Opinion
Party Politics
It was Winston Churchill who said that democracy was the worst form of governent apart from all those other forms which had been tried from time to time. Whilst not advocating dictatorship, it does remove the need for elections and with it electoral sleaze.
Sleaze in student politics is nothing new as you will be aware from reading the Oxford Student in recent months. We have had allegations of sleaze from JCR elections at Corpus to the OUSU Presidential elections. Last term the Oxford Student exclusively reported allegations of sleaze in the Labour Club, leading to the resignation of the Chair of the organisations, as well as claims against the Oxford University Conservative Asscociation.
Though obviously unwelcome the fact that the Union has succumbed to the sleaze infecting politics across the University comes as no surprise. The action taken against Lucy Aitken and Jeff Bell has to be seen as fair, and in the case of Matthew Kirk especially so. Though various mitigating circumstances have been cited, the guilt of those involved remains.
It can only be hoped that ordinary Union members can now expect the genuine, openness, transparency and above all accountability, which they deserve.
Going Private ?
Over the past few weeks and months there's been one political issue taking centre stage, and I'm not talking about the oral antics of Ms Lewinsky. Though it is completely justified that Oxford undergraduates have joined or more accurately spearheaded the national campaign against Tuition Fees, Oxford now faces a threat as great if not greater, from the Governments decision to abolish the Oxbridge College Fee.
The thinking behind this decision, is more than a little incoherent. The Higher Education and Funding Council for England (HEFCE) will be spending over £4.2 billion in 1999-2000, the financial argument for abolishing the College Fee which costs only £35 million a year in total, is therefore a rather weak one. David Blunket tells us that all the extra money that the government will receive from charging Tuition Fees, will go back into improving the quality of Higher Education. If the governments' pledge is to reinvest money in University funding, rather than to finance tax cuts, then the decision to reduce funding to Oxford and similar institutions, over the next ten years seems even more illogical.
If the way in which Oxford and Cambridge are funded had to be elaborately repackaged as a defence against dogmatic charges of 'elitism' from left-wingers in the Labour Party, the government could at least have maintained the overall level of funding. Intense lobbying by the Vice-Chancellor has at least persuaded the DoE of the need for centres of academic excellence to be properly funded. The extra £10.7million that the University will receive in compensation, will cushion the blow of the lost College Fee income to certain extent, but will still leave a significant £8 million surplus in funds.
The recent decision by the University to subsidise the first cut in College income, is as the central administration has admitted only a short-term solution. The effects of the phased reduction of £656,000 year-on-year will of course have little impact in the first year, but as time progresses and the cuts become larger, lost income will have to be replaced somehow.
The rapidly emptying pockets of students will inevitably become the first targets for the retrieval of lost revenue. So called Top-Up fees could be legally levied by Colleges on top of Tuition Fees of £1000 to finance shortfalls in funding. Even if Colleges don't have the balls, to introduce Top-Up Fees outright, there are various hidden charges that could be added to our battels instead. Large increases in rent, charges for the use of libraries and computing facilities, increasing the price of hall food......the potential scope is endless.
Oxford is a land of extremes and not all of the 30 plus Colleges will be equally placed to absorb cuts in funding. It is likely to be the poorest Colleges, with the lowest levels of revenue from financial investments and donations from alumni which will be hardest hit. The abolition of the College Fee therefore risks creating a two-tier system within Oxford, unless richer Colleges are willing to forgo a portion of their revenue to those lower down the income scale. Everyone here leaves with a degree from Oxford University and they should therefore be entitled to the same high standards of education and facilities, regardless of whether they're a member of St John's or St Peters. Attempts at redistributing the wealth of Oxford University more fairly between its composite institutions, will inevitably come up against resistance. The fact that long-term decisions on the issue of funding and the collegiate structure of Oxford have been deferred, highlight not only the complexity of the problems caused by the governments ill thought-out proposals, but the extent to which Colleges authorities are fiercely guarding their own autonomy, and rightly or wrongly fear greater central control. The prospect of future cuts in funding are already having a discernible effects, with Colleges reducing Vacation Residence and rapidly constructing concrete eyesores in a frantic bid to attract ever greater numbers of conference guests. The ultimate fear is of course that Oxford could use the College Fee issue not as an opportunity for implementing reform, but instead as an excuse for formulating plans to completely privatise the University. Such plans are already being drawn up at Cambridge. I'm sure we would all share David Blunket's joy at being charged £20,000 for an Oxford degree.