Last week I attended National Union of Students Services Convention. NUS Services is the commercial arm of the NUS. NUS Services resources students’ unions through three core services: purchasing, commercial development and infrastructure support.
The idea of the NUS having any sort of commercial activity sits uncomfortably with some. Much like the Guild all of the money NUS generates is directly reinvested into the experience of the membership. The money generated is invested into things like offering students’ unions discounts on goods, providing staff support and ensuring the NUS remains financially viable in the long term future.
On the idea of the future of students’ unions one of the main areas of discussion was around operating franchises from within students’ unions. This is inviting private companies to run outlets such as; bars, coffee shops, retail spaces and food outlets. Evidence shows that students prefer spending money at franchises rather than in services ran by their students’ unions. One students’ union spoke at length how having a franchise generated hundreds of thousands of pounds they were able to directly reinvest into the student experience. Financial freedom from universities and colleges is one of the best ways students’ unions can ensure they can be an effective voice at lobbying their institution on behalf of students.
The higher education climate we currently operate in is subject to market conditions. We have seen other students’ unions receive a cut in their block grant when their institutions have had to make budget cuts. A commercially and financially successful students’ union is the best way to insulate ourselves from the reach our parent institution, and from the threats presented by an uncertain financial climate. Given that Liverpool Guild of Students is a charity all of our money is reinvested into improving the lives of students, it is imperative to our existence and your experience that the Guild remains profitable.
Of course this profit doesn’t need to solely come from franchising . University of Gloucester Students’ Union delivered a presentation on social enterprise schemes they ran. These are businesses ran by students wherein the profits are reinvested into the students’ union. They had found particular success in growing their own chilies which they made into a variety of products for sale. Other students’ unions have ran a whole range of social enterprises; from farming bees to make honey, to running property agencies.
Liverpool Guild of Students operates under an ethical investment policy. Everything we do is in the best interest of our members and in the interest of securing the long-term future of our organisation. There are so many opportunities to be innovative in making the Guild financially successful whilst opening up business opportunities for students that will provide skills for later employment. The financial success of Liverpool Guild of Students allows us to do all the things we do for our members, this must be tempered against the fact that our primary aim is not to make money. As one delegate at the convention quipped ,‘If students’ unions were interested in just making money they would open a betting shop.’
Wednesday 30 April 2014
Monday 14 April 2014
What Can the Labour Party Offer Young People?
Tony Blair proclaimed in 1997 that his three main priorities in government were ‘education, education, education.’ This has not translated to an increase in votes from young people. Voter turnout between 1997 and 2005 amongst those aged 18-24 fell from an estimated 54.1% of this age range in 1997, down to 38.2% in 2005. By contrast, voter turnout amongst those who are aged over 65 has never fallen below 70% since 1964. As voters aged over 65 are more likely to vote for Conservative, Labour must build a consistent electoral base by widening their appeal to young voters.
These statistics become even more shocking when looking at recent EU elections where only 18% of young people voted. A recent report carried out by the European Youth Forum and International Institution for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, found that this lack of turnout was because young people felt ignored by politicians. Quite simply young people do not vote as politics and politicians do not seem relevant to them.
Labour are set to lower the voting age to sixteen if they are elected at the next election. This is an important first step in engaging young people with politics. There is an odd disconnect in that at 16 it is possible to pay taxes and join the army, yet young people are unable to take part in a democratic process that affects their daily life. If Labour are to align themselves as the party who are on the side of young people there can be no better start than allowing more young people to vote. Allowing more young people to vote will enable a shift in the policy of any party elected, and Labour must be ready for such a change.
If Labour are to extend the number of young people eligible to vote they must offer policy to engage them. It was correct to introduce compulsory citizenship classes – however, these are often poorly taught. If young people are to engage in politics, citizenship must be taught properly and extensively throughout the country. In terms of policy, with young people facing the spectre of both an increase in the cost of living and a lack of available full time work Labour must keep to its promise of a job guarantee. This should be coupled with a greater provision for training in the workplace. Labour should help small businesses provide additional training for young people they employ, to help their company to grow and to help young people ward off the prospect of returning to long term unemployment.
