Nik Darlington: Getting football governance right

Nik Darlington is a freelance journalist and parliamentary adviser in Westminster. He is the editor of the Tory Reform Group's new blog, Egremont - 

“Football is an art more central to our culture than anything the Arts Council deigns to recognise.”

I see where Germaine Greer is coming from. Or I used to see where Germaine Greer was coming from. She wrote it in the Independent nearly fifteen years ago during Euro ‘96, that heady English summer when football was coming home, but was shaken out of its stupor on the doorstep and remembered it still lodged in Germany.

As I was growing up, football was nothing short of an obsession. Merlin sticker books. Championship Manager. Dennis Bergkamp, Ian Wright, David Seaman, David Platt, and Paul Merson. Nick Hornby’s Fever Pitch. Historic Wembley’s twin towers. The FA Cup. Exotic names at 4.45pm on a Saturday afternoon: Accrington Stanley and Crewe Alexandra, Port Vale and Plymouth Argyle, Queens Park Rangers and Queen of the South, Stenhousemuir and Sheffield Wednesday. And always Arsenal - a name clipped, robust, militaristic.

Those green senses. The smell of fried onions outside the North Bank. The blisters in August’s new boots. Blades. Then no blades. Doing a ‘Beckham’, on the pitch and in the barber’s. The pain of defeat, but the ecstasy of winning. Steve Bould to Tony Adams (above), 4-0.

But football had become less magical. I have become older, certainly, but football had become more childish, more vagrant, even.

Hooliganism has been around for decades, and actually feels less prevalent today. However, police think it might be on the rise again, and it is true that going to a football match can sometimes leave a bad taste in your mouth, or a foul ringing in your ears. There is no need for ‘family enclosures’ in rugby and cricket grounds.

Yet the behaviour of England fans in the most recent World Cup was mostly exemplary, for instance, and hooliganism is not always the reserve of a thuggish minority of fans. Brian Clough, County and Nottingham Forest, said in 1990, “Football hooligans? Well, there are ninety-two club chairmen for a start.” And as former England manager Sven Goran Eriksson said in 2004, “There is more politics in football than in politics.”

Nik Darlington: When it comes to student finance, Liberal Democrat MPs must vote with their heads, not with their hearts

Nik Darlington trained as a strategy and marketing consultant with Simon-Kucher & Partners in London, specialising in higher education strategy and pricing.  He is now working as a parliamentary adviser in Westminster and undertaking postgraduate studies at King's College London.

The Independent Review of Higher Education and Student Finance was launched by Lord Mandelson less than one year ago, on 9th November 2009.  Yet on its day of long-awaited publication, we are already quite well aware of the chief recommendations, including the abolition of the tuition fees cap (with Government support ceasing beyond £7,000) and changes to student loans, such as the rate of interest and the repayment threshold.

Consequently, the chief concern now is how the Government reacts to it and how Liberal Democrat MPs react to the Government.  In an e-mail to Government MPs over the weekend (“Dear Friend” if Lib-Dem, “Dear Colleague” if Tory), Vince Cable stated, “the Government will respond shortly.”  I suspect this means that it will be integrated with the Comprehensive Spending Review next week, thus cooling the fires somewhat, or at least fanning them amidst several more sizeable infernos such as benefits cuts and the Strategic Defence Review.

Financial aid is fundamental to any settlement.  Universities must channel a significant proportion of the extra revenue accrued into scholarships and bursaries so as not to turn students away based on (in)ability-to-pay.  I put this and the second point, about a National Bursary Scheme, to Aaron Porter, the NUS President, at last week’s party conference.  He agreed that fears about higher fees ought to be unfounded if there is a proper system of financial aid in place, one that is easily accessible, well communicated and adequately funded.  This should apply at all levels, whether undergraduate, postgraduate or part-time.

Reform of financial support is a core objective of Lord Browne’s review, alongside the more emotive topic of fees.  The introduction of higher fees in 2006 has not reduced overall demand nor has it curtailed the continuous rise in participation of young people from less affluent backgrounds.  What can hold people back is a lack of awareness about the financial support available, much of which goes unclaimed.  Get sound provisions in place to deal with this and it will go some way to making an increase in tuition fees fairer and more palatable its detractors.

The graduate tax, mercifully, has been kicked into the long grass by Vince Cable.  In his e-mail to MPs he wrote that it “fails both the tests of fairness and deficit reduction”, something that I referred to when he announced it in July.  Aaron Porter also seemed to be playing down the graduate tax in a Today programme interview last week.  Its huge flaws have been well documented and whilst media volume might be high, its outlets of support have become few and far between. Except for one notable advocate – Ed Miliband.

Nik Darlington: It looks like Lord Browne is making the right call on higher education funding

Nik Darlington trained as a strategy & marketing consultant with Simon-Kucher & Partners in London, specialising in higher education strategy and pricing, and co-authored the White Paper ‘How prepared are English universities for a more deregulated undergraduate tuition fees environment’ (June 2010).  He is now working as a parliamentary assistant in Westminster.

A draft of Lord Browne's report into higher education funding has made its way into the newspapers (The Spectator's David Blackburn gave a pithy précis).  The full report is not due for publication until 11th October but on first glance it appears that Lord Browne will be disregarding Vince Cable's transparently political prod for a graduate 'tax' - or, more appropriately, 'contribution'.  If this was Dr Cable's attempt at the Cameroonian art of 'nudging' then it hasn't worked.

We don't have the exact details about Lord Browne’s possible proposals.  There will be variations to any fee hike, such as removing limits only for the highest value courses.  However, as I and much of the HE sector have expected for quite some time, it will be recommended that the Government permit fees to rise.  This will be accompanied by commensurate reforms to financial aid.  It has to be for this to work, and I will explain why now.

Also published recently were results from a survey conducted by the NUS, 'revealing' that 70 per cent of students say fees of £7,000 per year would have deterred them from going to university.  During my time as a management consultant specialising in HE fees and funding, my colleagues and I came across a number of nonsensical and statistically flawed studies into tuition fees - this is just the latest such example.

Not only is it embarrassingly bad research, it is politically dangerous.  It is misleading to the public and to policymakers.