The Labour Party has failed to grasp that the mood of the country is turning against it
SIR – We agree that more – and more accurate – information for prospective students is absolutely essential if they are to make informed choices about their futures. That is why we would like to move away from the Office for Students graduate outcomes and employability data that Paul Wiltshire quoted in Julie Henry's article (Features, April 27), which only goes up to 15 months after leaving university.
When student earnings are measured using the Government's Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data across a career lifetime, the average graduate's earnings outstrip the non-graduates by more than £100,0000, even once higher taxes and student loan repayments are taken into account. What's more, graduates are at least twice as likely to be in employment than those who didn't go to university.
For the vast majority of students, university pays off.
Vivienne Stern
Chief executive, Universities UK
London WC1
SIR – I read with interest the article by Julie Henry regarding the worth of going to university.
The article mentioned the financial burden of student debt, and also parents' large financial contribution, both of which remained unpaid when the promised return of a good salary after graduation did not materialise.
What was not mentioned was that the rise of 'new' universities and the need for student accommodation over the past 20 years have also created an opportunity for buy-to-let landlords. Many purchased properties close to the universities, then converted them into student houses of multiple occupation, which gave a good return on their investment. Historically, these properties would have been bought by first-time buyers or for long-term rentals.
All this has not only added to the need for more housing in most university cities across the United Kingdom, it has also created a huge number of properties which lie empty for a substantial period of the year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
14 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Almost 1500 buildings in Scotland ‘at risk' from cladding
Latest estimates indicate the cladding remediation programme could cost £1.7 billion over a 15-year period. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Almost 1,500 buildings in Scotland are "at risk" from cladding which has yet to be removed, despite the Grenfell Tower disaster, the Scottish Liberal Democrats said. There are about 13,400 blocks of flats higher than 11 metres in Scotland , according to figures published by the Scottish Government this month. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However new figures show that an estimated 1,260-1,450 of them need remedial work to alleviate external wall system (EWS) life-safety fire risk. In statistics published by the Scottish Government in Scotland's cladding remediation programme, it was said that by April 30 , two single building assessments (SBAs), based on specification published in June 2024 , had been completed and a further 13 assessments had been started. By April 30 , two completed assessments identified that remedial works were required, and work had begun for one but not the other, the statistics showed. In June 2024 , the Housing (Cladding Remediation) ( Scotland ) Bill was passed, giving ministers powers to "to assess and remediate certain types of buildings with unsafe cladding". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad On Friday the Scottish Government said latest estimates indicate its cladding remediation programme could cost £1.7 billion over a 15-year period. About 250 of the residential high-rise buildings in Scotland may require work to alleviate external wall system (EWS) life-safety fire risk, while 1,020-1,200 of the mid-rise residential buildings require work to alleviate the same issue, according to a breakdown of the figures. In contrast, by May 2025 in England , 2,477 buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation works, representing 49% of buildings within the programme. There is a target to complete the remediation of high-rise buildings by 2029 and for mid-rise buildings to have either been completely remediated by the date, or to have a plan in place with a date set. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Of these, 1,652 buildings (33%) have been completed, according to UK Government statistics published in May. Scottish Liberal Democrat communities spokesman Willie Rennie MSP accused the Scottish Government of "refusing to set" a similar deadline. He said the remediation work was happening "inexplicably slowly" and called for progress. Mr Rennie said: "In the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, ministers should be bending over backwards to remove unsafe cladding. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad "But these figures show that the SNP are nowhere: they have made next to no progress, leaving so many homeowners and residents in a distressing limbo. "The Scottish Government have repeatedly failed to appreciate the dangers posed by certain building materials. "They have refused to set a deadline for removing cladding and they have taken an unbelievably blase approach to the problems of RAAC concrete. "The SNP have acted inexplicably slowly. They must urgently step up the pace in remediating at-risk buildings and keep everyone who is potentially affected informed and updated on progress."
