Sorry, Peter - the facts of life aren't Conservative, says Mehdi Hasan

My brief response to Oborne's silly Telegraph column.

In every area of our public life, the Left is losing the argument

proclaims the online headline to Peter Oborne's Telegraph column today. The standfirst goes further:

The facts of life are Conservative - as Labour's smartest minds now realise

Er, not they aren't. I consider Peter to be a good friend and one of the finest minds, and boldest writers, on the centre-right. Unlike so many other Tory-supporting columnists, he isn't tribal and has been willing to denounce Cameron and co when the occasion demands it.

Today's silly column, however, contains a series of unfounded, unsupported and curious claims and assertions, e.g.

It is now widely accepted that the years of New Labour government were an almost unalloyed national disaster. Whichever measure you take - moral, social, economic, or the respect in which Britain is held in the world - we went into reverse.

Er, no it isn't. This sounds like the kind of party-political propaganda which Peter has so often denounced fellow hacks for producing, purveying and peddling in the past. The Tories and their supporters in the press, of course, want people to believe that 13 years of Blair and Brown were an "almost unalloyed national disaster" in order to (a) discredit the social-democratic ideas and values, (b) undermine the legitimacy of the state and, in particular, the welfare state, and (c) make themselves look good, no matter how high unemployment gets, no matter how many riots or protests erupt, on their watch. It is brazen historical revisionism.

Peter begins:

Let's start with economic management, the scene of New Labour's most obvious debacle. In the early months after the 2010 general election, Labour's shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, refused to accept the clear fact that high spending and high borrowing had driven us to economic disaster. He called on George Osborne to spend even more in order to avert recession.

A year on, Balls has lost the argument.

Sorry, has Peter been abroad for the past twelve months? Has he not read the papers? Or looked at the unemployment figures? It is Osborne who lost the argument and lost it badly last November when his growth forecasts were downgraded yet again, his deficit-reduction timetable had to be extended and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) then revealed that the Chancellor would be borrowing more - an astonishing £158bn more! - than he had planned to in October 2010's Spending Review and an embarrassing £37bn more than the much-mocked Labour plan (or "Darling plan") to cut the deficit in half over the lifetime of this parliament (as outlined in the March 2010 budget). Meanwhile, pretty much everything Balls said in his Bloomberg speech in August 2010 has come to pass. Read it for yourself; judge for yourself. The Keynesian argument, or what the US economist and former White House adviser Christina Romer calls the empirical argument, has, once again, been vindicated.

On a related note, if you want a more nuanced and less gloomy take on the UK's economic performance between 1997 and 2010, check out this recent report from the LSE's Centre for Economic Performance.

Throughout his column, Peter makes the basic mistake of conflating the Labour Party with the left, and acts as if all Labour leaders and politicians believe the same thing (when, of course, there is an ideological gulf between, say, Tony Blair and Ed Miliband). He argues:

Labour has come to accept Duncan Smith's profound insight that welfare payments can trap people in poverty, rather than offer them a hand out of it, thus forcing generations of families into dependence on the state.

This is absurd and ahistorical. There has been a bipartisan consensus for several decades now that the welfare trap exists and needs to be tackled. This isn't some unique or "profound" insight of IDS. The reason left-wingers object to Duncan Smith's welfare "reforms" is because you can't cut the number of people on welfare when there are no jobs available. Meanwhile, it is immoral and unjust to slash £18bn from the welfare budget - that is, from money spent on the poorest, most vulnerable members of society - while taking only £12bn or so from the big banks who caused the economic crisis.

Peter also claims:

The vital importance of this experiment lay in the special circumstances of the post-war period. Throughout this time, the liberal Left, as general election results show, has tended to be unpopular with voters.

That's only if you judge "popularity" on the basis of our disproportionate and dysfunctional first-past-the-post electoral system. For example, the general election of 1983 - widely considered to be Margaret Thatcher's greatest electoral triumph - saw 53 per cent of the public vote for liberals (the SDP/Alliance) and the left (Michael Foot's Labour Party) compared to 42 per cent who voted for Thatcher's Tories. There has never been a Conservative majority in the country in the post-war period - in fact, at the last election, Cameron's Conservatives failed to secure a majority in the country and in the Commons.

Peter writes that

. . . a handful of prime ministers have led governments that reshaped the world we all live in. Since 1945, only two - Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher - have fallen into this very rare second category.

