<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>www.coveredinbees.org - tories</title>
 <link>https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website/taxonomy/term/89/0</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Killing the idea that communal action can solve social problems</title>
 <link>https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website/node/473</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A famous Orwell quote that crossed my facebook feed:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Whether the British ruling class are wicked or merely stupid is one of the most difficult questions of our time, and at certain moments a very important question.&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This &#039;wicked or stupid&#039; question has been on my mind a lot recently, so it was striking to see exactly the same thought from eighty or so years back. It&#039;s the Tories I&#039;m referring to, of course. Caveat: there are many, many decent tory voters out there - good people all. And many decent Tories in politics even. But the bunch actually doing the ruling? Well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There are plenty of examples to choose from to characterise our current rulers, but let&#039;s start with the recent &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/13/plan-to-end-student-grants-without-commons-vote-outrages-opposition&quot;&gt;secretive push to scrap&lt;/a&gt; what remains of grants for the poorest university students.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If you &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lifetime+earnings+university+degree&amp;amp;ie=utf-8&amp;amp;oe=utf-8&amp;amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;amp;ei=Pl-iVvX4OcKua8-XofgO&quot;&gt;google &#039;lifetime earnings university degree&#039;&lt;/a&gt;, the first thing that comes up is a report from 2013, funded by the Government&#039;s own Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (&lt;a href=&quot;https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/306562/articles/bis-13-899-the-impact-of-university-degrees-on-the-lifecycle-of-earnings-further-analysis.pdf&quot;&gt;Copy here if the official link goes AWOL&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img class=&quot;rightwithborder&quot; width=&quot;450&quot; src=&quot;http://www.coveredinbees.org/sites/www.coveredinbees.org/files/studentloans2.png&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It makes clear the massive benefit of a university education for the person getting it - but also how much benefit is gained by government. I mean, the principle&#039;s obvious, right? Someone who earns more over their lifetime will pay more tax. If they end up paying more tax than it cost to educate them, there&#039;s a net benefit to the country. The word often used for this, I believe, is &#039;investment&#039;. I&#039;ve included the key table - this study has a breakdown by type of student, too, so we can see the gain for individual students who&#039;d be getting the bursaries (&#039;e&#039;, at the bottom), as well as the gain to government. The study finds a net government gain of 246 thousand from men and 300 thousand from women.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even if those numbers were a quarter of this or less, there&#039;d be a net gain for government. For &lt;strong&gt;every single student lost&lt;/strong&gt; who decides they can&#039;t afford university any more, government coffers lose out too. Osborne claims these grants &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33444557&quot;&gt;are unaffordable&lt;/a&gt; - that clearly makes zero sense. Ditto his point about &quot;a basic unfairness in asking taxpayers to fund grants for people who are likely to earn a lot more than them&quot;. Taxpayers will &lt;strong&gt;gain, not lose out.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And that&#039;s before all the gains for the individuals themselves - in earnings and life satisfaction - as well as the increase in education levels for the country as a whole, where there&#039;s basic economics telling us the spillover gains over time for everyone.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But this is missing the point, I think - and this is why I think they&#039;re cruel, not stupid. It appears stupid only if one assumes they have the same frame of reference. They don&#039;t, not at all. No amount of logical argument on the costs and benefits will affect this government&#039;s aims. Yes, they use this language of unfairness to taxpayers, but this is little more than effective PR (which is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years&quot;&gt;Cameron&#039;s background&lt;/a&gt;, let&#039;s not forget). Flak to cover them in pursuit of the main prize.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The sell-off of &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.gov.uk/government/news/historic-agreement-will-extend-right-to-buy-to-13-million-more-tenants&quot;&gt;housing association properties&lt;/a&gt; paid for by selling-off council houses shows the same aim. Housing associations are some of the last living examples of solving social problems communally. The fact that they&#039;re actually &lt;em&gt;privately owned&lt;/em&gt; makes no difference to that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So it&#039;s not simply a matter of shrinking the state. They actually want to kill the idea that communal action can solve social problems. A smaller state is a consequence of that belief, not a cause - which is why framing student support as an investment would make absolutely no moral or logical sense to this government. They don&#039;t see there&#039;s anything to invest in.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The NHS will go last, unless something changes. It&#039;s their biggest political goal and one that will require all of their PR know-how. They can&#039;t quite let the wolves out of the door yet - they know the political ground isn&#039;t prepared. But they&#039;re very good at this game and blithely content to use whatever bullshit argument will get them to their atomised oligarch utopia.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hmm. That&#039;s interesting. Turns out I&#039;m a bit cross about this.&lt;br /&gt;
------&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.coveredinbees.org/node/469&quot;&gt;New year&#039;s earnestness&lt;/a&gt; 3/17 &lt;/em&gt;, just.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website/node/473&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <comments>https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website/node/473#comments</comments>
 <category domain="https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website/taxonomy/term/8">3 stars</category>
 <category domain="https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website/taxonomy/term/89">tories</category>
 <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:36:09 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">473 at https://coveredinbees.org.archived.website</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
