Analysis: What the Budget means for students
Another year, another Budget. Beneath the dry figures on spending, inflation and growth – all of which are invariably wonderful, despite what anyone else might say – hides the real message of the Chancellor's statement: vote Labour.
It was inevitable that that would be the message, for Gordon Brown would have to have been suicidal to deliver anything remotely close to bad news, let alone significant tax rises, this close to an election. So, predictably, the Budget was full of good news – or "bribes" if you're a cynic.
There was good news for pensioners – free bus travel, even though many get it already; good news for people looking to buy their first home, with the threshold at which they have to pay stamp duty increased as expected; and there was good news for many businesses, with various taxes frozen.
But what about students? There was no candy for them. Tax on beer, wine and cigarettes went up by 1p, 4p and 7p respectively in-line with inflation, as it does every year. Tax on cider, spirits and sparkling wine remains the same, as it did last year.
FE students are unlikely to be around in five years to see the results of the £1.5 billion being thrown at their colleges for renovation. It sounds like a big number, but whether it will amount to more than a lick of paint each is anybody's guess.
Legislation on variable tuition fees is out of the way, of course, and Labour is unlikely to want to remind students about that. Most people in higher education agree that it won't solve the funding shortfall the sector faces, but there were no promises of extra money today. There was more money for primary schools, though. Isn't there always?
The Budget, so far as students are concerned, is nothing to write home about. In fact, it was all entirely predictable. For current students, nothing appears to be about to get dramatically worse, but nothing is going to get better, either. For students starting at university next year, top-up fees are unavoidable.
Perhaps Labour sees students as a lost cause – or, just as bad, an irrelevant one. It's a well-known fact that those aged 18-24 are least likely to vote (unlike, for example, pensioners, who have free bus travel to look forward to), and Labour's election planners might assume that most students who do bother to vote will be so cheesed off about top-up fees that they won't vote for them no matter what they say.
They could be right. Meanwhile rumours continue to abound that the NUS will put up one or more candidates in areas with high student numbers, perhaps including in former Education Secretary Charles Clarke's constituency. Most pundits expect their chances to be low, but they are an unknown quantity in more ways than one.
So, the message for students appears to be "vote Labour: we're not making life worse for you". It's nothing revolutionary, and nothing to get excited about. A bit like the Budget, really.
Send this article to a friend