Telegraph
28 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Millions of pensions at risk from savings raid
The pensions of nine million savers are at risk from reforms allowing companies to raid their retirement schemes, the Government's impact assessment has admitted. Proposed changes to final salary pension schemes could mean that more of them run out of money, civil servants warned, leaving them unable to fulfil their financial obligations to members. The comments were seized on by critics of the proposed change, which would allow companies that manage these so-called defined benefit pension schemes to take out 'surplus' money as profit or for reinvestment. But supporters of the move downplayed the risks, saying that pension trustees would typically be given a say on any money handed back. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, and Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, are championing the reforms, which are contained in the Pension Schemes Bill. Any money paid out as profit would be subject to tax for the Treasury as it struggles to balance the books. The impact assessment for the proposed changes, written by civil servants at Department for Work and Pensions, said: 'If schemes choose to modify their rules to enable surplus extraction, this adds an indirect cost to members in terms of the increased likelihood of members not receiving their pension benefits in full. 'A scheme surplus can act as a financial cushion for members, to absorb unexpected costs or investment losses for the scheme. Without this cushion, the scheme may be more likely to struggle to meet its obligations to members, especially in times of financial stress or economic shocks.' Defined benefit pension schemes guarantee members a set portion of their final or career average salary after retirement. They are funded by money paid in while members are working. Schemes are in surplus if they are judged to have more money than they need to meet all promised payments to members. Lower interest rates after the financial crisis plunged many schemes into deficit by wrecking their expected investment returns, forcing the companies that sponsor them to make up the gap by pumping in billions of pounds extra. Now interest rates have risen again, schemes have mostly returned to surplus – and companies are seeking to extract some money that they say funds no longer need. The Bill creates new rules allowing employers to remove this cash. But critics are concerned about the risks if another economic crisis sends rates plunging again. This possibility was acknowledged in the 400-page impact assessment, although it added: 'Overall, it is assumed this increased likelihood of members not receiving their benefits in full to be very low given the important role trustees will play in overseeing any decision. The Pension Security Alliance (PSA), which includes Silver Voices, the independent senior citizens group, and John Ralfe, a pensions consultant, raised concerns about the assessment. The PSA said: 'The Government's own analysis proves that the Government's plans pose a risk to the retirement incomes of millions of members of defined benefit pension schemes. It's shocking to learn that civil servants have told ministers that if these plans go ahead, some pension schemes could struggle to meet their obligations to pay pensions. 'Pension scheme members have worked to earn their pensions and the money in pension schemes is there to provide them with a secure income in retirement. This official assessment, prepared by independent civil servants, shows that the Government's plans put those retirement incomes at risk. 'Pension schemes are not a piggy-bank that politicians can dip into or a cash-cow for employers. Pension schemes exist to benefit members and this is official confirmation that the Government's plans could actually harm members. That can't be right.' Among critics of the change are figures in the pensions insurance industry, which buys defined benefit pension schemes. The proposals do have supporters, including Steve Webb, a partner at pension consultant LCP who was pensions minister in the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. Mr Webb said: 'The funding of company pension schemes has been transformed in recent years. The majority of schemes now have surplus funds which can be used in a responsible way to benefit scheme members, through improved benefits, as well as the companies who have paid so much in for so long. 'The plans have plenty of safeguards, including the judgment of trustees who will be seeking to ensure that using surplus funds does not undermine the security of member benefits. This is a positive initiative which should be supported.'
New Statesman
32 minutes ago
- New Statesman
What Rachel Reeves can learn from Donald Trump
Photo byNext week, Rachel Reeves will publish the Government's Spending Review, outlining the financial settlement for the coming three years. As she makes her final decisions (they always go to the wire) she might consider lessons from an unlikely source: the US President. In recent months, Donald Trump has taken to trashing areas of deep US strength that were taken for granted so completely that they were invisible to most. Trump has done Reeves a favour, by paving paradise and putting up a parking lot. His actions are a reminder of the importance of investing in the unseen infrastructures that enable prosperity. The British Academy has just published a series of papers exploring what might pull the UK out of its long period of low productivity. The UK has powerful legal, financial, cultural and scientific institutions, but we're not good at organising the economy around our greatest strengths. We have a large population of skilled workers, for example, but they are unevenly spread and mismatched across regions. We do not make the most of our institutional, human and physical capital. Reeves has an opportunity to invest in these strengths and to make the UK more prosperous over the long term. In the US, the government is currently experimenting with the opposite approach. Trump has taken an axe to America's historic strength in research by attacking universities including Harvard, and cutting or freezing research funding. R&D is one of the drivers of long-term prosperity, and the US will be poorer as a result in the medium term. By many measures the UK already punches above its weight when it comes to R&D, particularly in universities. Reeves needs to continue investing in this long-term source of growth, and also find a model for the universities where much of this research is conducted to be financially stable. The Government has recently focused on heavy investment in advanced or 'frontier' technology but a significant share of innovation in the UK's services-dominated economy is not especially high-tech. We innovate well through the humanities, social sciences and the arts, in processes and services, as well as we do in cutting-edge technology. Trump has also reminded us of the dangers of unpredictability. A country whose word cannot be relied upon will suffer economically – even if it is currently the dominant power. The UK faces rather different challenges to the US on the global stage, in that we are not large enough to act unilaterally or bilaterally, nor are we still a member of a major economic bloc. But our deep roots in multilateralism mean we have an opportunity to become the world's most dependable broker. We have an historic role in shaping the major international organisations and we have substantial knowledge of global institutions and international legal norms and practices. In turbulent times this institutional infrastructure is something in which we should invest, with a strategic narrative that the UK economy remains open to the world. Our relatively stable political landscape, strong institutions and low levels of corruption are not just part of the furniture – they are a source of comparative advantage in an increasingly turbulent world. The openness of our economy is an opportunity to attract and develop human capital. We have a valuable infrastructure of knowledge and finance that is well equipped to support and commercialise innovation. The UK government has struggled in its first year to find a positive narrative, to move beyond dealing with a difficult economic inheritance. The public knows we have an economy that has suffered long-term stagnation and that we face mounting geopolitical uncertainty. The Spending Review should be couched in a narrative of investing in the UK's comparative strengths and its deep assets, in the infrastructure that is needed to help secure longer-term growth and resilience. If she can do this, the Chancellor might be even able to say that despite the tight economic circumstances, it is the Biggest, the Best, and the most Beautiful spending review ever. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Rachel Reeves should fear the bond market vigilantes] Related
