This government has repeatedly shown itself incapable of thinking beyond the level of the individual. In doing so it has sidelined questions about the kind of society that it's policies are creating.
Simon Ravenscroft is a PhD student at the University of Cambridge, working on the social theory of Ivan Illich
This government has repeatedly shown itself incapable of thinking beyond the level of the individual. In doing so it has sidelined questions about the kind of society that its policies are creating.
This is its chief ideological victory. To the extent the left gets dragged into debating questions posed on the level of the individual, it has already lost the main argument. Instead it should be seeking to ask its own questions.
I want to look at one example in depth to illustrate my more general point. Since I live and work in a university, I’ll pick the debate over the tripling of higher education tuition fees. This was a debate the left lost, and so it’s worth looking to it for some lessons.
At the time the government and media mantra in justification of this policy was: “People with degrees get higher-paying jobs, should they not be expected to pay for this privilege?”
Ideologically speaking this is a trick question, because whether you answer yes or no you’ve already been dragged into thinking about higher education in an individualist way – that is, as education as a private, individual good. Many protestors against the government agenda fell into this trap by turning to the language of ‘rights’: “Education should be free because it is my human right”.
This doesn’t go anything like far enough. The language of rights still requires us to think about education in private, individualised terms (“my right to my education, which benefits me”).
But higher education is not just a private good, it is also a public good. And this is the point that is continually glossed over in debates. For example, having a highly-educated populace is crucial for a healthy and thriving democracy; it enhances our common life, both culturally and otherwise; there are also economic benefits that are felt beyond the level of the individual by society as a whole.
Given this, is it not right that there is a public contribution to higher education, given that we all feel the benefit? Reducing the question to the level of the individual (and forcing students to think about it this way by loading them with debt), only inhibits a whole generation’s ability to think of themselves as part of something bigger than themselves – a society – to which they should be contributing.
A better question would be: “what kind of society do we want to have?” Do we really want to live in a society where only those who are already wealthy, or only those who are willing to take on huge debt, or only those who don’t understand the implications of debt are able to gain a university education?
If we take the point that higher education is a public good, we then have to talk about how we distribute this public good. Two common views here are that, on one hand, we should have a meritocratic distribution (people are given university places on the basis of ‘intellectual merit’), and on the other, an egalitarian distribution (as many places as we have should be distributed equally among all those who want them).
One can debate which of these is better, but it is worth noting that (as Cambridge philosopher Raymond Geuss has said) neither of these forms of distribution are the same as distribution based on who has the ability to pay, or who is willing to take on huge debt. The latter form of distribution is horrifically regressive by contrast, creating significant barriers for the poorest in our society and giving the better off an even greater head-start than they already have.
Of course, throw up these kinds of objections and the old chestnut gets thrown back, “we don’t have any money to pay for it anymore”. But we know that governments always have money to pay for what they want, and never have it for what they don’t want.
Those on the right regularly manipulate the direction in which public debate goes by asking particular kinds of questions that have individualist assumptions. Take discussions around healthcare and patient contributions. The question is: “if you’ve had the treatment, sure you should pay for it?”
Those who really want to resist this proposal must refuse to answer this question. They must respond by asking instead, “do we want to live in a kind of society where access to healthcare for the sick and injured is based on their ability to pay?”.
If the left is to protect other public goods it fought for so many years to establish, like the NHS, then it needs to look more carefully at the questions it’s faced with, and consider asking different ones. This is crucial if it is going to successfully defend a vision of society that is more than just a collection of self-interested individuals who happen to live in the same geographical area.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
20 Responses to “The left must ask the right questions as well as provide the right answers”
blarg1987
I was just referring to your previous post on this article and the numbers you claimed cam from ONS.
So I assume your last paragraph is aimed at yourself?
OldLb
No aimed at you.
You keep saying the ONS is wrong, but you don’t provide any alternative numbers.
Hence you are talking bollocks.
Provide some numbers, some evidence, and then you can start asking sensible questions.
For example, you did ask one, but then didn’t provide any evidence afterwards.
The reason for the increase is that the 2005 number for the pension debt is an even bigger underestimate than the 2010 figure [ONS numbers]
In your mixed up world you think the number must be an overestimate, but can’t provide one shred of evidence as to what the number is.
So its back to the talking bollocks explanation.
Until I see the evidence that you have a number, and the support as to why that number is accurate, its a pretty safe conclusion.
blarg1987
You have seen my evidence as I forwarded the fullfacts link which you dispute also you did not explain where the 4 trillion magically apperard from so either the 2005 ffigure was wrong or the 2010 figure was wrong.
Plus where does the 3 trillion in the last 3 years come from :s also you wrote to your MP or the other places as i recommended if the numbers are solid and data is sound then they would surely want to recruit you and I do not mean that in a sarcastic way.
OldLb
The full facts is wrong for the reasons I’ve already explained.
Full facts state Pensions aren’t a problem because they are paid over 60 years. [Hmm, 18 year olds earning pension rights with a life expectancy of 120 years, makes that 100]
However, lets look at paying out 50K a year pensions instead of 5K.
According to fullfacts, that is affordable because they payments are still over 60 (100) years.
Fullfacts is wrong.
Now the for the difference. Has it occurred to you that the 2005 figure is an underestimate? It is. It’s because to make the numbers look smaller, the government assumes it has pensions invested in assets. Even you know its unfunded which means no assets.
So because asset returns have dropped (QE), the report a higher figure in 2010 than 2005 (and other reasons too). However, the asset return has no effect on the debts, because they have no assets.
Both numbers are underestimates of the debts.
If you really want to make the number really small, just tell people if you had invested in Apple shares, or bought lots of Gold when Gordon was paying it off, its all affordable.
if you had bought Apple that is.
It’s unfunded there are no assets so asset rates aren’t relevant.
What should be used is inflation. with 2% inflation 1 pound now is the same as 1.02 pounds in a years time. That’s the correct discount rate.
The inflation rate is below asset returns, and that makes the debt even bigger.
However. correct rate or not, its still in excess of 6.5 trillion. With the other debts that’s 8 trillion.
It doesn’t matter. 4 trillion, 8 trillion, 20 trillion, all scenarios are that they can’t pay. Not that they won’t pay.
So they will start defaulting. Lets see one example how. Increase the retirement age.
=========
Glasgow continues to have the lowest life expectancy in the UK, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Figures for 2004-2006 and 2008-2010, show that men in the city live to an average age of 71 and women to 78.
==========
So very shortly, the men in Glasgow’s expected payouts will be zero.
Nothing like shafting the poor is there when you’re in charge of the state.
It’s the poor who’ve been shafted the most.
OldLb
See the post on the explanation of the numbers.
Now again, to prove you aren’t talking bollocks.
How much does the state owe for pensions in your world?
You’ve never answered.
You won’t comment on full facts flaws either.
http://fullfact.org/blog/just_how_big_is_the_national_debt-2376
No number for the state pension published by full facts. None.
Hence the correct number is the actuarial number put out by the ONS. [Bar the discount rate issue]
Post the number. How much is owed for pensions