Report shows we can’t afford to cut spending on education


11:00 am - November 16th 2010

by Don Paskini    


      Share on Tumblr

The OECD have done a report on who participates in education, how much is spent on it and how education systems operate across different countries.

One interesting finding should inform the higher education debate.

At present, the total cost per student of full time higher education is $43,208 for a male student and $32,610 for a female student (including direct costs and also foregone taxes on earnings – the figure for male students is higher because women earn on average 78% of what men earn).

However, the total public benefit from a student is $138,526 per male student, and $114,899 per female student (made up of extra income taxes from higher earnings, “social contribution” and reduced unemployment payments).

So the net present value is $95,818 per male student, and $82,289 per female student. This is higher than the OECD average of $86,404 and $52,436.

Further education generates similar value of $73,267 per male and $109,394 per female.

The internal rate of return on higher education is 10.4 and 10.1, and on further education is 13.6 and 22.2.

Therefore, the argument that the state “can’t afford” to fund higher education is exactly and totally wrong – this is a money maker, not a money loser and borrowing to spend on higher and further education is a fantastic deal for the taxpayer.

To improve the public finances, we should support greater spending on higher and further education, not massive cuts.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Don Paskini is deputy-editor of LC. He also blogs at donpaskini. He is on twitter as @donpaskini
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy ,Education

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


we should support greater spending on higher and further education, not massive cuts.

We are going to be increasing spending on higher education. It’s just that those doing the extra spending will be the graduates themselves rather than those who missed out on the chance.

“We are going to be increasing spending on higher education. It’s just that those doing the extra spending will be the graduates themselves rather than those who missed out on the chance.”

And existing graduates will also be contributing less to higher education as a result of the 80% cut.

So even though we all benefit substantially from higher education, the only people who are going to contribute more are people who are currently at school. I humbly submit that this is not a very good plan.

You’ve taken 1+1 and found it equal to 3.

The NET PRESENT VALUE is calculated over the TOTAL (working) lifetime of the sutdent. It includes a slightly spurious and unquantifiable “social benefit” term – arguable for Doctors and the like, but not necessarily for all degrees.

You have however only considered the UPFRONT cost of the cost of education. It needs to be funded somehow – normally through debt. So that number (which looks suspiciously small given the cost of UK uni education, and it also doesn’t seem to include living costs etc) has to be modified by applying the interest compounded costs. Assuming our student manages to pay off his debt over 10 years you are already looking at an extra 50%.

If the same student (or taxpayer) takes 30 years to pay off the debt (assuming 30y yields), which is roughly the same length of time as a working (taxpaying) career, then you really are looking at the cost of funding that University education as being roughly the same as the NPV of the value of it.

Which is entirely fair in my view – you pay for the benefit you get from that education. There is no such thing as free education, remember – either the student pays or the taxpayer does.

But it does somewhat rubbish Don Paskini’s idea that throwing endless money at higher education will improve the public finances.

((I’d bet that a Laffer type bell curve of outcomes exists, not the upward linear curve that Paskini insinuates))

“You have however only considered the UPFRONT cost of the cost of education. It needs to be funded somehow – normally through debt.”

Firstly, the OECD didn’t only consider the upfront cost of higher education. A chunk of that cost is foregone income (and n.b. many students work, so this cost might be an overestimate).

Secondly, since the government can borrow at lower interest rates than students, your logic would suggest that one way to reduce the cost of HE is for a greater share of the cost to be met by the taxpayers.

Respect for managing to fit the Laffer Curve into your argument, though.

5. Gaf the Horse

In order that we can consider these figures in their full context can you post the total public benefit figures for a person who doesn’t go to university but leaves school for a job at 18? Then we can work out the cost effectiveness of university education versus not.

I’m not making any particular political point here, I’m very much in favour of state funded higher education, (I was a beneficiary myself and probably wouldn’t have gone if me / my parents had been expected to fund it all), but just stating figures like this in isolation doesn’t give enough context to understand if it supports your argument or not.

A heavily indebted company will take steps to strengthen its balance sheet alongside efforts to invest in income-generating assets. That is precisely what the government is doing.

Furthermore you haven’t taken into account cost effiencies. Students don’t require ‘state-of-the-art’ facilities to learn, as you can see with India’s thriving education sector. They need a sound curriculum, competitive exams and good discipline in the classroom.

Don Paskini

You seem really good at figures, so I was wondering if you could do us all a favour?

