The number of people wishing to fulfil their educational potential by entering higher education and developing the skills that benefit individuals, society and the economy has continued to increase. This year applications to university are up by 23 per cent on last year as more and more people aspire to continue learning, particularly as more people than ever before reap the benefits of a higher education and we move towards economic recovery.

The issue of additional university places has therefore become an increasingly contentious issue and the Conservatives hit the headlines during their party conference last year with their own proposals on how to address it. However, serious questions have now been put over whether their commitment to increase student places by 10,000 by introducing a discount early repayment scheme can be delivered.

At this point in the electoral cycle, it is vital that policies are backed up by fully costed commitments. The Conservatives must urgently clarify whether their promise of 10,000 additional places has been fully costed and would be delivered. Broken promises caused by poor budgeting would have a terrible impact on institutions facing ever tighter budgets and on the opportunities for thousands of people hoping to gain a place at university this autumn. There is a danger that the hopes of those with the ability and aspiration to go to university could be raised only to be dashed later down the line.

The higher education minister David Lammy yesterday described the Conservative proposals as “regressive”, “unworkable”, “expensive and wasteful” and “disingenuous”. Strong stuff indeed. The university think tank Million+ and the NUS Australia where a similar scheme was introduced have also raised concerns and questions over the costings behind the Tories’ proposals.

NUS believes it is vital that additional funded university places are made available to keep pace with demand and we welcome proposals for creative short-term solutions to this growing problem, as long as the numbers add up and we are crystal clear that short-term sticking plasters do not leave long term unfair and unsustainable scars on students, universities or society at large.

Viewing discounted loan repayments as anything more than a temporary solution to these problems would set a dangerous long-term precedent whereby those from more affluent and priveleged backgrounds would enjoy preferential repayment conditions on loan debt. Such proposals, even when fully costed, can only be justified as a short-term fix if they can both genuinely generate additional places and help ensure additional access for students from low-income backgrounds who would otherwise be shut out.

It is in the interests of students, potential students and their families to have the full facts at their disposal about possible solutions to the mounting crisis in student places. The stakes are high and we need answers from political parties on their proposals to ensure promises stack up so that those with the ability and aspiration to benefit from higher education will not be left out in the cold this autumn.

“Well we want to make sure that some of the money which isn’t spent on schools at the moment in that 25 per cent that Ed [Balls] says isn’t ring fenced is spent on schools in order to try and help the very poorest. Well we’re at the moment looking at all those areas that Ed has identified as not central and not core to schools funding in order to try to make sure that they get school funding. Let me mention just one…”

Gove, however, failed to do so, prompting the schools secretary to explain the Tory funding gap:

“There is £5 billion and the pupil premium is £2.5 billion. You would have to cut 50% of all of that budget simply to pay for the pupil premium before he pays for its free schools. At least David Laws [Lib Dem education spokesman] has got the integrity to say he will pay for his pupil premium by abolishing child trust funds and tax credits. Michael can’t answer these questions because the reality is theer will be cuts to schools, cuts to teachers numbers, and large class sizes. He should face up to that reality.”

Watch it:

Gove’s prohibition on teaching for graduates with third class degrees or lower also came in for criticism, from teachers, former teachers and heads, with his decision to appoint Carol Vorderman as the Tories’ maths adviser coming in for the severest attack.

In a statement, a spokesman for Scottish Labour said:

“Labour postponed its group meeting today till later in the week. It has been up to each individual MSP to make their own decision. Iain Gray did not come into the parliament today. Instead he brought forward business in his constituency. The committee conveners consulted with colleagues from all parties and the decision was made to hold them on another day.”

While the SNP said:

“No meetings of the SNP group have been cancelled and all SNP MSPs are working whether in Parliament or in their constituencies.”

However, CBI Scotland have attacked the decision of all but one MSP from either Labour or the SNP to turn up to Holyrood during the dispute. Ian McMillan, director of CBI Scotland, said:

“The Scottish Parliament is the seat of democracy. There is a duty on the members of parliament to make every effort to keep the parliament open and to conduct the business they are supposed to do. If they don’t turn up, they risk aiding and abetting this kind of militant behaviour throughout the civil service.”

