David Blunkett

Posted on 2004/12/15 09:56:36 (December 2004) by john.

Time to leave I think.

It appears that Mr Blunkett has become the media's favourite scapegoat over the last couple of weeks. Today (see here) new allegations, albeit from the none-too-worrysome Daily Mail, seem to have surfaced about him fast tracking visa applications and so on. To be honest, I'm not really that convinced by any of this - it seems a little akin to claiming that the global CEO of MacDonald's can make somebody's quarter pounder turn up quicker. I'm reasonably sure the home office is quite a large institution, and David Blunkett probably doesn't check through the application forms himself. Besides anything else he's not particularly well suited to that kind of job is he? The point being I would have thought he is pretty far removed from the "shop floor", so to speak.

That aside, I have to admit I am not feeling much sympathy for him right now. I'd always thought he was a good politican (as far as politicians go) and a valuable asset to the cabinet, before, that is, he became home secretary. At this point, for some reason, he metaphorically shaved the majority of his beard off and considered changing his name to Adolf. The Polish have been deeply wary of him ever since.

Most publicly of course is his "pet project" issue of identity cards, something that puts us one step closer to a police state. However, it isn't here that he has riled me most - it is his policies on immigration.

Chief offender among these, for me, is that he decided a year or two ago to introduce a fee for the foreign student visa. This is not, however, a small administration fee - it is over 100 pounds if I recall correctly, and is payable annually.

For me one of the best parts of going to university was being able to mix with foreign students - I always used to say how great it was living in hall in the first year, and being able to have breakfast with people from 20 different countries every morning. Foreign students are a particularly important factor in enriching our culture and education system, and improving our understanding of other cultures. Of course, above all, Chie came to England as a foreign student, and we probably never would have met otherwise.

Foreign students often already have to pay higher fees at universities, and so already represent a tangible economic advantage to our education system. So what is the possible sense in introducing this disincentive for foreign students to come and study here? I struggle to believe this extra money is required to cover the administration costs - we managed fine for years without it, and to my mind if it really is costing that much perhaps they ought to address working practice at the home office first. Or just abolish student visas altogether?

This will undoubtedly put some students off from coming to study in England, and this is the only reason I can see for why Mr Blunkett has introduced it. Is he really trying to tell foreign students they are not welcome here? If so I am pretty ashamed to be British.

Or is it a case that they are trying to dissuade poorer students from coming here? Yet another piece of great socialist policy making from New Labour then.

All in all, I simply can't agree with the underlying reasoning behind his policy making, and I for one will not be sad to see him go.

Ah, 100 pounds a year. What a joy to think that that would be the only increase in the cost for me to study in one of *my own country's* fine universities. It would seem, however, that when I started university the cost that I had to pay was £1000+ a year - which had I gone two years earlier I wouldn't have had to pay. Therefore it's not just the foreign students that have suffered under new education costs.

I think, however, that it's a mistake to blame one man for this. I find the comments made by opposition parties in the commons about David Blunkett particularly tasteless - the poor man has probably done nothing wrong compared to most of the rest of them and yet they act like playground bullies. Comments comparing him to hitler because of a foreign visa charge are also particularly un-necessary.

I honestly think we could do with more politicians like David Blunkett and less of the rest.

Posted by Simon at 2004/12/16 09:56:25.

Oh lay off the Hitler gag - it was obviously just a figure of speech, a very exaggerated flowery way of going about saying his policies seem a bit right wing. If ever I write a politically themed article it runs the risk of being very staid and boring, so I am in the habit of dropping in the odd colourful metaphor in an attempt to make it a bit lighter and more readable. Besides, it is my website, if I want to compare Valerie Singleton to Polpot then that's exactly what I'm going to do.

That aside, to return to the actual point of the article. I have been and checked up on some figures:

According to an article in the education Guardian, overseas students already pay typically 8000 pounds in fees per year to study in a UK university. This I believe is already significantly higher than what the average UK student pays now - 1125 pounds annually, and potentially to rise to 3000 with the introduction of top-up fees.

The current fee for a student visa is (I believe) 250 pounds. Two years ago this was next to nothing. Apparently the home office has also recently been considering doubling this figure.

Ok you might argue that the differential between tuition fees is justified by the fact that UK students are in effect still partly paid for by taxpayers, and of course overseas students have not by definition contributed to our taxes. So I'm happy with that - if universties say it basically costs them 8000 to educate a student for a year, and for UK students this is up to 3000 out of their own packet, and 5000+ by the state, whereas foreign students just pay the full whack themselves, that seems OK.

The visa fee, however, just seems unnecessary. Does it really cost us 250+ pounds to accept a student into our country from abroad? I doubt this very much. I saw an estimate elsewhere in the Guardian that suggested the average overseas student will contribute almost the same as their tuition fees again in living costs etc - all money being poured into our economy.

To me the student visa fee just seems like our government sending out a message that overseas students are not welcome, and this really gets me. I'm totally convinced that our education system and our society as a whole is much better off with foreign students rather than without them.

As for whether or not you can pin this to one man - well surely as the home secretary he is ultimately responsible for all home office policy making...? The student visa fee did not exist before David Blunkett took his position, so it seems likely to me he was fairly instrumental

Posted by John at 2004/12/16 14:33:23.

What I find most insulting is Blunkett is fired for bringing a small amount of disrepute to a government that took us to war on a lie. Yet no-one resigned when no WoMD were found.

As for student fees, as a tax payer, I would be disappointed if I was indirectly funding foreign students' education who subsequently 'take' their education back home once they've graduated.

Posted by Karl at 2004/12/16 14:40:34.

Well rest assured you're not, I'm pretty sure 8000 quid about covers it.

Posted by John at 2004/12/16 14:42:16.

Karl, what about people from your country who take their degree away? I do agree that if I'm going to pay taxes for someone's schooling, he'd damn well better stick around and give something back. But to defray one of your own's educational cost though he might just as well leave seems wrong. I assume you'd be against funding someone who leaves regardless of country of origin? At least for a set amount of time or the like?

Posted by Travis at 2005/01/03 23:57:28.

Post a comment