Debunking the left

The following quotations are from the 'Save UCL! stop [sic] the cuts, defend education' group on facebook.
-----------------------------

On 6th Sep 2009, UCL senior management announced cuts of at least 6%. That equates to £20m and management say it will "require cuts from staffing budgets".

Fine so far. Well, except the word 'cuts'. What UCL wanted was, pereferably, for departments to increase their income. If they couldn't do that, then they would have to reduce their cost base - which would indeed require cuts. It's a technical point, but at no point has 'management' decided that cuts are the only answer - only a last resort.

The trade unions estimate as many as 400 job cuts will have to be fought. But how can that be when UCL just raised £100m through its 'Campaign for UCL', and there are new building projects all over campus?

As I've mentioned previously, this money has been spent on revamping parts of the campus so they are fit for students and staff alike. Just look at Foster Court. As for 'new building projects all over campus', I think you'll find UCL has shelved proposals for a new building next to the Bloomsbury Theatre. All other building projects - the Sainsbury Wellcome Centre, for instance (which will replace the medics' union at Huntley Street) have external funding. The only major investment in buildings coming up is the CMRI at St Pancras.

These cuts are clearly unnecessary.

Really? Because I just debunked the reasons you thought they were. So it's hardly 'clear' any more. Especially when Mandleson has announced cuts himself. And the Tories are committed to erasing the budget deficit. Maybe we followed suit, and erased our long history of budget deficits at UCL? You know, like a sensible fiscal policy?

Whether you're a student or a staff member, this campaign is for you. This is about OUR jobs and OUR education. And if we don't fight hard this time, we could well find that management makes bigger and bigger cuts, year after year.

Absolutely. Management are committed to cutting UCL's budget to £0. They want to run us into the ground. Oh wait. That's a load of rubbish. It is about our jobs and our education - by making sure that UCL has a sensible budget that balances, with a HEFCE-recommended surplus each year to put away for future infrastructure projects and to help us through storms like this. It's what LSE has done, and what we all now wish UCL had as well.

What is happening now has direct implications for the higher education system as a whole. In making unnecessary cuts and calling for higher and higher "contributions" from students, UCL management has effectively decided that it would rather fight its own staff and students than fight central government for better and fairer system of higher education funding.

I think you'll find that you have decided to fight 'management', rather than the other way round. They are trying to secure UCL's future, and you are trying to stop them. As for calling for 'higher and higher "contributions"', the Provost has come out in favour of a graduate tax, rather than fees. Is that not telling 'central government' (as opposed to which other government in this country?) that we should have a better and fairer system of funding? Masters fees have indeed gone up, but that's because they've never really covered the cost of the course - and PGTs get no government subsidy, like undergrads.

As for the 'implications for the sector', I think the implications arise from government giving HE less money, rather than individual institutions adjusting for that change.