It’s been established on another thread that the new tuition fee scheme means that the next generation of graduates will be paying £30 per month when they earn £25,000pa and £67 per month when they earn £30,000 under the new system.

The other option preferred by many here would be to pay for higher education out of general taxation.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume the money would be raised by an increase in the basic rate of income tax.

Assuming the standard rate went up only enough to cover tuition fees…. how much more would someone on 25 and 30 grand be looking at paying per month in extra income tax?

How big would the difference be for a graduate in a few years time…. i.e. how much less than £30 per month would a graduate earning 25k be shelling out if the money were raised through income tax?

Would be interesting to know – and get this all in proportion…… are you up for it?

@5 Donpaskini

I’ll check through it more properly later when I have more time, but it does look like Mr Gurria only assumes and acocunts for foregone income over the duration (3 years) of the degree. NOT the total cost of funding that degree.

I am also very skeptical about that $43k number as well….that looks suspiciously like the average cost per annum of a UK degree (about 9k GBP) summed and multiplied by the USDGBP rate (roughly 1.6) = $43k.

Which totally ignores living costs which HAVE to be factored in, and are a big component of the cost of university (certianly if you are factoring lost income through not working as an input).

As for the cost of borrowing, I assumed 30y Government rates (as of today, 4.3%) as the cost of funding i.e. I made the assumption that the taxpayer would be funding the student. Given students currently borrow at this beneficial rate, my argument still stands.

I said Laffer curve style – I can’t exactly go and call it the Tyler curve now can I? My point was that I expect that there is a point at which extra higher education funding produces ever diminishing return, and can eventually produce a negative real GDP return. Our labour market is not at the point where all jobs require higher education. Your argument suggests that more education spending ALWAYS increases public finances/GDP.

9. astateofdenmark

So students who get degrees benefit from them. No reason they shouldn’t pay for them then. UKPlc gets the benefit without the cost. All good.

Though I mist also ask where you get your $43k number from – the report itself states that in 2007 total cost of a tertiary education in the UK is $63k with the OECD average $53k, again not including living costs.

And also, the main conclusion of the report, that higher educational spending = higher GDP comes from a regression analysis….which proves nothing apart from correlation. NOT causality.

Is it really surprising that countries with ihgher GDP per capita can afford to spend more on education?

Pretty shoddy interpretation of statistical analysis if you ask me.

“In order that we can consider these figures in their full context can you post the total public benefit figures for a person who doesn’t go to university but leaves school for a job at 18?”

According to OECD, people who don’t go to university and instead leave school aged 18 end up on average paying $110,580/$72,890 in income taxes less than graduates (male/female figures) and receiving an extra $4,881/4,966 in unemployment benefits.

You can get all the data from http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html if you want to look in more detail.

Hi Jay,

“Assuming the standard rate went up only enough to cover tuition fees…. how much more would someone on 25 and 30 grand be looking at paying per month in extra income tax?”

1p rise in income tax would raise £4.5bn, which would approx replace the extra fee income.

Someone on 25 grand per year would end up paying £14.60 per month extra in income tax, while someone on 30 grand per year would end up paying £18.77 per month.

However, we might also want to reverse the 80% cut in higher education funding and provide a bit more, so say 2p increase raising £9bn.

Someone on 25 grand per year would end up paying just over £29 per month extra with a 2p rise in income tax. Someone on 30 grand per year would pay £37.54 per month.

Err, here’s where the report is really shoddy.

The numbers for the gains (ie, extra taxes paid etc) are necessarily the gains as measured by the previous age cohorts who have gone through tertiary education.

They are not, as they cannot be, the gains from putting the current age cohort through tertiary education. ‘Coz it ain’t happened yet and thus we can’t measure what the effects are going to be.

Now, we all know that there has, in the past, been an earnings premium to having a degree. This really isn’t all that surprising when 5-20% (depends upon which age cohort you’re looking at) went to uni and the higher reaches of the higher earning professions weer monopolised by those who had been to uni.

However, when we’re sending 45% of the age cohort to uni, will there still be an earnings premium? For if there isn’t an earnings premium then there won’t be any extra taxes from those by now not higher wages, will there?

And the evidence seems to be that the graduate premium is falling fast as graduates become ever less rare. I’ve seen numbers which indicate that for a male an Arts degree brings (on average of course) no earnings premium at all.

