You don't tax people because they're educated: you tax them because they're rich.

I spoke at the Durham Union on abolishing tuition fees

Last Friday I spoke at the Durham Union in favour of the motion, ‘This House would Abolish Tuition Fees’.

It was the first time I’d ever taken part in this sort of formal debate and it was great fun: enjoyable to debate such an issue with those on the other side, and real and thoughtful engagement from the students on the floor. My thanks go to Durham Union for inviting me and hosting me.

Though this applies to everything on this substack, as in this case I’m transcribing a public speech, it’s worth saying that on this occasion I was speaking in a personal, not a professional, capacity, and all views expressed are my own, not those of my current or any former employer¹, nor indeed of the Durham Union or Durham University.

Here’s what I said²:

Thank you, ladies and gentleman.

You’ve heard a passionate case for the abolition of tuition fees from my colleague - and let me first say I agree with him on a number of vital points, including the innate value of an education, and the fact that we should not put a price on that. But while he approached the subject from the left, I will be making the case from the right - a case that, though coming from very different principles, leads us in this instance to the same conclusion.

I’d like to talk about the type of society we want to live in. A society where hard work and aspiration are rewarded. Where those who do the right thing - study well at school, get a good job, work hard at it - are able to enjoy the fruits of their labour. One where those who work hard are able to settle down, buy a house and start a family.

Tuition fees drive a stake through the heart of these aims.

We take some of the most aspirational, successful people in our society and then we tax them to the hilt. Tuition fee repayments mean that a graduate paying the base rate of income tax will be paying nearly 40% of their salary to the state for decades, taking into account income tax, National Insurance and loan repayments. For a higher rate taxpayer, that’s nearly 50%. And with £50,000 of debt, that debt when you graduate, for most of you, will be going up every year more than you ever manage to pay back.

And we wonder why they can’t buy a house. Why they’re not having children any more.

Wait, I know.

It’s all the avocado toast that you guys can’t stop buying.

You don’t need to be a Tory to think we shouldn’t be taxing a newly qualified teacher at the same rate we taxed a banker a generation ago.

And why have we done this? Why have we introduced tuition fees?

Well, you’ve just heard that, from the Opposition³. It was to fund a massive expansion of university places. Well, how’s that working out?

We’ve opened the floodgates to a massive explosion of unnecessary, low quality courses in business studies, sociology, media and many more.

We’re told hundreds of thousands of less academic young people that university is the only option that matters. We’ve told them that even though they can’t manage A-Levels, their best option is to enrol on a dead-end course that will leave them with nothing but a mountain of debt - and that employers don’t even value.

This is a tragedy.

And has this massive expansion, fuelled by £9,000 tuition fees, helped us with the skills shortages we’re facing?

Has it solved our shortage of doctors or of nurses?

Of engineers?

Of heat pump installers, electricians or HGV drivers?

Of police officers?

Like hell it has!

We have shortages everywhere. University expansion has done nothing to solve our nation’s skill shortages - and may even have contributed to them.

And what of the other claim made for tuition fees? That they would put universities on a sustainable financial footing? Has that happened?

Not a chance. Universities are in the midst of a funding crisis. The real value of tuition fees has dropped by a third since they were introduced. A third of universities are in the process of making redundancies.

We’ve abolished maintenance grants for the poorest - and slashed the value of the maintenance loan. Is that ‘sustainable’?

Tuition fees fundamentally undermines the relationship between the state, the public and university funding. If any other public service is cut - schools, policing, the NHS - the Government can expect criticism. But if university funding is cut, what headline do the papers, even the Guardian run?

‘Tuition fees frozen again.’ It’s a good news story for them!

People don’t want to put in more taxpayers’ funding because they don’t have confidence in the courses being offered. And they don’t want fees to rise, for obvious reasons.

It turns out fiscal illusions can only take you so far.

I said that this would be a case for abolition from the perspective of the right.

But I’m going to take a moment here to quote the late, lamented Labour statesman Tony Benn.

Though I disagreed with him about many, many things, he was a man of conviction and, like a stopped clock, was right twice in his lifetime.

One of these times was on the European Union. But we won’t go into that tonight.

The other, more relevant to us, was on tuition fees.

“You tax people because they’re rich, not because they’re educated.”⁴

Well, quite.

All of the Opposition have rested heavily on the argument that it is fair that students should pay because going to university has benefits both for society and for the individual - and therefore the individual should contribute.

But it seems to me that this argument could be equally well applied to the example given by my colleague of the fire brigade. Or of schools, when some people are childless. Or of cancer treatment, which very much benefits the individual as well as society. Or of our police services, or the public library, or any other public good in our society that some people use more than others - which is all of them.

If you believe, like Benn, that we shouldn’t punish people for wanting an education.

If you believe that tuition fees have failed, utterly and completely, even at their own objectives.

If you don’t think our professional classes should be taxed to the hilt for the sin of going to university.

If you want to strike a blow against intergenerational unfairness.

A blow for home-ownership, for the family, and for a property-owning democracy.

And most of all, if you want those students who follow after you to be free of that crushing mountain of debt.

Then I urge you to vote for the motion tonight.

---

My previous writings on this topic include:

• How Did England Fall Out of Love with Universities? The Four Horsemen of Fees, Culture, Expansion and Quality (2024)

• £9,250 fees are bad for students, bad for society and bad for the Conservative Party (2018).

---

As I have said, this was a personal speech, at an event I attended in a personal capacity. With both main political parties firmly committed to tuition fees, it is clear that at least in the short term they are here to stay - and that for those working in HE policy, in the short-term the priority must be to work for improvements⁵ within the current system.

For me, the most cogent argument presented by the Opposition was that of debt: with the UK debt to GDP ratio currently standing at 98.3%, pressures everywhere and Putin pressing his advantage in Ukraine, is this really the top priority right now? It’s a fair point - and one that any sensible politician must realistically consider.

And yet, our national debt has been lower at many points⁶ between now 1998, when tuition fees were first introduced. And tuition fees are still creating debt: simply debt that is privatised and shared amongst millions of people. Tuition fee repayments continue to depress real incomes, make home ownership harder and - by reducing marginal propensity to work and consumer spending - damage our economic growth.

Furthermore, the absolute magnitude of that debt is likely higher than it would have been, had university been funded through taxation,because the various fiscal illusions have allowed us to duck the hard conversations on numbers, and on quality. Though sharing that debt amongst individuals creates fewer headlines than if it were added to the national debt, it makes it no less damaging or immiserating.

1. At least some former employers would no doubt turn in their graves, were they in them.

2. In so far as I can transcribe my notes - and my memory. I have also taken the liberty of inserting a paragraph (marked) into the speech which I actually gave as part of the later debate, as it responds to one of the main arguments from the other side.

3. ‘Opposition’ referring to the side of the debate arguing not to abolish tuition fees, not to the Labour Party.

4. The exact quote, which can be found at the link above, is, ‘The idea you tax people ‘cos they’re educated? You tax them ‘cos they’re rich!’

5. Whatever view one may take of what would constitute an improvement.

6. I think technically at almost every point.