With today seeing the start of manifesto week, TEFS has looked at what promises are being made for universities and university funding in a series of short posts. Also, to gauge the likely effect on fair access and participation.
First out of the blocks with their Manifesto 2024 ‘For a fair Deal’ (.pdf) was the Liberal Democrat Party. It lacked detail and financial projections and may be simply judged as wishful thinking. There is little to indicate how the funding needed will be raised with the priority being to make tax cuts “when the public finances allow”. This is too vague to inspire confidence. There is not much to report.
A harsh lesson from history.
Mindful of the catastrophic fallout from the 2010 election, it seems they are being ultra-cautious. This effect goes back as far as the 2010 election where they entered a coalition with the Conservatives. Before the 2010 election, all Liberal Democrats had said they would oppose any rise in tuition fees. Of course, they must have known that their dominant partners were planning to make a dramatic increase in fees yet still stayed attached to their coattails. It led to their fall from grace and a longer-term decline. They were forced to make an apology, but only after it was too late.
With a similar fate awaiting the Conservatives on the 4th of July, the Liberal Democrats hope they can gain from defecting Conservative voters in 2024.
The long grass beckons.
With students and universities in the middle of a worsening financial crisis, deliberately caused by the Conservative government, you might expect a firm policy to set things straight as a matter of urgency. But the overall government finances are constrained, and it seems they have no idea what to do. Instead, they plan on,
“Establishing a review of higher education finance in the next Parliament to consider any necessary reforms in the light of the latest evidence of the impact of the existing financing system on access, participation and quality, and make sure there are no more retrospective raising of rates or selling-off of loans to private companies”.
This is not good enough and maintaining the status quo for nearly five years or more could spell disaster for the sector. Although other improvements are promised for education overall, reforms of university and student funding will come far too late.
What might students expect?
There is only a short simple message for them,
“Reinstate maintenance grants for disadvantaged students immediately to make sure that living costs are not a barrier to studying at university”.
There is little to indicate how much his might cost and how it could be financed. Students will need to see how much in maintenance grants will emerge. Again, it might come as too little and too late.
There is also more pressure loaded onto universities without the funding needed to finance it. Promises such as,
“Giving higher education institutions a statutory duty of care for their students”.
and
“Ensuring that all universities work to widen participation by disadvantaged and underrepresented groups across the sector”.
These are pipe dreams that mirror the current government’s ‘laissez faire’ approach that leaves it up to university managements to solve with little funding.
However, there is some good news for mature students with grants, not loans, promised.
They plan to,
“Create new Lifelong Skills Grants, giving all adults £5,000 to spend on education and training throughout their lives, and aim to increase them to £10,000 in the future when the public finances allow”.
Unfortunately, despite being some help, this will not go far and would not fund a complete qualification. The conclusion is that the Liberal Democrats have ‘bottled it’ when it comes to universities and aspirations of less well-off students. I doubt this will attract the students vote and could be seen as lacking in will by others.
The author, Mike Larkin, retired from Queen’s University Belfast after 37 years teaching Microbiology, Biochemistry and Genetics.