LAst night I discovered that Rachel Reeves, I think in the context of being interviewed about student loans, had this to say:
"It is not right that people who don't go to university bear the cost for others to"
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that.
Leaving aside the point which I have made over and over again, that taxation doesn't fund spending because:
1) all money comes from the state, either by way of its direct spending on goods and services or via commercial bank loans, made under licence from the state.
2) Spending comes before taxation as without state spending money there would be no money to tax back
So no-one but the state itself is bearing the cost of University education.
Reeves' statement seems to me to be to be contradicting the Labour principles behind the provision of 'public goods' one of which is universal education. But, worse than that, it is promoting an attitude which has no logic. There are lots of services provided by the state which not everyone benefits from; we don't all use the courts, we don't all make heavy demands on the NHS, some people pay for private health services and don't use it al all, we don't all have children in state schools (understand that I'm using 'we' to encompass the whole UK population) to name but a few examples.
Reeves' statement makes it seem reasonable that people should complain and feel resentful about the state financing services which they themselves don't use. Where on earth is her 'reasoning' meant to lead us?
Are we to make an annual declaration of the state financed services we do use and receive a tax rebate to cover the cost of services we don't use?
Is it permission to resent and demonise those who do make more use of state provision than we do? (and heaven knows, there's more than enough of that going on already)
Is it move towards the privatisation and marketisation of all services so we can choose and pay for whichever ones we need (if we can afford it)?
Of course, since Thatcher, there has been an ideological move towards privatisation of as much state provision as governments can get away with because that is a driving feature of the neoliberal economic strategy which has informed government policy since then. It is still ongoing. How many people are able to get NHS dental treatment? How many private care providers are there, the numbers increasing as councils become more and more cash strapped?
I realise that there are differences of opinion over the balance between private and state funded services but I have always regarded Labour as. at heart, being in favour of state provision to ensure that all citizens have access to essential services.
That Reeves' apparent defence of the student loans which impose a heavy long term burden on those aspiring to better themselves through a university education and who in part comprise the teachers, nurses and doctors who are vital to the health and wellbeing of the population really worries me.
But her implication that a university education is a personal indulgence which doesn't deserve the support of the government and state support can be justifiably resented by those who don't go to university utterly astounds and sickens me.
I don't think Reeves has a single vaguely left wing, Labour principled bone in her body, she is in the wrong party and is totally unsuitable for high office in a Labour government.
