Immigrants Are Taking The Flack For Cameron's Incompetence

Politicians have never been good at talking about immigration. From Thatcher's concerns of being 'swamped' by immigrants to Gordon Brown's “British jobs for British Workers” speech, the issue has long been embedded within a perverted political narrative- one in which migrants are characterised as leeches, sucking away at the fruits good Englishmen have bequeathed upon them.

David Cameron's speech yesterday did little to distance itself from this. Still tormented by the Eastleigh defeat which saw the Ukip surge trouncing the Conservatives, the Prime Minister unveiled a new set of policies assured to win back the disenchanted. And while the favourite buzzwords needed for any immigration speech were present (integration, assimilation, border controls to name a few), he also used the opportunity to exert some of the harshest policy proposals we've seen come out of CCHQ for a while. Under the new proposals, a migrant job seeker can only receive assistance for six months, will have to face more difficult residency tests and will have less access to the NHS without private health insurance.

Some progressives may accept these proposals. In a time when British families are reducing their living standards, migrants also need to play their part- big society and all that. Besides, voters have consistently worried about immigration, and now the government are taking action. Further, we're just following the Canadians, and everybody loves them.

The insidious bite in Cameron's speech really came through when he spoke about social housing, where he suggested a waiting period between 2-5 years for new migrants wishing to get on the waiting list. Of course, this policy responded to the popular notion that immigrants not only get on the social housing list faster, but also get better residences compared to native Britons. Triumphantly, the Prime Minister claimed that his government would end the 'something for nothing culture' which apparently all immigrants (except for the select few political strategists like to use to assert they aren't racist) ascribe to.

In fact, this proposal actually shows how badly the government have failed to resolve issues in social housing, jobs and welfare. And with the most recent failings- the AAA downgrade and Osborne's flagship 'help to buy' policy heavily criticised following last week's budget, Cameron is now using immigrants as a way to divert attention from his government's incompetence.

Cameron's argument suggests that the number of migrants coming to the UK inevitably causes a shortfall of social housing. Ergo, restrict access to social housing and the problem is resolved. Except, he chooses to ignore the decrease in social housing resulting from Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' , or the 'Right to Acquire' scheme, of which its legacy speaks only of unaffordable rents and the lowest levels of home ownership since 1987. It also disregards the lack of new affordable homes being built- an issue where the Prime Minister's own party bears a great deal of responsibility for. Indeed, the crisis of social housing is not immigrants, but rather the venomous Tory cocktail of greedy landlords and a government more than happy to facilitate them in the name of good business. Depressingly enough, George Osborne's plan is likely to make this existing situation even worse.

The second misappropriation is Cameron's supposed stance on the 'something for nothing' culture, where immigrants supposedly plot from their homelands to come to Britain and live luxuriously off the state. The only problem with this, is that it isn't true. In fact, the DWP indicated in 2011 that less than 3% of benefit claimants were from EU countries. Furthermore, both the 2011 Oxford Migration Observatory report and the ONS Labour Market Statistics report last year indicate that a majority of migrants come to the UK with the intention to work. Seeing that twice as many foreign migrants were recorded in employment compared to those of British-born origin, it seems clear that these migrants would not only be unable to claim benefits, but would also not be eligible for social housing either.

Despite the statistics, Cameron, and many other senior ministers are continuing to peddle populist rhetoric in order to win back voters. While this might be a great idea to Tory strategists and party backbenchers, it will do little to win the hearts of young, Tory moderates, or reinstate trust into the government itself. The truth is that the Prime Minister- once a refreshing change for the Conservatives, is now using a sensitive issue for political advantage. Quite frankly, both British nationals and immigrants deserve a lot better.

A Press Charter is an Unfortunate Necessity

You wouldn't think it at first, but national newspapers aren't too dissimilar from city banks. That might sound a little odd considering their visceral disdain for each other. However, both institutions have historically been significant in the development of British society, and with sourcing first class talent, have developed brand names that continue to resonate globally. Yet, in the sombre aftermath of the post-Leveson inquiry and the parliamentary proposal that has since emerged, it seems that the they also have something else in common- they too, are victims of their own fantasies.

As tabloids and broadsheets go up in arms to resist plans to introduce a Royal Charter and with a possible statutory underpinning, the press have resurrected bygone ‘gloden era’ myths in order to justify operating under a self-regulated code of ethics. Whether through invoking Winston Churchill, or making comical comparisons with China and Zimbabwe, this rhetoric perpetuates a distorted fantasy in which newspaper editors are unfairly thrown into Kafka’s Trial. Claiming their privilege is necessary to hold the powerful accountable, they argue that the forces of evil- lawyers, politicians and Hugh Grant, have colluded to undermine the only institution designed to empower citizens.

Of course, we’ve heard it all before. Nationalised banks like RBS continue to pay out large bonuses despite continually losing money, while even at the height of the financial crisis, bankers and their advocates argued for even less regulation. In both the newspaper and banking industries, the argument remains the same- ‘yes, we acknowledge there were some problems, but we won’t do it again, we promise’.

Most national newspapers took a similar line in calling for bank regulation, acknowledging that financial institutions-particularly those backed by the state, should operate in a way that protects and fulfils obligations to the public. Further, they rightly believed that more light-touch regulation would only evolve into more unfair play, illustrated through the LIBOR scandal. It’s striking then, that these newspapers wish to disregard the problems in their own back yard- the ones that prompted the Leveson inquiry in the first place.