And none of this should be all that surprising at all: there is such a thing as marginal utility, after all. Mebbe having 5% of the age cohort thoroughly educated does bring a nice fat pay (and thus tax) premium. But it would be insane to believe that 100% of the age cohort so educated would bring the same premium.

And somewhere between those two numbers we meet the Tyler Curve. What is the income maximising level of tertiary education?

Given that (by some half remembered numbers) one third of recent degree holders work in “non graduate jobs” I’d posit that we’re probably past that peak of the curve at 45% of the age cohort.

@Tim Worstall
you’re missing the ‘international competitiveness’ argument which drives investment to create the jobs in the first place.

Would ASDA be expanding its workforce by 7,500 if they didn’t think the new shelf-stackers and cashiers will be better and more productive workers by being able to appreciate the graphic design on their own-brand packaging and be able to aspire to managing the consultancy on a corporate logo redesign while they fund their studies?

Of course all educational premiums get discounted as access increases – that’s why basic literacy and numeracy are still so highly prized!

I personally think it’s worth asking why so many first-year undergraduates spend so much time in remedial classes.

“And somewhere between those two numbers we meet the Tyler Curve. What is the income maximising level of tertiary education?

Given that (by some half remembered numbers) one third of recent degree holders work in “non graduate jobs” I’d posit that we’re probably past that peak of the curve at 45% of the age cohort.”

Out of interest, Tim, what do you think the income maximising level is for:

(a) primary education up to age 11
(b) secondary education up to age 16

?

“Out of interest, Tim, what do you think the income maximising level is for:

(a) primary education up to age 11
(b) secondary education up to age 16”

a? 98 % or so?

b? still high but lower than that. Maybe 80, 85%? Those are entirely off the cuff numbers BTW.

The reasoning behind them? I’m sure that there’s some percentage of the population that simply doesn’t and never will benefit from education. As an extreme example, the entirely and totally mentally disabled for example.

That’s roughly (but with a wider than that group) what I have in mind for a).

For b) there’s a further group. Those who do just fine without formal education to 16. Alan Johnson made it to the Cabinet after leaving at 14.

I could be really cruel of course and point out that the real numbers are much larger than that. Given that some 20% of the population is functionally illiterate (and quite possibly innumerate) after 11 years of compusory education then given the education system we have we’re simply pissing money away on those who not only don’t need it but also on those who do but don’t get it.

@16 DonPaskini

Well, if we sent 11 year olds down the pit or had them work in the mills like the good old days that would be a pertinent question….but we don’t. We consider 18 years old as the age of adult responsibilty for most things, and as a society have decided that education till near that point is compulsory and benficial.

as such, the answers to your question are;

a) 100%
b) close to 100%

But it is SOCIETY deciding those outcomes, NOT the beneficial effect of an education on ones outcomes in the labour market as with tertiary education and your intial argument.

After that point it isn’t necessary for all jobs available in the labour market to be filled by graduates, meaning people must make their own choice regarding the value of tertiary education.

Would love to hear your comments on some of my other posts above – particularly on how the NPV of education doesn’t really create a massive GDP boost and instead is roughly equivalent to it’s costs.

Afraid I’m tending to agree with Tim W’s arguments here, at least on the economic benefits of increasing the level of tertiary education. If 100% of the population was degree educated we’d still need all those people to do all those low paid jobs.

Of course, I don’t think that provision of education should be governed by whether or not maximises income.

20. Ken McKenzie

@14

Walker and Zhu suspect that there may be a small negative premium for male grads in a small range of subjects (male arts grads= 4% of the graduating cohort), but their dataset is the Labour Force Survey, which is not a very good tool for examining salaries as it did not collect data on qualifications before 2005.

Alas, in their most recent paper, which is IZA Discussion Paper 5254 – see, Tim, when we make statements about verifiable research, we give references – they say their research suffers from the following extra issues: they only show correlation; and they cannot control for institution.

The also eliminate graduates from Northern Ireland (rather odd labour market) and for reasons inadequately explained, Scotland.

In short, you’ve one reference. Walker and Zhu are good, but they use a particular model, are not unanimously accepted and even if they’re right, a tiny minority of grads don’t get a financial benefit (Elias and Purcell nevertheless report that male arts grads are still happy with their degrees, though).

There are further issues. The first is that in order to come to the assumptions you do, you have to assume that demand for Level 4 skills have remained constant over the arbitary period you’ve chosen. Richard Lambert will tell you, in great detail, that they haven’t, as will any examination of graduate outcome data over the last 50 years, data I’m sure you have to hand.

