The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe- West Yorkshire Playhouse 29/11/17

For his 11th birthday treat, Oli’s mum and I took him to see the first night of the production of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (LWW for short from now on) at the West Yorkshire Playhouse. We are reading through the books at the moment (about half way through The Last Battle right now) and have enjoyed them. They were a favourite of mine as a child and I was surprised at how much Oli was enjoying them even though he tends to be resistant to religion and prefers, as Dawkins put it, the magic of reality. The allegorical nature of the books is clear enough that even Oli volunteered that “Aslan’s Jesus, right?” but I think now seems less trowelled on than it might have in the past when the detail of Scripture was so much more embedded in standard cultural understanding at primary school age – there’s probably a bible story or three in every one of the books but not knowing the Bible as well as previous generations means that we can just enjoy them as stories.

That said, LWW is pretty transparent in its biblical themes and I think this is where maybe all productions fall down. What may be apparent in the imaginations of readers based on their knowledge of those themes and their conflicts is hard to portray visually without suffering from the preachiness which CS Lewis admirably avoided in the books (apart from in his treatment of the admittedly priggish Eustace Scrubb in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader). Certainly all the TV adaptations I’ve seen have tended to go a bit mushy at Aslan and made the talking beasts a bit twee.

There was a lot that was excellent in the play, particularly the impressively acrobatic rope work of the players, the whirling choreography of the wardrobe doors, the use of sheets to simulate the motion of the White Witch’s sledge through snowbound Narnia, and the way those sheets then rose up to give the effect of the Witch being a giant (in the Magician’s Nephew we learn that she is well over 7 foot tall) standing atop a mountain of snow, commanding her minions.

Less good was the extended start cataloguing the journey of the Pevensie children as they are evacuated. Perhaps a modern audience needs more information about why the children are being sent away from their family to live in the country than ones at the time the books were written, shortly after the end of World War 2, but this whole section took up nearly 20 minutes of what was already not too far short of three hours of stage time. The introduction of the evacuation co-ordinator’s name, Mrs Chutney, had Oli and his mum in unintended hysterics and although the effect of having the children sit as if in a train while a puppeteered model of a train went over and around, was a pleasing one, the whole section just seemed too long. It also descended into cliche as the children were left at the station amid mounting anxiety as last to be collected to go to their new home. Dramatically the main importance of this was to allow Peter, ahead of battle, to say that yes, he did know of war and loss. Personally, I think they could have taken the time to drum home quite how beastly Edmund is after the first couple of trips into the Wardrobe so that his redemption was also clearer rather than just coming from fear at the Queen revealing herself to him to be a Witch.

Neither Oli nor I could fathom the decision to make Professor Kirke into a whimsical mad professor. His character in the book is more distantly amused but serious-minded in his use of Occam’s Razor to persuade the older children to believe Lucy. While LWW was not written with its back story already in CS Lewis’s mind, today we have the advantage of that back story in The Magician’s Nephew, so we have a better feel for what Professor Kirke might have been like and his knowledge of Narnia itself.

Other points which jarred were the occasional switches into song routines. These were well done but gave the impression that the production couldn’t make up its mind whether it was a play set around Christmas or a pantomime without jokes. Not quite as jarring as the alternative pantomime we went to a few years ago at the WYP where the actors inadvertently set up a “he’s behind you” and had to sternly admonish the audience of young children “not in this play”. The Pevensies seemed somewhat miscast or at least, Peter and Susan were underwritten, so that it wasn’t clear what the hierarchy of the children was. Obviously Lucy and Edmund are the main children in terms of the action, but the effect here was to make Peter’s elevation to being the High King implausible.

One of the Witch’s minions also rather over-acted to build up her part and this detracted from the impressive malevolence and physical prowess of her chief of police, the wolf Maugrim. The appearance of Father Christmas was simply bizarrely done, I can imagine only because of an attempt to avoid his character being too much the Coca Cola version, but there had not been enough made of it being always winter and never Christmas to make real sense of in the play, and his gifts seemed peculiar rather than important as they are in the book where by the time of his appearance all the children knew they were soon to be called into battle, possibly against their own brother. In the book Peter transforms from boy to future High King on being given his sword and shield.

