In pushing through its bill on top-up fees, Tony Blair's Labour government has
advanced one spurious argument after another in order to carry through their
attack on the principle that education is a right. Shamelessly presenting the
Bill as a means of getting more working class children into universities, the
supporters of the Bill have argued that university education has been a middle
class privilege, subsidised by the taxpayer, and that this is unjust since people
who have a university degree earn more that those who do not. Therefore, they
argue more working class people should be encouraged to go to university and
since it would be "unfair to fund such an expansion in higher education
from the taxpayers' money", those who benefit from such a higher education
should pay for it. That working class and poor children have historically been
under-represented at university level is clear but this problem cannot be solved
by attacking the principle that education is a right. It is clear that someone
who has had no education whatsoever and cannot read or write is very likely
to earn less than someone who can. Does this mean that the person who has had
primary and secondary education should be made to pay for it once they start
working? It is illogical to argue that this approach applies to higher education
but not primary and secondary and clearly such an approach has no place in a
modern society.
All the arguments about "variability", "unfairness to the taxpayer" and so on mask the central questions of which hardly anything is said. First of all, what is higher education for? Can it simply be seen as the means by which an individual becomes "well off" as a kind of individual investment in a wealthy future so the state can say, "You're going to benefit from it, so you pay for it"? This type of thinking flows from Margaret Thatcher's infamous outburst that "there is no such thing as society" only "individual men and women and there are families". With this type of logic, the political representatives of big business are attempting to sidestep society's responsibilities to its members and to promote their doctrine that all should fend for themselves. At the beginning of the 21st century, such a doctrine can only lead to disaster not only for the society but also for the individuals and families who cannot survive without it. The modern world has become so bound together and technological change has advanced at such a rate that an enlightened and modern population has become an absolute necessity. Education, including higher education, has its part to play in creating such enlightenment and in doing this it serves not only the individuals who attend university but the whole society. Why shouldn't all go to university to prepare themselves for life in the modern world?
The other important question which runs through the argument of the Labour government but is never presented properly is "can Britain afford higher education for a large section of the society"? This problem is always presented as if the only source of funding for education is the government budget derived from taxation. This is a false presentation of the issue intended to hide the question of how wealth is produced and who gets the first claim on it, and how the system of taxation operates.
The government's budget is far from an account of Britain's total wealth. In the first place, wealth is produced by the labour of the workers in Britain and since Britain is a major imperialist country by the wealth produced by millions of farmers and workers in countries all over the world which Britain's business magnates steal and return to this country. Clearly this stolen wealth should be returned to its owners, namely those whose labour created it. This, however, still leaves the wealth created by the workers in Britain. What happens to this wealth? How much is it each year? How is it distributed? These are the questions which need to be discussed before it is possible to determine what should be the source of funding for an adequate higher education for all. These are the questions which are starkly absent from the discussion. Why should the payment of dividends and interests on loans, both in the private and public sector take precedence over the funding of higher education? Why should these payments which are nothing other than the claim of the rich on the wealth produced by the people be paid at all? If there is a problem in funding higher education, why not impose a moratorium on dividend and interest payments which are a drain on the economy? Shouldn't the people whose work produces this wealth, namely the workers, not have a say over who should be prioritised in consuming it? Without a broad discussion among the people on these issues, there is no basis to claim that the country cannot afford to fund higher education.
The spurious arguments of Tony Blair's Labour government over top-up fees are meant to hide its programme of paying the rich at everyone else' expense, of entrenching the crisis, and attacking even the basic services such as health care and education. The people must respond to this attack by raising their own demand that education is a right and that ways must be found for it to be funded adequately.