I moved a motion entitled higher education, knowledge and funding. In my speech I placed the crisis of HE funding in the context of macro-economic policy and as the results of Labour’s hostile environment. I had been inspired to write the motion as a result of Rachel Reeves autumn statement 24 and after reviewing the industrial policy white paper. The seconder of the motion made what I believe is a powerful statement in favour of universal access to higher education. In this article, below, you will find a video clip of the debate, the words of the motion and my notes, that I used to make the speech.
In this article, below or overleaf, you will find the words of the motion and my notes, that I used to make the speech.
The text of the motion, followed by the CEC recommendation …
255. HIGHER EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE AND FUNDING
Congress notes Motion 172/Congress 2023 and in line with our policy, union has a commitment for demand led growth and free higher education for all.
Congress believes that the introduction of tuition fees has in effect privatised higher education. Congress notes that historically the UK Higher Education (HE) sector is a significant source of export earnings.
Congress notes that GMB policy is to oppose tuition fees
Congress notes the coming funding crisis in the universities sector and calls on the Labour Government to restore grant funding for students and universities and to forgive the student debt book.
Congress calls on the Labour Government to reverse the Tory ban on overseas students bringing their families with them when accepted on courses of study or on research contracts. It also calls on the Government to abolish the health service surcharge for people entering as students or researchers and their families.
Congress believes that a key driver for economic growth is the human capital of the nation and that tuition fees are an effective inhibitor to that growth. Education should be free for all and that the HE sector should be able to recruit the best talent from around the world.
X58 LONDON CENTRAL GENERAL BRANCH, London Region
REFER: As the motion makes plain, Higher Education is in crisis and has become market orientated to the extent that the ability to pay (as opposed to the ability to think) is now the determining factor in the sector. It was unfortunate that Lorna Fitzsimons (as the leader of the NUS and a future MP) watered down commitments to the meritocratic principle, free tuition, and reductions in student grants in the late 1980s and early ‘90s. It was similarly unfortunate that it was a Labour Government that instituted the payment of fees and accelerated the commodification of education and of HE in particular.
Within this context, it is difficult to see the current Labour Government being persuaded to reverse longstanding policy. Furthermore, free Higher Education ‘for all’ is a difficult – if not impossible – ask. What might be better stressed is a policy for HE that is meritocratic and seeks to provide equal opportunities for all; that is capable of breaking down the class and economic privileges that are endemic in the sector; that challenges the dogma of marketisation and the highly ideological nature of what passes for HE (as a transmission belt for the values of capital); and which seeks to recapture – and extend – the vision of Harold Wilson’s government in the 1960s. What GMB – together with the other HE Unions – needs to do is advance its own, practical and costed, blueprint for radical change and advance
I planned to say, but ad-libbed a bit. I have also used the “quote” css style to emphasis parts of the speech, which was as much about macro-economics as tutition fees and access.
President/Vice Chair, Dave Levy London Region, moving Motion 255 HIGHER EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE AND FUNDING
We heard this yesterday of Labour’s revised plans on expenditure, and its industrial strategy led plans for growth. To me one of the highlights of that speech was the belated recognition that growth will only help if people feel it in their pockets, or bank accounts.
While GDP growth is the central policy objective of this government, we believe there are several problems with their approach.
The first is it would seem the purpose of growth is to reduce the national debt not increase people’s incomes. Japan is borrowing 294% of its GDP, we are borrowing 98%. The national debt isn’t the problem the government seems to think it is and certainly voters don’t think so.
By observing last year’s US Presidential election result, we can be assured that both US are UK voters are more concerned with the cost of living crisis, then even jobs let alone the national debt.
The government’s growth strategy, its industrial policy, is based on classic innovation & startup incubation and we need to ask whether it’s good enough. Even the Government’s Industrial policy document identifies innovation adoption as an inhibitor to growth and as to private partnerships, the so called investment crowding-in, investment in the UK has usually been from retained profits and not the capital markets; London’s capital markets are not patriotic.
One of the missing dimensions in the Growth strategy is Education. It is a key driver for growth; they should not be hobbling regulators, weakening consumer protection and the enforcement of employee and privacy rights. There is a need for a vibrant and contributing university sector. Today, the UK has that but it is facing a financial crisis and Brexit and the hostile environment have reduced the attractiveness of the UK as a place for foreigners to want to work and live.
The central truth is that If the government is looking to invest in and grow the economy then it must invest in the university sector.
I’d ask you to listen to the CEC reply, they focus on the introduction of tuition fees & loans by New Labour and their student praetorian, many of whom are today in the cabinet, while relevant, it’s not central to the arguments.
I am particularly unimpressed with the phrase, “It is difficult – to see The current labour government being persuaded to reverse longstanding policy”, Can you imagine congress’s or our founder’s response should this have been said about a Tory government or Victorian management. It’s even more offensive when applied to our party.
They also suggest that the GMB policy of free higher education for all is difficult if not impossible, I don’t agree, but maybe our branch should have been more careful with the words we used.
Before people say this is not a trade union issue, firstly macro-economics is, and my branch organises both blue collar and black gown staff the Universities and we heard earlier in the week about the rapid casualisation of academic staff. I wish we could do more.
This blog article is best read with [some of], the following documents, the final agenda document, GMB’s Congress page which contains all the documents and the video index is available as a playlist or as individual videos at the GMB’s youtube channel. This article has been back dated to about the time of occurrence.