The physical spectacle of Aslan was very impressive- he came in under a large Chinese Dragon type of Lion, carried and animated by half a dozen people. The cruelty of his humiliation on the Stone Table was complete and his shaving was neatly simulated by the casting off of the long fur coat the actor wore. But, unfortunately, much of this was undone by some very wooden dialogue. When Aslan invites the children to look to the horizon to Cair Paravel and Lucy says “it looks like a castle”, Aslan’s response of “It is a castle” seems banal. When he is resurrected and Susan cries “but we thought you were dead”, Aslan’s “It appears not” came across as sarcastic if anything. While the final scene in a Narnia transformed by flowers gave another opportunity for ropework and trapeze swings for the four children, it gave no sign that the four were about to go on to rule Narnia from the four thrones at Cair Paravel as wise, brave and kind monarchs for the next 15 years, such was the lack of development of their characters.

However, these are criticisms based on having spent the last couple of months immersed in the books with Oli. Despite them, we enjoyed the show for its spectacle, even if it missed much of the depth and nuance of the original LWW book. Those with less familiarity with the story have found much less to criticise and more to praise. It is running until 27th January 2018 and it would make a very good alternative to a pantomime for a family theatre outing. I’d also recommend reading the series of books as the other six beyond LWW seem to be largely forgotten these days but have exciting and varied stories. Although if the Calormenes and their god Tash are taken for representations of Islam perhaps I can see why they have gone out of fashion…

 

 

 

Advertisements

Corbyn’s Brexit Hokey Cokey

I’m not very good at predictions but one I made a couple of years ago has turned out to seem fairly prescient. Back in 2015 when Jeremy Corbyn had just scraped onto the ballot for the Labour leadership, I noted that he was very strongly and consistently anti-EU and this in itself ought to give pause for thought even to eurosceptic Conservatives. For those who supported continuing EU membership at a time when David Cameron had won the first Conservative majority (what’s that?) in 23 years, having someone leading the Opposition, however scruffy and apparently unelectable, who firmly sided with Tony Benn in believing the EU to be an anti-democratic imposition of neoliberalism on the UK, should not have been seen as anything other than a huge threat. For those who supported Labour and its embrace of EU membership gained in the long struggle back to government after humiliation in 1983, it ought to have been reason enough to reject Corbyn. 

But, as we know, nobody very much from any side of the political spectrum did notice or care very much about this, even if since the EU Referendum, Brexit is the biggest political issue we all face. Indeed, it isn’t so much that people didn’t notice, it’s more that they deliberately ignored the ample evidence of it as inconsistent with their broader perception of what Labour was offering on Brexit. Despite Corbyn having gone on TV the morning after the Referendum to say that Article 50 should be triggered immediately even now I hear his supporters say that that was either because he didn’t know the ramifications of doing so (which is an odd thing to call in support) or because he is a democrat and wanted to respect a result he did not want. Despite him having refused to share a platform with Cameron to campaign for Remain and been described by the leaders of the Labour In campaign to have barely participated in it, it is claimed that he worked tirelessly on the Remain side. Nipping off to Portugal for a holiday during the campaign is similarly dismissed as irrelevant, along with his expression of “7 out of 10” support for the EU on Channel 4’s Last Leg. Only last weekend, a Labour activist sincerely argued to me that in this year’s Labour Conference members will vote overwhelmingly for a second referendum and opposing Brexit, and that Corbyn will pursue that policy, despite having been re-elected as leader in a campaign where he denigrated Owen Smith’s call for a second referendum. 

Detailed analysis of the 2017 General Election and attitudes of voters through the campaign from the British Election Study shows that not only was Brexit by a long margin the biggest issue informing who voters voted for but that Labour picked up a very big majority of the support of those who supported Remaining in the EU or having the “softest” Brexit possible and remaining in the Single Market and Customs Union . Individual Labour candidates did strongly pursue this line (including my local one who had criticised the LibDem MP he defeated for having sat on the fence by abstaining on the Article 50 Bill, proudly signed up to the Queens Speech amendment put forward by Chuka Umunna then promptly was persuaded to abstain, thereby avoiding censure in his first week on the job while other MPs lost their shadow ministerial posts over it). Overall, there was a perception that a Labour Brexit would somehow be softer and gentler than a Tory one, even though there was nothing in what Corbyn had ever said or his manifesto to support this. 