In Wales, meanwhile, both Labour and Plaid Cymru assembly members joined picketing PCS staff in their protest over plans to save £500 million over three years by reducing payouts made to civil servants facing redundancy. In attacking the move - which saw the regular questioning of first minister Carwyn Jones cancelled - David Rosser, director of the CBI in Wales said:

“It would have been nice to see more leadership shown by our national politicians. At a time when the Government is urging all public sector bodies to make savings in order to protect services, this sends out completely the wrong message.”

In response, Labour AM Jeff Cuthbert, who chairs the Unite the Union group at Cardiff, said:

“They have a right, a democratic right, to organise industrial action and we will respect that. I hope it’s not necessary for further action, but we will see.“

In explaining their support for striking assembly staff, Plaid Cymru AM Leanne Wood said:

“There is no doubt the deficit needs to be reduced but the question is who should pay for that.”

In the spirit of Ms Woods’s remarks, the prime minister announced leading public sector managers, civil servants and officials would face pay freezes in 2010/11, dubbed by “mean spirited” by those affected. As public sector spending becomes ever more squeezed, as is inevitable under whichever party wins the election, the question will be not so much a matter of whether to make painful decisions, but where and to whom.

Lansley’s comments come at the same time as his renewed emphasis on pushing for a “free market” in NHS provision, which Left Foot Forward reported on Monday. He had called for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate the government’s policy that NHS organisations should be the “preferred provider” of NHS care, accusing health secretary Andy Burnham of being “a puppet of the [health] trade unioins”.

On his remarks about private productivity compared to public, it is worth asking if Lansley making a fair comparison; is he right in saying private healthcare providers are more productive than the NHS? And will increases in productivity save all that much money? The ippr report into “Private Spending on Healthcare” looked at the question of productivity, finding:

• Improvements in productivity are necessary, but will not prevent the need for increased spending.

• Healthcare is a highly labour intensive service. Thus the scope for steady productivity gains is probably limited when compared with the average for other sectors of the economy. Healthcare could be exposed to a ‘cost disease‘ or Baumol’s effect (Baumol 1967, 1993) – in other words the prices of medical care services compared with other goods and services in the economy (where mechanisation has reduced production costs) rise.

• Productivity improvements will reduce the rate of increase in healthcare spending, yet the ‘fully engaged scenario’ (incorporating optimistic productivity and public health improvements) still projects an average annual increase in healthcare spending of 4.7 per cent, in real terms, from 1999/00 to 2022/23.

• There have recently been sharp increases in prices: between 2000 and 2005, average increases in real remiums were three per cent in the corporate market and six per cent in the individual market. This has been accompanied by ‘downgrading’, either by restricting cover or increasing excesses, and movement towards lower cost plans in the individual market. Gross margins (administrative costs plus profits) have recently reached higher levels: 23.5 per cent in 2003, their highest level since the late 1970s.

The report concluded that:

“There is still a need for better monitoring of the impact of privately-funded treatment on NHS practice and for continuing to tackle the potential perverse incentives and negative impacts of private practice on NHS work.”

The “Conservative Policies Dissected” blog has also taken a detailed looked at the question of NHS productivity vis-à-vis the private healthcare sector, concluding:

“It is quite clear from the figures given above [see post for full details] that the private sector is considerably more expensive than the NHS. Andrew Lansley may be right that productivity is increasing in the private sector, but it will need to have some very impressive improvements for it to reach the productivity of the NHS.

“When you analyse the NHS you can see that it has achieved remarkable increases in productivity since 1997, but it is the large costs of capital investment, making up for the underinvestment of the previous Conservative admini9strations [sic], that has produced a very small year-on-year drop in productivity. The private sector is a very expensive option for no apparent gain in quality…

“Lansley is deliberately trying to mislead the public by claiming that productivity is better in the private sector than in the public sector.”