One third of recent degree holders work in ‘non-graduate’ jobs (as defined, again, by Elias and Purcell) *six months after graduation*. Longitudinal data suggests that this number is already falling and bottoms out after about 3.5 years for any given graduate cohort at somewhere between 10 and 15%. Of course, there are non-graduate jobs and non-graduate jobs. Not many are actually in McDonalds after 3.5 years. They’re doing such appalling things as estate agency (non-graduate), MP (Non-graduate) and press officers for fringe political parties (non-graduate).

Back to that premium. The first mistake Tyler makes is to assume that there’s a straight choice for your hypothetical student, and it’s between getting a job and going to university. It’s like those figures on youth unemployment don’t exist, isn’t it? IN fact, for young people, there are three choices – go to university, get a stable, secure job, or, er don’t get a stable, secure job. Option 3 is uncomfortably common. And so, we need to examine the demand for skills at Level 3 and below.

The problem for all of this is that the evidence is hard and expensive to gather and is often done with the kind of public money that some sections of the population suddenly don’t want spent. As a result, there isn’t enough evidence.

That’s why, for example, the BIS model for evidencing the new HE funding system was broken. The data they need doesn’t exist, and *nobody wants to pay for it*.

21. Ken McKenzie

Can I also suggest that, before Tim and Tyler make any more posts, they read Pedro Gomes’ Working Paper 367 on labour market flows from the BoE last year, and get back to us?

The key bit is this: “Another interesting fact is that, after 2001, the employment rate had fallen and the inactivity rate had increased for all groups, with the exception of the more educated. In other words, the employment rate had fallen for 70% of the working-age population. The aggregate employment rate since 2001 has, therefore, been largely supported by the increase in the share of the working-age population in the highest education category (degree level)”

Oh, and stop talking about 100% participation in HE. Nobody wants or expects that to happen.

“After that point it isn’t necessary for all jobs available in the labour market to be filled by graduates, meaning people must make their own choice regarding the value of tertiary education.”

It isn’t “necessary” for all jobs in the labour market to be filled by people who have been educated to age 16. Leaving aside the societal norms, what do you think the income maximising point on the Tyler Curve is for secondary education?

“Would love to hear your comments on some of my other posts above – particularly on how the NPV of education doesn’t really create a massive GDP boost and instead is roughly equivalent to it’s costs.”

ok. I don’t think that “more education spending ALWAYS increases public finances/GDP”, but I do think that in the current situation we should spend more public money on HE/FE, not less.

As for the comments on the calculations, you can either go with the OECD estimates, or develop other more detailed costings. What I don’t find convincing is to add in extra costs, but to continue to discount, for example, any extra tax revenue except for income taxes.

n.b. Ken MacKenzie knows a lot more about all this than I do, so I’ll let him handle any further comments 🙂

The benefits of education to any civilization is obvious. Imagine the opposite where the majority was illiterate. Just look to African states to realize what that would mean. Cutting investment in education is utter madness.

“Oh, and stop talking about 100% participation in HE. Nobody wants or expects that to happen.”

Excellent, so we agree then. Somewhere between 0% and 100% is the peak of the Tyler Curve. As you’re clearly more up to speed on this than the rest of us, where is it then?

@ K M

At no point have I ever sugested 100% tertiary education participation. All I was trying to say that there is a point at which the cost of university education overcomes the benefits on a simple cost/benefit analysis.

@ Don

i don’t know where the maximising point is, especially given I think it moves over time with the Labour market.

I do believe though, that people should be able to make the decision themselves as to the costs/benefits of education, but also should bear those costs themselves given they are likely to earn more than non-HE educated people. When the ndividual gets the most benefit from more education I think it’s only fair they contribute the bulk.

Even when I don’t add in extra costs and just use your $43k figure as the cost of HE (as opposed to the $53k average in the OECD report) I *STILL* get that over 30 years the cost of funding that degree roughly equates to your net present value.

If you increase the costs of education (as I said, I think that the $43k number is too cheap) you DON’T necessarily increase the value of your future earnings, so if anything the balance shifts away from more HE.

I can easily provide you with more detailed costings – after all, I play with interest rates for a living, but there are a lot of paramters to consider; interest rate, repayment rate and period, amount etc…..and thats just if you assume the NPV calc on future earnings is fixed.

All in all, what I am saying is that your assertion that more HE funding is always good for GDP (and thus taxes) is not true – even now it is much more finely balanced an advantage.