Labour need to look more fundamentally at what it can offer young people. Britain has an education system that is distinctly favoured toward the wealthiest in society. It may seem impossible in the current climate but Labour needs to offer hope to those who are not born in to wealth. Hope that they can achieve. Hope that there will be jobs for them to go to, hope that they will have access to free health care, hope that they will one day be able to own their own home, and hope more than anything, that after years of financial mismanagement ‘things can only get better’. Labour was the party that led the way on issues such as sure start centres to ensure young people could get the best start in life. If Labour is to be successful with young people it must make the fundamental changes that mean young people can succeed, whilst offering policies that make young people buy into the Labour Party.
Labour must ensure that as many young people as possible are eligible to vote in the next general election. This is the demographic that are most likely to vote Labour – and the demographic who are most ignored by politicians.
These statistics become even more shocking when looking at recent EU elections where only 18% of young people voted. A recent report carried out by the European Youth Forum and International Institution for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, found that this lack of turnout was because young people felt ignored by politicians. Quite simply young people do not vote as politics and politicians do not seem relevant to them.
Labour are set to lower the voting age to sixteen if they are elected at the next election. This is an important first step in engaging young people with politics. There is an odd disconnect in that at 16 it is possible to pay taxes and join the army, yet young people are unable to take part in a democratic process that affects their daily life. If Labour are to align themselves as the party who are on the side of young people there can be no better start than allowing more young people to vote. Allowing more young people to vote will enable a shift in the policy of any party elected, and Labour must be ready for such a change.
If Labour are to extend the number of young people eligible to vote they must offer policy to engage them. It was correct to introduce compulsory citizenship classes – however, these are often poorly taught. If young people are to engage in politics, citizenship must be taught properly and extensively throughout the country. In terms of policy, with young people facing the spectre of both an increase in the cost of living and a lack of available full time work Labour must keep to its promise of a job guarantee. This should be coupled with a greater provision for training in the workplace. Labour should help small businesses provide additional training for young people they employ, to help their company to grow and to help young people ward off the prospect of returning to long term unemployment.
Labour need to look more fundamentally at what it can offer young people. Britain has an education system that is distinctly favoured toward the wealthiest in society. It may seem impossible in the current climate but Labour needs to offer hope to those who are not born in to wealth. Hope that they can achieve. Hope that there will be jobs for them to go to, hope that they will have access to free health care, hope that they will one day be able to own their own home, and hope more than anything, that after years of financial mismanagement ‘things can only get better’. Labour was the party that led the way on issues such as sure start centres to ensure young people could get the best start in life. If Labour is to be successful with young people it must make the fundamental changes that mean young people can succeed, whilst offering policies that make young people buy into the Labour Party.
Labour must ensure that as many young people as possible are eligible to vote in the next general election. This is the demographic that are most likely to vote Labour – and the demographic who are most ignored by politicians.
Tuesday 1 April 2014
Is Graduate Tax going to be Ed Miliband's 'radical offer'
With Ed Miliband's promise of a 'radical offer' on tuition fees there is an ever increasing feeling that Labour will commit to a graduate tax. This follows Liam Byrne's suggestion that Labour's election manifesto could set out 'a long-term shift to a graduate tax.' The announcement that Labour will reduce tuition fees to £6,000 suggests tuition fees are going to be a real election issue.
Graduate tax was advocated by the National Union of Students as early as 2009. In offering a short-term fee reduction as well as a future of more progressive taxation policy Labour could position itself as the party on the side of students.
Whilst the details are still being ironed out a graduate tax would essentially be a tax on earnings of all university graduates. Labour would most probably adopt a model wherein the rate of tax is variable dependent on income. The initial benefit to students of this model is that education becomes free at the point of access. As many students are put off university by the prospect of large debts, a graduate tax could increase participation from students from poorer backgrounds. Furthermore, the current tuition fees system means that all graduates pay the same regardless of the actual cost of the deliver of their degree, or the benefit of their degree to them. Taxation on a progressive scale over a set period of time would mean repayment closer reflects the value of a degree to an individual.
The two key elements to make a graduate tax economically viable are; the period of repayment, and the percentage of income tax is levied at. The most economically sensible way of making a graduate tax viable would be to offer a fixed term repayment period (the NUS previously suggested twenty years) and an increasing tax scale dependent on earnings. This would make it possible to collect the same amount of revenue as tuition fees whilst ensuring that ability to pay is aligned with amount repaid. Under this system high earners would pay significantly more tax compared to those who earn less. A fixed payment period would alleviate the feeling of a debt so huge that it is inescapable and seem more manageable than a debt that is rarely paid off.