Its chief executive Carl Gilleard declares it should be part of a process to “reaffirm the value of a degree”. Though he is right in pushing for a renewed focus to improve higher education standards and educational quality, he is wrong in identifying the 50 per cent participation goal as an inhibiting factor.

Firstly, having a larger graduate pool benefits the British economy. In the past few decades we have gone through some major national and geo-political changes, which have redefined the nature of our economy.

Our future is a high-skilled and knowledge based economy, which is a world leader in intellectual and technology-based industries. This requires more, not less graduates, particularly with rising economic powers China and India producing graduates annually en masse.

Higher numbers of skilled graduates make the British economy more competitive. With record numbers attending University and applying for jobs, our labour market is one of the strongest in the world. The talent on offer is high. This helps attract foreign investment and inward trade, boosting our economic growth.

Additionally our strong labour market has helped businesses enjoy higher levels of productivity and standards in the calibre of employees. This in turn benefits UK PLC as graduates have higher earnings and income potential than non-graduates, raising GDP.

AGR’s report runs counter to our push for social mobility. Allowing and encouraging more people to acquire some form of higher education is a basic necessity in improving life chances for those from poorer and more disadvantaged backgrounds. With the advent of a knowledge-based economy, tertiary education and qualifications are of paramount importance in securing professional success, and should not be curtailed.

The long-term prospects for the British economy are more secure with a bigger graduate workforce, as powerful global forces can quickly re-define the nature of markets and economic relations. A dynamic and flexible labour market has the ability to quickly adapt. More, not less graduates, is the key to this successful economic strategy.

At issue is the shadow health secretary’s opposition to the government’s policy that NHS organisations should be the “preferred provider” of NHS care – a stance that puts the Tories at odds with both health service unions and doctors, Unison and the British Medical Association (BMA) both backing the government’s position.

Lanlsley’s call for the Office of Fair Trading, which is meant to govern the free market, to make decisions about NHS services threatens to undermine the ability of the NHS to plan services were it to force primary care trusts to open all services up to open tender.

It also begs the following questions:

• Do the Tories want healthcare to be treated the same as supermarkets and telephone companies?

• Where does this leave Lansley’s commitment to putting power in the hands of doctors? (Since the majority of them are against commercialisation of the NHS).

On Friday, he had accused the health secretary of being “a puppet of the [health] trade unions”, adding:

“Mr Burnham is trying to constrain opportunities for the voluntary and independent sector to offer their services to NHS patients … Patients will lose out as a result. I am writing to the director-general of the Office of Fair Trading, urging him to investigate.”

Health service disquiet at the idea of private health companies tendering for NHS services came to the fore last month following the news Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon was set to become the first NHS general hospital to be operated by a private company, after the only wholly NHS bidder for the contract dropped out.

The process was described as “an unnecessary costly and dangerous experiment” by Unison, with the BMA warning the result would be that “the trust board’s responsibility will be to shareholders and not to the local population”.

Gove, in his haste to talk down Britain’s schools, even tried to brush aside the Trends in International Maths and Science Study (TIMSS) which ranked England in seventh place – eight places higher than Sweden.

The shadow schools secretary was also mocked over the Conservative party’s plans to prevent graduates with third-class degrees becoming teachers, people like Carol Vorderman – the Tories’ new maths adviser.

Watch it:

Earlier today, Left Foot Forward posed several questions for Gove, who will give a key-note speech at a Spectator conference tomorrow.

The shadow children’s secretary, Michael Gove, will give the keynote speech, hoping to make an impact comparable to Tony Blair’s famous “Education, Education, Education” speech of 1996.

Education is one area where the Conservatives have not shied away from outlining seemingly radical proposals relating to Ofsted inspections, excluding pupils, discipline and, most controversially, the adoption of the controversial Swedish “Free Schools” model which sees parents taking control of schools.

Mikael Sandstrom, the Swedish State Secretary – “one of the world’s leading authorities in school liberation”, according to the Spectator’s website – will be one of the speakers present, discussing such questions as “Will there be such a thing as an education industry?”

