Nick Clegg speaks at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in York earlier this month. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Will the Lib Dems oppose a tuition fee rise in 2015?

With the Tories refusing to rule out another increase, Clegg's party will soon need to decide where it stands.

With the new tuition fees system threatening to become more expensive for the government than its predecessor (owing to a non-repayment rate of 45 per cent), the question of how to sustainably fund universities has risen again. There are three ways in which ministers could attempt to plug the blackhole (which stands at over £1.5bn a year): a reduction in the earnings threshold for graduate repayment (currently £21,000), an increase in state subsidy (funded by higher taxes or greater cuts elsewhere), or a rise in tuition fees (provided that this does not similarly result in a higher bill). 

When challenged to rule out the latter option in an interview with Channel 4 News on Saturday, universities minister David Willetts notably refused to do so, merely stating that "we will have to see how the income of universities performs. But we have a structure for £9,000 and £21,000 and that is working". Pressed again by presenter Cathy Newman as he was leaving the studio on whether another increase was on the way, he revealingly replied: "could be". 

One option known to be under discussion in Conservative circles is the removal of the cap on tuition fees all together (the policy recommended by the 2010 Browne Review), with universities free to charge as much as they want in a pure market system. In order to ensure that the new model is affordable, institutions could be required to provide loans to students to cover the share of the fee above £9,000. One figure commonly proposed by vice-chancellors is £16,000 (the annual cost of educating an undergraduate). 

With the Tories likely to go into the general election refusing to rule out another increase in tuition fees (if not ruling one in), the question is raised of where the Lib Dems, the party more associated with this policy area than any other, will stand. After much internal angst, the party endorsed the current system at its autumn conference last year while retaining a commitment to review the system after the general election and abolish fees "if possible or necessary". The latter ambition is rejected by ministers, who rightly warn that a pledge of this kind would not be regarded as credible by voters. But while the current limit of £9,000 has been accepted, and dreams of abolition have been abandoned, this leaves unanswered the question of whether the party will promise to oppose a new rise in fees. Nick Clegg has previously reassured students, "Don't worry, we're not going to raise tuition fees to £16,000", and plenty in the party will want this evolve into a formal election pledge. 

But recent history means Lib Dem ministers will be understandably wary of such a commitment. It was the party's promise in 2010 to vote against any increase in fees that led to its post-election humiliation when fees were tripled by the coalition; it cannot risk a repeat. Yet any refusal to oppose an increase will lead to accusations from Labour that the party has pre-emptively accepted Conservative plans for a rise. With Ed Miliband expected to propose a reduction in fees to £6,000 (not least on the grounds that it could save money), the Lib Dems risk being further disadvantaged in the battle for the student vote (on which the survival of several of their MPs rests). How to resolve this dilemma is a question Clegg will soon need to answer. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Despite his “strong female leads”, Joss Whedon's feminism was never about real women

Many men in TV and film praised for their powerful women are still writing with the male gaze.

Kai Cole, the ex-wife of Joss Whedon, has written an essay alleging that the director isn’t quite the feminist he appears to be. Colour me unsurprised. There’s only so much good-guy posturing a feminist can take before she starts to become a little suspicious.

It’s not that I’ve any particular beef with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, nor that I think men shouldn’t speak out against sexism wherever possible. But I’ve long harboured a mistrust of male directors – Whedon, Woody Allen, Pedro Almodóvar – who gain a reputation of being “good at doing women”. Who are they, these magic woman-whisperers, who see through woman’s childlike, primitive exterior and coax out the inner complexity? How do they manage to present women, these blank, mysterious objects, as actual human beings?

True, these men are working against a backdrop of extreme sexism, in which film dialogue is dominated by males, while females become increasingly silent as they age. Perhaps one should be grateful to anyone who allows a female character to have some glimmer of an inner life, let alone exist beyond the age of 30.

All the same, I can’t help feeling this isn’t enough. We all know the joke about the male feminist who walks into a bar because it’s set so low. It’s all too easy to be “good at doing women” when all it takes is granting female characters the same desires and contradictions we’d grant to any other human being.

Women are not a specific type of puzzle for mankind to solve. The idea that it should take some noble, generous leap of imagination to empathise with us is an excuse men have been using to mistreat us for millennia. When responding to us as though we’re actual human beings – or at least, as though an interesting Real Woman subset of us are – becomes a USP, we should all be worried.

Whedon did go a little way to addressing this in his 2006 acceptance speech for an Equality Now award, in which he mocked the way in which he was constantly asked: “Why do you always write these strong women characters?”:

“Why aren't you asking a hundred other guys why they don't write strong women characters? I believe that what I'm doing should not be remarked upon, let alone honoured.”

If this sounds a little like a humblebrag, it can probably be excused. What’s harder to excuse is this idea that a man who boasts of surrounding himself with women like his mother – “an extraordinary, inspirational, tough, cool, sexy, funny woman” – is doing womankind a favour.

I’m glad you appreciate your mum, Joss, and that you apparently don’t feel threatened by other women like her. There’s a fine line, though, between valuing women and presenting them with a whole new list of impossible standards to live up to. This is why I could never quite buy into the liberatory potential of Buffy. There’s nothing impressive about a man failing to be intimidated by his own strong girl fantasy.

In E T A Hoffmann’s 1816 short story The Sandman, the hero Nathanael falls in love with Olimpia, a doll whom he believes to be a real woman. Once the truth is exposed, the men around him become concerned that they, too, may have unwittingly fallen for automata:

“Many lovers, to be quite convinced that they were not enamoured of wooden dolls, would request their mistresses to sing and dance a little out of time, to embroider and knit, and play with their lapdogs, while listening to reading, etc., and, above all, not merely to listen, but also sometimes to talk, in such a manner as presupposed actual thought and feeling.”

There’s something about the director who’s “good at doing women” that reminds me of this. There’s a recipe for dropping in just the right number of quirks, inconsistencies and imperfections to create a Real Woman Character, without making her so unsexy as to be instantly distinguishable from your Hollywood doll. It’s not that her actual thoughts and feelings matter; it’s all about where she’s positioned in relation to you.

As Sophia McDougall noted in her excellent essay on Strong Female Characters, male characters have complex personalities as a matter of course; female characters, meanwhile, are occasionally permitted to be strong, hence anomalous. The more nuance we see, the better. Even so, I’m tired of the veneration of men who fetishise Real Womanhood just as much as others fetishise the plastic variety.

According to Whedon’s ex-wife, the director’s declared feminist ideals never filtered through into real life. Whether this is true or not, this would be understandable. Real Women are not the same as real women. Equality isn’t a matter of men feeling “engaged and even attracted” to a more diverse range of females. It isn’t about the male gaze at all.

Whedon’s final response to the “why do you always write these strong women characters?” question – “because you’re still asking me that question” – has been seen by many as an explicitly feminist statement. But perhaps all it really meant was “because there’s still a gap in the market”. Because men will always find ways to benefit from other men’s sexism. If Real Women didn’t exist, some man out there would have to invent them. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.