The proposal to reduce fees to £6,000 as an initial step should not be seen as back-pedalling from a graduate tax as some have suggested. With the news this week that the tax payer will subsidise roughly 45% of the student loan book under the £9,000 regime, the Labour Party has the opportunity to show itself to be both economically savvy and on the side of students by making this initial reduction. The gradual introduction of a graduate tax will position the Labour party as being brave enough to take on the challenge of funding Higher Education in a way that is both practical and fair. Whilst it may seem ideologically and practically difficult the introduction of a graduate tax further imbeds the idea that university is beneficial to society, not just the individuals who attend. Opening up the possibility for future Labour governments to advocate for universal taxation to fund university. A step that may seem inconceivable at the moment but is surely more progressive than raising tuition fees, something which Universities Minister David Willetts has refused to rule out.
Labour here has the chance to realign itself as being on the side of students. A graduate tax is the first step in making university education both more accessible and more economically sustainable. This can be Labour's first step in putting a flag in the ground for developing policy for a more progressive education policy. A policy that looks at, proper postgraduate funding, greater provision for scholarships and bursaries, and perhaps the greatest challenge of increasing access to students who would be less likely to attend university. Labour can revolutionise the way we view university education, this could be the first step in doing so.
Originally published at Labour List: http://labourlist.org/2014/04/is-a-graduate-tax-going-to-be-ed-milibands-radical-offer/
Graduate tax was advocated by the National Union of Students as early as 2009. In offering a short-term fee reduction as well as a future of more progressive taxation policy Labour could position itself as the party on the side of students.
Whilst the details are still being ironed out a graduate tax would essentially be a tax on earnings of all university graduates. Labour would most probably adopt a model wherein the rate of tax is variable dependent on income. The initial benefit to students of this model is that education becomes free at the point of access. As many students are put off university by the prospect of large debts, a graduate tax could increase participation from students from poorer backgrounds. Furthermore, the current tuition fees system means that all graduates pay the same regardless of the actual cost of the deliver of their degree, or the benefit of their degree to them. Taxation on a progressive scale over a set period of time would mean repayment closer reflects the value of a degree to an individual.
The two key elements to make a graduate tax economically viable are; the period of repayment, and the percentage of income tax is levied at. The most economically sensible way of making a graduate tax viable would be to offer a fixed term repayment period (the NUS previously suggested twenty years) and an increasing tax scale dependent on earnings. This would make it possible to collect the same amount of revenue as tuition fees whilst ensuring that ability to pay is aligned with amount repaid. Under this system high earners would pay significantly more tax compared to those who earn less. A fixed payment period would alleviate the feeling of a debt so huge that it is inescapable and seem more manageable than a debt that is rarely paid off.
The proposal to reduce fees to £6,000 as an initial step should not be seen as back-pedalling from a graduate tax as some have suggested. With the news this week that the tax payer will subsidise roughly 45% of the student loan book under the £9,000 regime, the Labour Party has the opportunity to show itself to be both economically savvy and on the side of students by making this initial reduction. The gradual introduction of a graduate tax will position the Labour party as being brave enough to take on the challenge of funding Higher Education in a way that is both practical and fair. Whilst it may seem ideologically and practically difficult the introduction of a graduate tax further imbeds the idea that university is beneficial to society, not just the individuals who attend. Opening up the possibility for future Labour governments to advocate for universal taxation to fund university. A step that may seem inconceivable at the moment but is surely more progressive than raising tuition fees, something which Universities Minister David Willetts has refused to rule out.
Labour here has the chance to realign itself as being on the side of students. A graduate tax is the first step in making university education both more accessible and more economically sustainable. This can be Labour's first step in putting a flag in the ground for developing policy for a more progressive education policy. A policy that looks at, proper postgraduate funding, greater provision for scholarships and bursaries, and perhaps the greatest challenge of increasing access to students who would be less likely to attend university. Labour can revolutionise the way we view university education, this could be the first step in doing so.
Originally published at Labour List: http://labourlist.org/2014/04/is-a-graduate-tax-going-to-be-ed-milibands-radical-offer/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)