He has been calling for the Tories to commit to allowing such schools to make profit.

So far as it has been outlined, the Conservative education policy has raised other pertinent questions and failed to acknowledge others. In advance of the conference, we would like to ask:

Where is the evidence free schools will improve standards?

There is no clear evidence that a school re-branded as an academy improves for any other reason than it receives extra start-up funds and a less suffocating grip on student suspension/exclusion policies.

Why should we expect that a school independent from the local authority is intrinsically better? A recent report from the LSE concluded that free schools are not cost-effective and may not make any difference to the education status quo.

We need to be clear why we are going down this route.

How can the Tories ensure these schools won’t cream-off students from more affluent families?

The Tories have promised members of “parent promoter” groups that they will jump the admissions queue and automatically get places in their own schools.

These schools will create unfunded surplus places with the idea that unfettered competition drives up standards. This will cause havoc for head teachers and governors to plan year-on-year efficiencies.

Would free schools be encouraged to take poorer pupils?

Per Thulberg, director general of the Swedish National Agency for Education, has said that free schools have led not only to falling standards but to rising segregation in Sweden.

He told Newsnight last month that where these schools had improved their results, it was because the pupils they took had “better backgrounds” than those who attended the institutions the free schools had replaced.

How will the Tories afford the estimated £1bn cost of the pupil premium?

The Tories say they will encourage schools to take poor students with a pupil premium incentive but a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies released yesterday claimed that the model the Tories are considering would lead to 57 per cent of secondaries and a third of primaries receiving less money.

We need to see detailed analysis.

Why should parents be denied a voice over academies?

One of Gove’s proposals is to deny parents a ballot on whether their child’s school should convert to become an academy or not – a clear piece of hypocrisy. If academies are so popular, why are the Tories so afraid to let the local community have its say?

What will the Tories do to address this problem of the middle-classes playing the system?

Last week, the Sutton Trust revealed that hundreds of the best-performing comprehensive schools are covertly selecting students from more affluent backgrounds and blocking those from more deprived families.

How will the proposed new exclusion policy help the most vulnerable children?

The Conservatives promise to scrap parents’ right to appeal if their child is permanently excluded as part of a drive to tackle bad behaviour in schools at the same time as think tank Demos publishes a report which said school exclusions should be abolished because they punish the most vulnerable children.

Who will ensure high standards are maintained?

One of Gove’s proposals is to make schools ranked outstanding by Ofsted exempt from further inspections. We already have an inspection system that sees weaker schools inspected more often and high performing schools less often.

Last year’s annual report by chief inspector of schools Christine Gilbert revealed that  – of the schools ranked outstanding in their previous inspection – 19 per cent had been rated as merely good in the following inspection, two per cent satisfactory and one per cent inadequate.

The Tories say that outstanding schools will be monitored by central government – perhaps Gove himself?

What will happen to Ofsted?

Ofsted in any case has become a discredited and expensive institution, costing the same as 5,000 teachers. The political parties are lurching from model to model again without clarifying what it wants from the inspectorate and why.

It sits as an external rather than an integrated force within a nationwide education strategy. A future government needs to hold a nationwide enquiry and consultation into what Ofsted is supposed to be achieving in light of national needs.

What’s with the micromanagement?

The Conservatives push a choice agenda, yet are strangely prescriptive when it comes to best practise in schools. Tories worry about uniform and standing up when the teacher enters the room.

The most obvious question still needs to be answered: Are we happy to stand by and watch the dissolution of state schooling as we know it?

The challenge of who pays for higher education was clearly laid out in a landmark report from Lord Dearing back in 1997. He said the main beneficiaries of a university education had to pay their fair share. Since 1997 students have been hit with university tuition fees, followed by top-up fees and there has been continued state support.

What we have not seen is any real contribution from the third beneficiary identified by Lord Dearing – the employer.