It now looks as if Cameron may turn out to be the third. In some ways this is very strange, because Cameron, at heart an
old-fashioned Tory pragmatist, is the least revolutionary Prime Minister one can imagine.

But he has taken the job at a fulcrum moment, when some of the most intelligent minds on the Left have come to realise that the facts of life are Conservative.

Three quick points here: 1) Peter defines Liam Byrne and Stephen Twigg as examples of his "intelligent minds on the Left". This is totally arbitrary and subjective; some would say that such a label better suits, say, Stewart Wood or Gavin Kelly or David Marquand. 2) It is amusing to see Peter now singing Cameron's praises given how critical - and personally critical! - he was of Cameron just a few months ago. 3) He again just declares that "the facts of life are Conservative". Yet, high Tories like Thatcher biographer Charles Moore, seem to be saying otherwise. Unlike Peter, who says literally nothing in his column about the monumental failure of financial capitalism and deregulation, Moore has acknowledged, for instance, that "it turns out - as the Left always claims - that a system purporting to advance the many has been perverted in order to enrich the few". Writing in Oborne's own paper in July 2011, Moore declared:

I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right

Hear, hear!

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Paul Marotta
Show Hide image

England is now a more expensive place to study than the US. Why?

Is a university education in this country really worth £44,000, and how does our system compare to higher education funding elsewhere?

England has long sneered at American universities and their exorbitant fees. It cannot do so any longer: England is now a more expensive country to study than the US, and is easily the most expensive of eight Anglophone countries – the four UK nations, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US – analysed in a new Sutton Trust report. English students graduating from last year left university with an average of £44,000 in debt £15,000 more than Americans studying at for-profit universities across the pond.

Why do English students have it so much worse than other students in the UK? There are two answers. The first is the government's decision in 2010 to shift much of the cost of university from the general taxpayer to the beneficiaries: the students themselves. The second answer is devolution. The devolved governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have made political choices to differentiate themselves from Westminster by prioritising keeping fees down – even when, as in Scotland, the effect is to benefit middle-class students at the expense of disadvantaged ones. Students in Wales who study in England are eligible for generous grants, meaning they pay less than £4,000 a year rather than up to £9,000. Those studying in Northern Ireland have their fees capped at £3,925. 

Even England's £9,000 fees are puny set against those at elite American universities. In 2016/17 annual, tuition fees at Harvard are $59,550 and, when all else is accounted for, Harvard reckon each year costs students $88,600. But such exorbitant numbers are not the real story. About 60% of Harvard students receive the Harvard Scholarship: a microcosm of how US students benefit from a culture of graduates giving endowents to their old universities that is still lacking in England. Scholarships and bursaries at universities in the US are far more generous than in other countries. And those who go to public universities within their own state pay far less: those graduating after four years leave with an average debt of only US$27,100 [£19,100]. This is why the average debt of US graduates is now considerably less than in England. But those who berate that even America now has a more benign system for students than England should not be so hasty. The majority of US loans are not income contingent, meaning that low earners who are already struggling still have to pay.

Governments throughout the world are grappling with how to fund send an increasing proportion of students to university in an era of austerity. In the last two decades at least 14 countries in the OECD, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, have implemented major reforms to fees, according to the Sutton Trust. In general these reforms have led to students paying a greater share of the cost of their tuition. 

So in a sense what has happened in England is merely an extreme example of an international trend. And the introduction of tuition fees in 1998, which have been hiked up twice since, has been managed better than most acknowledge: indeed, the proportion of disadvantaged students at university has actually risen by one-fifth since tuition fees rose to £9,000.

But, with the poorest students in England now graduating with £50,000 in debt, more students will be driven to ask whether a university education is really worth it. For a small but significant minority, it isn’t. A recent IFS report found that male graduates from 23 low performing institutions – though it sadly declined to name them - earn less, on average, than those who do not go to university, and end up with huge debt to boot.

No matter how expensive a university education has become, not having one is even more expensive. Throughout the world demand for university education continues to soar; in England the average graduate premium is £200,000 over a lifetime. Yet too many dunce universities are saddling students with debt without giving them anything in return.    

Tim Wigmore is a contributing writer to the New Statesman and the author of Second XI: Cricket In Its Outposts.