Ken,

Since I don’t have time to dig up an incomplete reference (if you are going to give a reference, could you either link to it or provide an easy way to find it – full publication details would be helpful), I will have to comment on your quote with the risk of being out of context.

The key bit is this: “Another interesting fact is that, after 2001, the employment rate had fallen and the inactivity rate had increased for all groups, with the exception of the more educated. In other words, the employment rate had fallen for 70% of the working-age population. The aggregate employment rate since 2001 has, therefore, been largely supported by the increase in the share of the working-age population in the highest education category (degree level)”

So the finding was that employment rate falls and inactivity rises in all sectors except the most educated during a period when the number in the most educated sector was steadily increasing. Shocking – the more people with degrees, the more jobs require a degree (because the employers can now reasonably expect candidates will have one) and the less opportunities there are for people without degrees.

Which leads to a question that none of the report, Don, Tyler, Tim or anyone else has asked, which is what is the opportunity cost of someone getting a degree to society? Is my degree effectively condemning someone else to unemployment, with all the costs that entails? Should society be paying for some members to effectively marginalise others who for whatever reason cannot attain a degree?

I should probably point out that this is not an anti-intellectual argument or the like (I have a very clear pro-intellectual bias) but merely the conclusion I draw from reading your post.

@Don Paskini
“in the current situation we should spend more public money on HE/FE, not less.”

This is a sloppy sentence and highlights how the debate gets distorted.

Everyone (even the coalition) agrees more money should be spent on universities and colleges, but not everyone agrees that ‘we’ should be paying for it.

I personally think most universities have been running a flawed economic model since their inception and it is their status as mainly tax-payer funded which causes the gulf-like disparity in educational quality recieved by students between institutions.

Patronage (state or private) is hopelessly outdated for the modern world as it depends on reputation, and is therefore opaque and unaccountable. League tables were a half-hearted attempt to measure quality, but even the ‘value-added’ listing simply didn’t address the structural inequalities inherent in this educational system.

So it’s not how much is spent, by where and on what that is relevant.

HE institutions simply don’t have enough freedom to decide how to use their budgets and nor is the market in applications sufficiently developed to be able to hold them to account for their decisions.

I’d like to see greater endowments built from the profits of alumni which can be used to fund large numbers of bursaries to UK applicants, but the ancien regime of centralised governmental control still pervades because ‘the left’ still feels the tax system is more efficient at getting desired outcomes.

With endowments more successful Universities should then be incentivised to provide scholarships to talented students from all backgrounds according to their ability and interests rather than the current artificial assumption that the state can ensure equality (which it clearly doesn’t).

I have no problem with a sliding scale of fees on the proviso that additional arrangements to ensure minimum requirements are universally available (similar to the pupil premium at secondary level) and endowment levels are high enough to provide fully competitive access regardless of personal finances.

After that it would also require more engaged educational advice pre-18 to ensure the best options are taken (a big ask).

But currently none of this infrastructure exists and throwing money at the sector in the blind hope that some of it will stick is a hopeless waste.

Without accountable funding mechanisms effective (ie productive) education simply cannot be measured accurately and will remain below its potential.

So talk about targetting the proportion of people to gain degrees is irrelevant next to this.

29. Ken McKenzie

@27

First up, I have copies of the papers here (waves them). Paper.

If someone is bright enough to post on the Internet and to pass themselves off as an informed person on a subject like this, then they’re bright enough to use the University of Google Scholar to look up papers rather than to expect someone else to do all of their work for them. I have a job, you know (continues not to do job)

“So the finding was that employment rate falls and inactivity rises in all sectors except the most educated during a period when the number in the most educated sector was steadily increasing.”

Ah, but the magnitude of that increase? See, you’ve made another assumption there. Now, graduate numbers did increase rapidly up for a while, but between 2003 and 2007, the bulk of the period covered by the Gomes paper, graduate numbers went up by just 9%. They actually fell last year.

“Shocking – the more people with degrees, the more jobs require a degree (because the employers can now reasonably expect candidates will have one) and the less opportunities there are for people without degrees.”

Really?

One thing you seem to have got right is that there may be fewer opportunities for people with lower qualifications, which is why Cable’s just announced loads of training to try to help them.