Since then, Corbyn has railed against the “wholesale importation” of foreign workers and essentially moved to a position more strongly against free movement of workers than heard from anyone other than Nigel Farage. Farage approvingly described him for these comments as “almost a proper chap”. Given that Corbyn is unsurprisingly critical of the other fundamental freedoms of the EU there really isn’t any significant bit of the EU that he doesn’t have a basic problem with. If attempting to retain as many of the benefits of the Single Market as possible while no longer having free movement of workers is a difficult problem for David Davis, doing so while wishing to curtail free movement of goods, capital and freedom of establishment is an impossibility. 

Where my 2015 warning went wrong was in expecting Corbyn to be open about his position on the EU and to have led the calls to leave. Instead, what has happened seems to be more subtle in that he did the least amount possible to support remaining in, which was just enough to prevent his largely pro-EU supporters and voters abandoning him, and then waited in hope that his ideal outcome of leaving the EU without any future relationship or agreement will transpire and for the Conservatives to take blame for something he could not have delivered on purpose. With no external check against subsidies or moving away from market economy principles coming from the EU, he would be free to pursue the Bennite dream of a socialist siege economy in the UK.

Whether he and those around him are clever enough to have done this on purpose, or that it is a happy coincidence, we’ll never know. But even on a purely partisan basis leaving aside any of the policy or political issues, it ought to have always been clear that the biggest beneficiary of a defeat for Remain in the referendum was going to be Corbyn because of the damage that defeat would inflict on Cameron. This may explain why he felt that he was strong enough to sack Hilary Benn and start to purge himself of the disloyal immediately after the referendum. That this benefit was not felt immediately is in large part down to the challenge to Corbyn’s leadership which followed, which was itself partly motivated by a significant minority in Labour who could see that Corbyn wasn’t going to lead them anywhere other than towards a “hard” Brexit. 

The best defence against this will of course be for the details of the Brexit agreement to be somewhat “soft” in retaining those checks which are beneficial*, albeit as sovereign decisions of the UK made bilaterally with the EU rather than as rules of the EU which we are bound by our accession to the EU 45 years ago. At the moment it is unclear where things stand because of the nature of the negotiations but it is interesting that the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is talking of transitional arrangements which make UKIPpers froth at the mouth while Corbyn’s position on the EU is getting Farage to purr. Ripping up all of the legacy of 45 years within the EU wouldn’t be in the EU’s interests or in any potential Prime Minister’s other than Corbyn. 

But the people who voted for Corbyn, don’t want what he wants. So we are in the strange world of May having lost her majority because people thought she would aim for too hard a Brexit now being the bulwark against the ultra-hard Brexit which the man they voted for actually wants. I suspect that being canny folks, the EU team led by Michael Barnier will know that if they cause this government to fall, it will be replaced by one which won’t even want a deal at all. 

The question is whether the large proportion of people who voted Labour in June on the basis of expecting them to soften the impact of Brexit will continue to support Labour under Corbyn if and when they realise that he has no intention of doing that. Maybe they will. Or maybe, as with the discovery that he had no intention of writing off or reducing past student debt despite saying “I will deal with it”, it will take more examples to overcome the cognitive dissonance of evidence of Labour’s actions coming up against people’s perceptions of their intentions. 

So, we put our left leg in, our left leg out, in out, in out, shake it all about. Do the Hokey Cokey and turn around. Brexit, it’s all about!

I am not at all discounting the possibility that there will be aspects of Brexit which could be advantageous, merely acknowledging that there are also many aspects of the EU which are also beneficial and where there is no obvious major improvement to be gained by doing something different or in conflict. The purist approach of “let’s just get rid of all the regulation” is unrealistic in practice because it ignores the costs of change even where the thing being changed to is better. In many cases economies of scale or of effort would mean that even if there were a lighter UK regulatory regime, most businesses would comply voluntarily with the dominant foreign standard. We can see this in reverse in anti-bribery compliance where the UK has one of the toughest regimes globally and so most businesses seek to comply with it as doing so then involves minimal additional adjustment to comply with laws elsewhere in the world. Even if we were to ditch all EU regulation, from experience, much of it would end up being incorporated contractually by businesses (at least those doing cross-border work), regardless of whether they liked the regulations – e.g. it is now pretty much standard practice to extend by contract the application of the new EU Data Protection Regulation to beyond the date on which the UK will leave the EU. There’s not much benefit to business in repealing EU regulations and replacing them with lighter touch UK ones if businesses will shun the additional freedoms and comply with EU ones! On the other hand, were a future UK government to decide to regulate more stringently than the EU does, particularly for “suspect” foreign countries (as might be expected from a Labour Party which was not so keen on globalised trade and was naturally more suspicious about the activities of big corporations), that would potentially be harmful. 

