https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2024/08/why-does-labour-hate-universities.html

Employees of the higher education system have turned out and voted Labour in disproportionate numbers for years. This, despite the imposition of tuition fees, rampant marketisation and the resultant promiscuous bureaucratisation under New Labour. Having been attacked by the Tories for nakedly political reasons, the sector once again voted Labour in droves to see its tormentors vanquished and for a reset of the relationship with government. Back in the halcyon days of the first week, there were encouraging signs for the optimistic. It was all smiles as Bridget Phillipson sat down with the UCU's Jo Grady for a chat about the state of HE. The Tory Lord placeman James Wharton resigned as chair of the Office for Students, reasoning correctly his services would not be required for long. And late last month, Labour scrapped the "freedom of speech" laws, which would have entitled right wingers and grifters to play the victim and harass universities through the litigation the bill provided for.

The positive vibes didn't last long. Going back to the manifesto, on the vexed issue of HE funding there was, as per many other social problems, a lot of hand waving and waffle. And so this week, finally some answers about what we can expect. In her interview with C4 News on further education results day, Baroness Jacqui Smith said the government were prepared to let universities go bust (40% are due to make an operating loss this year, and half a dozen could be facing insolvency). Does that mean Labour will reverse the Tory policy that prevented overseas students from bringing their families/dependents with them, which has seen a 40% drop in international applications? After all, this costs the government nothing and the higher fees they pay helps offset stagnant or falling revenue streams elsewhere. The answer is no. Smith thinks saying nice things will help numbers recover without changing policy. Good to know we have an HE minister of outstanding quality.

On the face of it, this is nonsensical. Rachel Reeves has growth at all costs at the top of every agenda (Wes Streeting has referred to his Department of Health as an "economic growth department"). HE is a big exports earner and, unlike British business, British universities are acknowledged world leaders. And yet. Then there is the politics. As we have seen, this is a Labour-friendly constituency and should be relied on as core voters. And yet. Universities are key propagaters of social liberalism and are helping solidify irreversible changes in the electorate that severely disadvantage the Tories. And yet. Then, lastly, there are all those institutional property interests that have massive investments tied up in student lets, and whose pressure the Tories were keen to support during the Covid crisis by forcing students back to university early. You'd think Labour would want this section of capital on side. And yet.

Labour's HE strategy is driven by two overlapping approaches. The first is the technocratic. I.e. The Tories have set up the policy environment, so let's see how universities fare under the "stability" of the status quo. Rather than listen to the joint lobbying of workers and vice chancellors, they want to see the unnecessary stress and pain for themselves. The second reflects an attitude within some sections of Starmer's state/managerial base. There are simply too many young people going to university. They see the limited quantity of graduate jobs, note the evaporation of the graduate premium, and observe how the huge debts students acquire are not balanced adequately by reward. Therefore instead of doing something radical, cutting provision is preferred.

On the politics, in the long lead up to the general election Keir Starmer has long returned Labour to the mean where this country's "debate" about immigration is concerned. He left it to the King of all people to praise those who opposed the far right on the streets, and cabinet members have not once uttered criticisms of far right politics - embraced by half of the Tory leadership contenders - that stirred the hate mobs. And famously Labour bottled the Clacton campaign against Nigel Farage because it didn't want to challenge the right's talking points on immigration. They don't want to be seen being soft on Tory media obsessions, and the party wants the luxury of having a scapegoat button to press when the politics requires it. University policy is subordinate to these strategies because, stupidly, Labour doesn't want to be associated with "wokeism" and therefore remind its new would-be allies/donors that the party is structurally unsound where bourgeois politics is concerned. Nor does it want to be seen increasing net migration inflows. In other words, Labour are trying to occupy a zone of non-punishment that doesn't irk the (declining) press or the coalition of elite interests Starmer is assembling.

The result is the sort of political flat-footedness we've seen with the riots. Carrying on this way means the undermining of Labour's coalition that began when Starmer moved the party to the right will continue unabated. It's a good job the next general election is five years away, because Labour is intent on entering politically troubled territory. Today it's universities and HE workers and students. Whose turn among the party's base is it tomorrow?