and when universities have to fight for funding with the NHS or schools, they normally lose. You could have a graduate tax but you'd have the same issue because unlike tuition fees it would just go into general taxation and not be hypothecated for universities.

I think the best you can do is probably try to restore the proressiveness to the tuition fee system (with extra loans and grants for lower income students) - but that all of that probably needs to be linked to inflation. You probably need to have some level of protection of say, I don't know, two thirds of places on any course being for domestic students - in part so especially the prestigious institutions don't squeeze domestic students, but also so, say, a financial crisis in Asia doesn't lead to UCL collapsing. And I think without going back to a cap, there probably needs to be some degree of central planning on places and courses.

Honestly I'd go further than domestic students and have spots for local students. The town and gown divide you see in places like Durham is just insane.
I loved that in Uppsala going to one of the top universities in Scandinavia was something locals would just casually decide to do without much stress over it.
But yes. More help for poorer students is needed.

Incidentally another place I think the UK system sucks and needs smashing- the way you broadly decide what you're going to study at 16 and then are really railroaded into it at 18 and then after you've left uni going back and doing any education is a really weird and special thing to do.
We should have things a lot more open to do a course here and there and cobble together degrees.

Then there's the British obsession with grades....

I think this is the main area where my hatred for the British system and envy for the continent . Our system is such a one way tight rope.

[crazy canuck]

Sheilbh, you have often commented that the UK Conservatives are fascinated by our own PP. Are the Reform folks there trying to do what the Reformers did here?