The UCU report released today, “In place of fees: time for a Business Education Tax“, recommends raising the level of corporation tax in the UK to the G7 countries’ average. This simple ‘business education tax’ would raise enough money to abolish all university tuition fees and would still leave our rate of corporation tax lower that of France, Japan and the United States.

It would also leave corporation tax at a lower rate than when the Tories were last in power. Crucially, it would only hit the really big boys – those earning more than £1.5 million a year in profits – leaving 96 per cent of companies in the UK unaffected by the change.

The simple fact is that despite benefiting from more generous business tax arrangements than other countries, UK employers spend less on employee training and development and invest less than the global average in supporting university research and development.

Without being forced to contribute business would continue to carp from the sidelines about standards and curriculum, but refuse to put its hand in its pockets. Our proposals are not going to give students a free ride. The investment still required from students will be a considerable one to meet the cost of rent, food, bills, books etc.

Our proposals are part of an emerging consensus that business must pay its fair share. We have seen the hugely popular Robin Hood Tax, the backlash against bankers’ bonuses and a special tax from Tory Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.

Johnson’s 2p in the pound tax on central London businesses has been introduced specifically to fund a project that the businesses will benefit from. The difference between Boris’s tax and our tax is that one in five businesses will be hit by his tax; just one in 25 will be hit by ours.

Employers also need to stop seeing investing in education or training as some kind of unnecessary evil.  A study in 2006 found that three-quarters of the gain from staff training goes to the employer, with the other quarter going to the staff member.

• Graduates generally enjoy higher productivity than other workers which is beneficial to the company.

• UK employers spent just 1.3% of total labour costs on training, whereas the EU average is 1.6%. France spends 2.3%; Holland 2% and Sweden 2.1%. We already spend less on training for the individual employee.

• UK employers spent €1,068 per training participant compared to the EU average of €1,385. Germany spends €1,637 and France €1,898. UK employees average 7 hours training per year; compared to nearly 14 in France. And a third (33%) of UK companies hadn’t delivered any formal training to their staff in last twelve months.

• On average, the Times Top 100 graduate employers will employ 138 graduates each in 2010. Our plans would favour tax breaks on our business education tax for companies who fund their employees to learn new skills, thus creating a virtuous cycle of positive practice.

Our proposals are based on fairness. The future for the UK is as a high-skilled knowledge economy and that requires business to pay its fair share towards something which benefits us all.

We believe our proposals will be welcomed by hardworking families who want their children to benefit from education, but are put off by the potential debts created by university fees.

Politics Home interviewed 1,082 voters over the weekend who were “asked to say whether their greater worry about the next government was that it would cut public spending too deeply, or that it would fail to reduce the budget deficit quickly enough.” The website found:

“Forty per cent of people were more concerned that state services would be cut back too deeply. Meanwhile, only twenty five per cent said that their greater fear was that the deficit would not be tackled with sufficient speed.”

Floating voters were particularly sceptical about prioritising paying back the deficit quickly. According to Politics Home:

“Only sixteen per cent were more worried that debt reduction would be too slow. Meanwhile, more than double – thirty six per cent – are more concerned about the effect of a spending squeeze on public services.”

The finding corroborates polling by Ipsos-MORI last year which found that the public disagree by 48 per cent to 21 per cent that too much is spent on public services. Ipsos-MORI’s CEO Ben Page told Left Foot Forward last year:

“The public are not convinced that there will need to be massive cuts in front line services in order to balance the books. In fact, 50 per cent deny that the debt situation needs addressing in that way.”

Other surveys covered by Left Foot Forward show that, when pushed on bringing down the deficit, the public is split on tax rises versus spending cuts while another poll showed that 60 per cent favour tax increases to help close the budget deficit.

Rachel Reeves, Labour’s PPC for Leeds West and a leading left-wing economist, told Left Foot Forward:

“People want more than an age of austerity. We are one of the richest countries in the world with fantastic people and businesses. The age of austerity that Cameron and Osborne prescribe once again seeks to talk Britain down. It’s not surprising that voters are turned off.”