thomas dit :

The discussion around the funding of university courses has not been made clear to the public. It is presented as a case of: Those who benefit from higher income resulting from better education should, once they start earning, pay for the cost of that education, is the argument. We enter into a discussion around fairness. this kind of discussion carries with it the seed of destruction, fair is not necessarily fair. Once you start discussing the relative fairness of asking a Librarian or musician or socialworker to pay the same as the bankers or industrialists who make millions from their degrees you are entering explosive political ground, because THAT is not fair. The previously held assumption that education is an entitlement, not a luxury, avoided that particular hornet’s nest, and it was one of the main political achievements of the 20th century. As so often, unintended consequences of a badly thought out policy will bite you soon enough, people will become very angry.

Regarding your blog of the student disturbance, and in particular the coverage by SkyNews, this was indeed a difficult one for the editors of the news programs because the rioting had not been anticipated by them or the police. Hence the lack of commentary – for once all they had was actual pictures and a story that was too new to be properly digested, moderated and then spat out as the official version of the truth. As the days pass there will be a lot of youngsters who will have their futures severely damaged as a result of those pictures.

But to use the name Murdoch in the way I think you have done in your blog is only half the story. Rupert Murdoch is very busy with Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and how to get rid of that black man in the White House, and how to get hold of another chunk of the pie in Australia. Here in the UK he is busy asking for the pay-off from the new government for his support in the last election: the ownership of Sky and the business environment Sky operates under – with special attention paid to the funding the BBC receives, the funding that allows the BBC to compete with Murdoch’s Empire and his billions. The BBC has quite elegantly dealt with that issue by settling the funding debate for the life of the current parliament. Now for Sky: currently 38% are owned by the Murdoch empire, and run by his Murdoch’s son James. Rupert wants to buy the rest of Sky shares, and has put in a formal bid. But that gives him too much power in the market place according to competition rules. This is being examined by the Liberal Cabinet Minister Vince Cable, the business secretary. He in turn will refer the bid to the agencies that deal with market monopoly. If there is no proper scrutiny of the case Mr. Cable will be in hot water with his own constituency, but if he does make too much trouble he will lose the generous support he has enjoyed in the right-of-centre press. The bets are that Rupert and James will get their way. And after that all that is needed to turn Sky into a branch of Fox “News” is to get rid of broadcasting regulations that require certain “News” standards. Start with the broadcasting regulators: Another quango of useless and lefty bureaucrats who can be gotten rid of, or so that particular narrative will run. The hunt is on for a figure-head for the British version of the Tea Party, a British Sarah Palin? Just put Nick Griffiths or Mr. Farrage of the UKIP in drag and away you go! OK that last bit is a little flight of phantasy, but the discussion about Sky should properly be aimed at that of market power within the media.