I’m afraid I consider your question ‘Is my degree effectively condemning someone else to unemployment, with all the costs that entails?’ an extremely odd way of looking at it, unless you think that every job you’ve ever had has ‘condemned someone else to unemployment’.

well put it this way. when youre working as a non degree qualified temp in a long term position, consistently told your work is good, been kept on doing the work for nearly a couple of years – even been ‘promoted’ within the department to more duties – but every time a permanent position doing your exact duties comes up you interview only to see some brand new graduate get it instead – and then you carry on temping with the additional responsibility of training this new employee to do the job that they got over you – and you feel like a fucking mug but youve invested so much time in this company and walking out would put you in a precarious position..

and the same thing happened in the last few jobs you had in retail, where you struggled on two jobs (9-6 plus evening and weekend shifts elsewhere) because the pay barely covered your rent and bills, and every single time a management position came up it always ended up going to a new graduate fresh to the working world rather than any of the permanent staff – cos its not just you who is being overlooked, the whole bloody chain is staffed with underpaid but loyal and decent workers who NEVER get promoted no matter how many times theyre promised ‘it will be their time next’ – and then you have to train your new boss to do their job, which they invariably end up leaving to you to do anyway because they say that you just do it better/easier/faster than them, and then after a couple of years they move on to some better paid management role elsewhere, and the cycle repeats..

and your own hard working brother has moved to a new city and cant get a job doing what he has spent more than a decade doing in his old town because despite having more experience than the new employer could hope for he doesnt have five gcses, and actually as much as they appreciate his achievements in this particular line of work, and as brilliant as all his experience is, really they would just prefer to take on a new graduate who they can ‘mould’ themselves..

yes. yes. the huge number of new graduates coming out of unis in the past ten years has had a massively shit result for those of us who left school at 16, and probably for those who left at 18 too. we cant compete even for the jobs we are already doing – we are stuck with no hope of promotion or even a permanent position, we have to suffer the humiliation of training our bosses while earning thousands less, and all because they have degrees and we do not.

i am so sick of the ‘left’ on the issue of education and universities. everyone wants to moan about the relatively well off having to pay for their privileges, noone wants to acknowledge that they are privileges, and absolutely noone is talking about the effect said privileges have on those who dont have them at all.

like all this tuition fees crap. to me it looks like a lot of bitching about nothing, poorme whining by the entitled. I have sympathy for the kids whose EMA is being withdrawn, and who will end up working for shit pay with no prospects at 16 and then forever more, as we pre-EMA folk have experienced.

but look – you have several times more graduates than a couple of decades ago. the number of jobs that legitimately require that level of qualification hasnt really changed that much, so what has happened is that a whole lot of jobs that the lowest educated workers could reasonably have expected to be able to work their way up to with hard graft, loyalty, and dedication, have been cut off from us. they now ask for graduate level qualifications, no matter what you may have heard experience counts for NOTHING.

Don at 13

Thanks Don for getting the figures. The standout one for me is:

Someone on 25 grand per year would end up paying just over £29 per month extra with a 2p rise in income tax.

So, if universities were paid for out of general taxation, someone on 25k would be pay £29 extra per month, as opposed to the £30 extra per month graduates will have to pay under the Coalition’s new scheme.

So why all the fuss? Why are kids rioting over £1 a month difference?

Why are they rioting? Because Labour told them to. Labour is using its assets in the media, in the NUS, and elsewhere (eg here..) to spread as much disinformation and cause as much aggro as possible. Meanwhile the cuts to HB, EMA, the cuts to the incomes of the disabled, all of it is barely an issue. This is all about competing for middle class votes, the big manufactured outcrys have been about cuts that will make comfortable middle class lives slightly less so. Its transparent and dishonest and all the time I’m hearing how they’re doing it for us, the skint ones. Bollocks.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  2. Ash Chapman

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  3. Hazico_Jo

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  4. Alice Taylor

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  5. Carl Legge

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS <Interesting and NB also gender differences

  6. Angela Pateman

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  7. Don Paskini

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  8. Clare Thompson

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  9. False Economy

    RT @libcon Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS < (sorry, back to wedding tweeting soon)

  10. Goldsmiths UCU

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  11. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  12. Caspar 01

    Report shows we can’t afford to cut spending on education | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Ft6H2Ds via @libcon

  13. Martin Campbell

    RT @libcon Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS

  14. sean walker

    Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education …: My point was that I expect that there is a point … http://bit.ly/afhmwq

  15. Leeds University UCU

    RT @libcon: Report shows we can't afford to cut spending on education http://bit.ly/dk6JmS





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.