Hey Student!

The cost to students of going to university has been a big political issue at least since tuition fees were increased to £9k a year by the coalition government. It was less hotly contested previously when fees were lower, it barely made a dent in the popularity of Blair’s government that it went back on its promise not to introduce fees and a pledge to abolish them didn’t sweep Michael Howard into Number 10 in 2005. But this year, abolition of tuition fees was one of the big policies which helped Jeremy Corbyn to attract large numbers of young supporters and activists in the General Election (even if I think the more electorally significant appeal was to the parents of children who would be going to university in the next few years). The popularity of this is a real phenomenon, albeit one based on some “aspirational”, or delusional, thinking, so I’d like to propose a more practical and immediately achievable alternative to address many of the underlying concerns.

Do we have a problem with tuition fees and student loans?

It is unsurprising that the idea of taking on at least £27k of debt for a three year degree, not to mention up to another £33k of debt if entitled to the highest level of maintenance loan to fund living expenses, will fill many with horror if they look at those numbers in isolation. In the context of making bold and clear promises, hitting out at those levels of debt will always be popular. That (as so often), the reality is more complicated, is easily lost. So it is easy to dismiss the fact that the introduction and subsequent increases in tuition fees have rather than reduced the numbers applying for and going to university, actually been accompanied by those numbers rising. Similarly, the proportion of applicants and students from the least well-off backgrounds has risen, in contrast with the fall seen in Scotland where the Scots Government abolished tuition fees for Scots and EU students (other than those from elsewhere in the UK). While nobody says that raising tuition fees causes more to want to study, however counterintuitive it might seem, it cannot be said definitively that it has deterred substantial numbers. As something approaching the 50% of young people who Blair, before being elected in 1997, said he wanted to experience higher education are now doing so, even if the costs do deter some, there is a question as to whether having much more than 50% of young people going to university is beneficial.

Yet, the issue remains. So at least politically, there has to be a consideration of whether the current system is the best one and if not, whether there are alternatives which would be an improvement. One of those might be simply to abolish tuition fees and to bring back maintenance grants at a cost of some £12 billion a year. But even that manifesto promise from Labour started to unravel sufficiently that shortly before the General Election they mooted the possibility of writing off all past student debt. I think that logically this did need to be done because merely abolishing fees for students starting their courses in 2018 would itself create a huge cliff edge of unfairness which would have hit all those who had by the accident of having been born a couple of years earlier, continued to have been liable for loans which were being portrayed as manifestly unfair. All those students who tirelessly campaigned for Jeremy Corbyn to become PM would on graduation discover that what they’d actually done was to hamper their own lives for years to come. Can you imagine being a fly on the wall as a manager, graduated in 2017 with £60k of debt, repayable at 9% of their income above £21k a year for the next 30 years and seeing their income tax going up, gets asked for a pay rise in 2022 by the debt-free graduate trainee they’re supervising? Can you imagine their face when that trainee gazumps them on buying a flat in 2024 after they’ve managed to save a deposit which the manager will need another couple of years to get? Of course the natural next step after abolition of student loans for the future would have to be to wipe out past debts if you didn’t want either to ignite intergenerational warfare or rely on pure altruism!

That possibility was described by the Shadow Chancellor in an interview on BBC1 with Andrew Marr as “an aspiration”, as the cost of doing so is estimated at £100 billion. Some Conservatives gleefully leapt upon this as a “gotcha” moment where they could use this to say “guys, they lied to you, they never really meant to do it, you were duped into supporting them!”. I’m not so sure. While an aspiration is not as good as a manifesto promise, and a manifesto promise itself can be conveniently watered down or indeed reneged upon if circumstances allow (as with the original introduction of fees), it is not nothing. Much of Labour’s appeal, even before Corbyn, but particularly since, comes from the feeling that they care. That they really “give a stuff about stuff” and will always be aiming to do nice things even if they can’t always deliver them. Rather than destroy the argument on student finance, McDonnell’s admission doubled down on it. Many will have seen it as Labour moving further than its manifesto promise of free tuition to a future, at some point, but one which Labour would be working towards because it was its aspiration, in which those burdened with past debts would also be forgiven them. I don’t think it entirely fanciful that some might even see that as a very good argument for getting them in as soon as possible so that they can start working towards that aspiration quickly. One of the blows from Cameron’s Conservatives in 2015 which hit was that Miliband’s Labour didn’t get aspiration. That Corbyn’s Labour in 2017 has aspirations which chime with so many is not a telling criticism of it!

