University fee cap must go
You can borrow money to buy a home. You can spend your own cash on a car or all manner of electronic gadgets. So why is it that you are not free to invest in your own future by paying for a university education?
Capping student fees isn't just bad for universities deprived of the extra cash. It hurts students.
Far from making university education more accessible to more students, the cap puts degree courses that might otherwise exist entirely out of reach of UK students.
British universities increasingly compensate for the fee cap by offering places to overseas students who are free to pay. The cap thus actively prevents young British people having opportunities that are open to students from around the world.
One argument against scrapping the cap is that it might prevent people from poorer backgrounds from getting degrees. Nonsense. The best universities are desperate to attract the best students. It is in their own self-interest to ensure bursary schemes and scholarships are available for those that might not otherwise be able to pay back the cost of their studies. If government wants to help, they could offer tax incentives to support endowment schemes to fund scholarships.
Others complain that without a cap, different universities might set different fees. Indeed they would. But why is that a bad thing? Those universities only able to charge low fees might ask what it was about higher fee universities that allowed them to ask students to contribute more.
Removing the cap on fees would ensure that universities were better at offering the right courses, in the right numbers, to more people. That might even prompt a little overdue innovation, such as two year degree courses.
In a free society, universities should be free to charge their own fees, and young people should be free to invest in their own future. It is wrong that they are prevented from doing so by politicians.
Posted on 10 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
More quangos to go
Apparently another batch of quangos are for the axe.
Consumer Focus, a corporatist nonsense, seems set to disappear. Maybe consumers could, you know, like ... use consumer choice and the free market, rather than official busy-bodies, to represent their interests?
Could it be that the creation of IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, has achieved something truly remarkable? Might it have at last woken politicians up to quite how dreadful such independent bodies and technocratic experts can be? We certainly don't seem to hear MPs offering to set up new quangos the way they once did.
How long until we disband the FSA (who failed to oversee the banks), the CSA (who treat mums and dads appallingly), the MPC (who set reckless interest rates), and all the rest of the quango state?
Keep on hacking .....
Posted on 9 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Scrapping quangos isn't just about saving money
Powerful vested interests in Whitehall - led by the Institute for Government - seem to be lobbying against a quango cull.
According to a story in the Guardian today, scrapping 180 quangos would cost as much as keeping them.
Whoever cooked up this spin seems to have missed the point.
Quangos are bad not simply because they cost the taxpayer. They are bad because they decide things. As long as public policy is in the hands of remote, unaccountable quangocrats, it is immune to democratic scrutiny.
We need to cull quangos to ensure that those who make public policy begin to answer to the public.
Posted on 8 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
St Osyth parish council
Had a great meeting this evening with St Osyth parish council.
Quite a contrast to the bustle and bubble of the Conservative conference in Birmingham ....
Posted on 7 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Radicalism requires a plan
“We are the radicals now” declared David Cameron today. We certainly ought to be.
But having radical intentions, doesn’t automatically deliver radical change. See what happened to Tony Blair....
Or look at how in the early 1970s the Conservatives entered office with a radical programme aimed at decentralising control over economic things. Since we'd not by that stage thought through how to make it happen, we ended up doing the opposite. A prices and incomes policy followed.
In 2010, the Conservatives came to office promising to decentralise control over politics and public services. We will need strategy, not merely tactics, if we are to make it happen. In the 1970s, trades unions opposed our reformist agenda. Today an even wider array of vested interests will try to derail our plans to disperse control over politics and public services.
Yet already in certain key areas – the Freedom Bill, Open Primaries, Recall – the early promise of radicalism seems to be fading. Why? Perhaps those doing the implementation don’t seem to have thought things through.
In the day-to-day rush of politics, strategic thinking can get put to one side. Seeking to do “what works” can mean that tactical calculation then takes precedence. If we are going to successfully deliver radical change, tactics must serve the aims of our strategy, rather than exist as an alternative to having one.
Posted on 6 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Where did all the money go?
When Gordon Brown was first put in charge of the nation's finances, the government spent about 37 percent of GDP.
By the time he left office last year, government was spending almost half of our GDP.
The weeks and months ahead are going to see some tough cuts in the amount government spends. It is worth reflecting on who spent all the money. And asking if we got value for it.
Posted on 6 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Clown elected to Brazilian congress
Brazilians have apparently elected a clown to their congress.
Thank goodness we never elect clowns to our Parliament, eh?
Posted on 5 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Why we need an in / out referendum on the EU
I'm about to do a fringe meeting at the Freedom Zone in Birmingham explaining why we need a referendum on our EU membership.
Such arguments are no longer just being made on the fringe, but in the political mainstream. Afterall, if you accept the principle of referendums to decide things like electoral reform, how can you deny people a direct say on whether Brussels or Westminster has the final say ....
Posted on 5 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Cameron right on defence reform
"We've got a lot of aeroplanes that are ready to do dog fights with the Soviet Union Air Force. That's not right" says David Cameron.
Indeed. It's time to ensure that our defence budget is spent in the interests of our armed forces and Britain's strategic needs. Too often, the money has instead been spent in ways that suit the contractors who supply the kit.
A couple of years back, I was delighted to be attacked for saying as much. Maverick? It's looking increasingly mainstream .....
Posted on 4 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell
Left-on-left friendly fire?
Witnessed yesterday walking along Broad Street in Birmingham, as a throng of left-wing extremists hurled abuse at by-standers.
"Scum!" one yelled at a well-dressed woman towing one of those little suitcases on wheels.
"I work for the Guardian!" she protested "You shouldn't make assumptions".
What was more revealing? The prejudices of the mob or the self-righteousness of a Guardiansta?
Posted on 4 October 2010 by Douglas Carswell