The UK is a wealthy country that is innovative and punches above its weight in so many ways; we can afford a socially fair society, we are choosing not to.
Our guest writer is Ranjit Sidhu, founder of Statistics into Decisions
The United Kingdom has the 6th biggest economy of the 195 countries of the world. With about 5 per cent of the population of China it has an economy more than half its size. Although investing far less as a percentage of its GDP on research than comparable countries in Europe it is only behind the USA in the number of world class universities and number of Nobel prize winners.
With the national depression growing with every new day it is important to step back and gain some prospective before we sacrifice all and sundry to the bonfire of public services that is proposed by the coalition government:
• Shouldn’t we rather be asking whether the sixth biggest economy in the world needs to have in place measures to help those at the bottom of its social structure rather than castigate the poor for having chidren they can’t afford?
• Or, that a country that is second in the world for producing original thinkers and world-class academics has an affordable education for all its citizens and well funded universities?
• Or perhaps that a country whose individual citizens’ wealth is measured as 14th highest in the world, above Germany, France and Japan, by the World Bank, has the ability to make sure everyone upon retirement has enough allowance to stay warm and is entitled to a respectable pension?
So let’s remember the UK is a wealthy country that is innovative and punches above its weight in so many ways and look at the bigger picture than the parochial bias of the current short term spending reviews; this morning’s release of the Browne review on higher education was a clear example.
The issues of graduate tax or a tuition fees raise simply a short term smoke screen. As a country we can afford an extra £1 billion for university funding if we look at the bigger picture, that this investment will bring $2.5 billion back into the economy, coupled with the fact that this country is spending far lower than any other OECD country and actually half that of the USA on education.
Let’s get some prospective back – we can afford a socially fair society, we are choosing not to.
53 Responses to “We can afford to fund our universities, the fact is we choose not to”
Tim
Great article.
Political Dynamite proposes a campaign strategy here – http://politicaldynamite.com/2010/10/how-can-we-stop-a-rise-in-university-tuition-fees/
What do you think?
col
Totally agree. Dis-investing in our children’s future is shameful ! We have broken our promise to our future children that previous generations made to us.. they invested in a future they would not see but knew we would. They sacrificed a lot to ensure we would get a better future, education, health. We are breaking this promise of investment in our children’s future. Why are we doing this?
I have a few questions, if someone can explain to me why the cuts are required? Wasnt the bank debt owed to private holders, the banks are paying back this debt back to us- so why are the cuts required?
Isnt the provision for the massive debt now known to be smaller than first thought? So again, why the speed and depth of the cuts? Send me links to read to explain this as I have yet to find anything or have someone explain it to me ( i’ve asked chartered accounts, etc)
Michael Burke
Excellent article.
Britain is already the 2nd lowest investor in higher education among industrial countries. Reducing the public sector investment (2/3rds of the total) will only accelerate relative decline.
Given very high pay-offs from education investment, and the effect on government finances, increased government spending will help to close the deficit.
Finola Kerrigan
RT @leftfootfwd: We can afford to fund our universities, the fact is we choose not to: http://bit.ly/aNs0Qg explains @rssidhu
Jon
What is socially unfair about universities being funded only by people who have enjoyed a university education, with above average incomes?
Why do you think it is fairer to have a system where people who are refused entry to university must pay for those who got in?