No, the real criticism of this entire line of policy is not that it is aspirational but that it is delusional.

This is where the realities can and should be set out. Not to knock the underlying idea that many in society instinctively find the notion of students graduating with £60k of debt unattractive. But to look at the practicality of the aspiration as set out by Labour. The impact it would have on people.

At no point in the future is it conceivable that adding £100bn onto public spending to benefit those who have already graduated and started to acquire the benefits of a university degree anyway would be anywhere near a priority for a government. That’s more than the annual budget of the NHS. The idea that next year and every year thereafter it would be a good idea to spend £12bn on paying the fees for half the population to go to university and providing many of them with their living expenses should be seen as ludicrous. That’s the same as increasing disability benefits by more than 25%, housing benefits by 40% or quadrupling unemployment benefits. There would also be other aspects of education where such an increase in funding would benefit more disadvantaged children, particularly in Early Years. Although participation in higher education now stands at about 25% of those from the least advantaged backgrounds, students are still much more likely to come from better off families so making university free instead of increasing welfare benefits is not in any way progressive or fair. Even if the policy were to be enacted in addition to increasing welfare benefits, social care, school and early years education, etc, the point is that there would be more of a case for not doing it at all and putting that £12bn into those other areas. Being churlish I’d note here that Labour weren’t even proposing to do all those things – it was striking that they did not promise to increase welfare in their manifesto, at best it was another “aspiration”.

The other delusion is that abolishing tuition fees would be necessary to reflect the fact that having an educated population benefits us all. That is undeniably true and if the current system were such that students alone bore the cost of their degrees, there would be some merit in rebalancing things so that there the general public paid a part. However, the reality is that the entire student finance system in England and Wales has been designed with the assumption that a significant proportion, up to around a third, of students will not repay the entirety of their student loans by the end of the 30 year period after which the debt is written off. What this means is that a significant proportion of the amounts borrowed by students to pay for tuition and maintenance is actually paid for by general taxation. The system already accounts for the broader social benefit of an educated population by subsidising those students who don’t earn enough over the course of early to middle parts of their careers. And it does so by transferring the money immediately into the universities they attend, rather than slowly over the decades. Which is one of the reasons why Scots universities have the free places for Scottish students rationed. The Scots government pays about £7k a year to its universities per place. Of course those universities will be keen to expand provision to take English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who will attract fees of £9k a year. Indeed, the difference between those two fee levels is probably a good indicator of the additional public funding available from central government for universities on the basis of the expected repayment rates of loans.

Another point which this leads on to is that student loans are very odd types of loan (for detail on how the loans work see this link). The discussion tends to make it look as if student loans are like personal loans or mortgages. Obviously there will be horror at the idea that a 21 year old can be expected to start out in the adult world with £60k of something like credit card debt. But, student loans aren’t like that. It would in theory be possible to take out a personal loan or a mortgage which you didn’t have to make repayments for if your income dropped below £21k, but only at huge cost (it would be an insurance product something like PPI…). In practice, nobody would lend on the basis of having no idea whether an individual would ever earn enough to repay and without any particular concern if they earned too little to make repayments from time to time over 30 years. The amount repayable monthly is also independent of the amount actually borrowed. So a student doing a 3 year course who was not entitled to a maintenance loan could borrow £27k while one doing a 5 year course with a maintenance loan could borrow £100k and when they graduate, both will make identical repayments if they earn the same amount of money. There has been some disquiet at the applicable interest rate having been increased to 6%, but the effect of this is to reduce the proportion of high earning graduates who are able to repay quickly, it makes no difference at all to those lower earners who would never have repaid in full at the previous lower rate of interest.

The only difference comes in how long they carry on making those repayments. While they are called loans, they’re really much more like a graduate tax, right down to being deducted from gross pay in employees’ payslips. Maybe the biggest delusion of all is therefore that students are funded by loans.

I said earlier on that having aspirations is not to be criticised in itself. The other element to this is that I don’t think you can credibly criticise aspirations, or even the delusions I set out, without having an alternative which can address the problems more realistically and practically. One approach might be to say, actually, the current system does things just right, but however misguided or even delusional some of the criticisms of the current system might be, the reality is that many people find it bad and are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. Not everyone who disagrees with a position does so purely out of ignorance which merely requires the facts to be set out, whereupon they’ll go “oh, no, I can see I was wrong”. So, maybe…

It would be better to abolish student loans and replace them with a graduate tax

Now, I’m a Conservative, so I’m not normally one to favour proposing new taxes, but hear me out here. I also don’t like “stealth taxes” so I think there’s a strong case for transparency. As what we have with the current system of higher education finance is in effect a 9% tax on the income above £21k of all graduates why not just replace the loans with a clear tax? Without making any other changes at all, this could in principle have the effect of abolishing tuition fees and funding grants on the same criteria as those currently in place for maintenance loans. The same amount of public funding from general taxation as is currently used to enable the Student Loans Company to write off debts after 30 years could be applied to ensure that universities continued to get the £9k of funding needed to provide their courses. It is even possible that current student loans could be written off and their repayments replaced by liability to the tax. Although that may raise some additional questions depending on how far back to take it – it could be seen by those who took out loans going back to the 1990s who have repaid them or nearly done so as unfair if applied to the entirety of the Student Loan Company book of debts so perhaps the sensible cut off would be for loans for courses starting the year the fees were raised to £9k.

The precise percentage at which the tax should be levied would need to be determined, as well as how long it should be applied, ie just for 30 years, or until State Pension Age is reached. The latter would allow for the percentage to be reduced, providing an immediate cash terms benefit to new graduates and would be administratively simpler. But overall, the aim would be for the tax to cover the costs of higher education as they stand without requiring cuts to other budgets or increases in other taxes.

Apart from being more transparent, a graduate tax of this sort would also remove, to the extent that it exists, the possibility that a young person might be put off applying to university by the idea of taking on debt. I would be quite surprised if many young people make career choices at school based on the level of taxation they are likely to incur in the future. Are there any 17 year olds who decide against applying to read Law with the aim of becoming a solicitor by the fact that if they practice in a big City firm they’ll be paying the 45p rate of tax in their 30s? Or who opt for nursing over medicine because they’re less likely to be hit by the 40p rate? I’d be surprised if anything more than a small minority of employed adults could even say what rate of National Insurance they pay let alone that they thought about the different rates applicable when they were still at school. Income taxes, of which the graduate tax would be one, are, for good or ill, something that people only really think about and worry about (if at all) once they apply to what they are actually earning at the time.

This also leads on to another benefit. As a tax, the level of the tax could be varied based on the actual needs of universities, students and society. Those paying the tax would have a voice in this, so there could be an informed political debate over time as to what and how much should be paid. If there were a majority who thought grants and bursaries should be increased (or in the case of nursing, reintroduced), there would be a clear mechanism for doing so and they’d need to win support for increasing the graduate tax. If on the other hand, there were a majority who thought that eg certain subjects were not suitably valuable to society to merit being funded through their taxes or that it would be a good idea if certain post-graduate courses should also attract funding, that too could be passed. Debate over higher education would become more informed by what the public were willing to bear in reality rather than in abstract (“of course it would be great if everyone could spend 3 years doing whatever they fancy for free, how dare you try to make learning about money, consider the lilies in the field?”). But the pre-fees situation of “why should the bin man pay taxes to pay for the rich kid to swan around studying Art History?” would no longer have any force because the vast bulk of the costs would be borne by high earning graduates and it would be much clearer that the bin man’s contribution in taxes would be going to the general benefit of having an educated population which supplied good quality doctors and teachers (etc).

Now with Brexit, there is the ability to design a higher education funding system which is not based upon an expectation that it will have to be made available on identical terms to students from 27 other EU states which meant that loans were enforceable against foreign students who left the UK after graduating whereas a tax would not have been. Perhaps the time has come for a graduate tax. Doing this while maintaining the funding going to universities, providing living expense support to students from poorer backgrounds, possibly reducing the amounts actually deducted from the pay packets of graduates and extending the benefits of all this to past graduates and current students without requiring cuts to public spending or increases in general taxation strikes me as not just an aspiration, but something which could be done in reality and soon.