After all, the parents of Milly Dowler weren’t exactly Bob Diamond. Nor were the relatives of British soldiers, Sara Payne or the other victims of the phone-hacking scandal. And this of course, was only the tip of the iceberg. For years, the tabloid press have gotten away with running grossly distorted stories vilifying some of the most vulnerable in our society, including immigrants, Muslims, and the working class. Despite what some of the press may wish, we shouldn’t forget that Leveson’s proposals are not without a precedent.

This isn’t to say that the method in which the charter was born was necessarily right. None of the party leaders, especially Ed Miliband, did themselves any favours by making the agreement look like a back room deal, designed to be political. Yet as The Guardian and The Independent have noted, while the technicalities of regulation may be in contention, the principle of an independent regulator is far cry from North Korean totalitarianism. If an agreed regulatory system is effectively executed, then there is no reason why the press cannot continue to serve the public and hold the powerful accountable. More importantly, an acknowledgement that the press will not be allowed to abuse their privilege will assist in winning back public trust- something that all print media groups require to survive.

During the golden era of The Sun newspaper in the 1980′s, when the newspaper also began running sensational stories based on few facts, a poster on the wall of its news desk read “News is anything that makes a reader say ‘Gee Whiz!’”. Just as the latter phrase became extinct, so has the insidious culture that this dictum built. The British press must realise that to survive, they cannot be exempt from the law. And unlike the banks, I’m not sure taxpayers will be willing to bail them out.

Make No Mistake, Boris Will Survive

News typically isn't made on a Sunday, so today's Boris interview has made much of the Twitterati quite excited. For those of you who don't know yet, Mayor of London Boris Johnson hasn't had the best of days today, after an interview with Eddie Mair on the Andrew Marr show. In the interview, Johnson inadvertently admits to forging a quote whilst working for The Times, colluding with a friend to have a rival journalist beaten up and failing to deny his goals to enter Downing Street. Subsequently, Mair referred to him as a 'nasty piece of work'- a far cry from the cuddly teddy bear pretty much everyone in London regards him as.

Plenty of pundits and bloggers have now predicted the end of Mr.Johnson. After all, he's basically admitted on live TV that he lacks integrity, is slimy and deceitful. How will he be able to communicate with anyone in London again? In fact, some have even suggested Johnson resigns after his traincrash of an interview.

Of course, anyone who knows Boris, will probably tell you that he'll survive. For no matter how much of an oath the Mayor of London may be, he's also tenacious, cunning and charming.  Here are my reasons why the Johnson interview today has made less impact on him than you might think:

1. The AM show has on average about 2 million views each week, making it around 20% of the general audience share. This is compared to the 10.8 million average for Eastenders,  and just under 3 million on an average Question Time Broadcast.  And while the AM show has a higher viewing share than say, The Big Questions or the Andrew Neil Show, if you take into account the % of Londers who will watch it (probably less than 8% of this share) then it's a fairly modest amount. In fact, BARB shows that it wasn't even in the top 10 viewed this week.

2. Even when the Tories were receiving some of the worst polling stats, Johnson won 4% more preference votes than the Labour candidate, Ken Livingstone. Prior to the election, Johnson was voted the most popular politician ahead of national party rivals and mayoral contestants , and in all honesty, he'll probably be remembered more for the Olympics and the Boris bikes, than something he did at The Times more than a decade ago.

3.  While a coherent dataset isn't available, this YouGov report from mid 2011 sees Johnson with over 50% approval rating. In 2012, Boris got 44% of the total vote share, increasing it by over a percentage from 2008. Ken Livingstone, whose popularity peaked in 2000, only recieved 39% (First preference votes. LM elections are done under the AV system). This is despite Boris being very Tory, in a city where Labour made big gains in the 2010 election.

4. I think it's probably common sense that Boris is unlikely to be elected Tory leader. Considering the Tories are well aware of their current crisis, and leaders being 'out of touch' Boris probably wouldn't pick up the nomination, or the PM role. After all, if British voters reacted to populism, Nick Clegg would probably be PM, with Nigel Farage as his deputy (lord forbid).

5.Anyone remember the Clinton/Lewinsky affair?  Clinton's smooth talking and intelligence got him out of that pickle. And if Boris can pull of one of his renowned performances, he'll get rid of the whole issue before you can even say Lewinski. 

iERA Does No Favours For Muslim Students

outreach4islam.com

Most young British Muslims today will make no secret of the pertinent leadership crisis in their communities. From Khutbahs (Friday sermons) recited in Urdu by out of touch preachers to uninspiring mosque committees forged through generations of nepotism, it's no surprise that many young Muslims- myself included, feel disenfranchised by our religious institutions. Despite the best intentions, at a time when Muslims face fundamental questions in relation to both identity and place in Britain, such leaders do little to advance a progressive vision.

Of course where mosque committees have failed, a number of industrious groups powered by creative use of social media, have stepped in to take their place. One group in particular has enjoyed so much success across British university campuses that they have become one of the most recognisable names in Islamic apologetics.

The Islamic Education and Research academy (iERA) have recently made headlines after one of its most prominent Muslim speakers, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis debated the theoretical physicist and atheist spokesman Lawrence Krauss and University College London. Most of the controversy surrounding the debate has so far focused on gender segregation in the seating order, prompting UCL's decision to ban the group. Despite the gesture, this move will do little to wane iERA's popularity amongst the new generation of educated, middle class Muslim students, with access to the organisation's vivacious creative output.

Certainly on the outset, iERA seems like a great concept. Far from the generalisations, polemic and unfounded assertions espoused by classically trained preachers, the organisation offers a more intellectual and charismatic approach to lecturing. After all, it was only after attending an iERA event in my first year at York, that I heard both the scottish philosopher David Hume and the Qu'ran in the same sentence. Indeed, having previously experienced a religious education more akin to military indoctrination, such an approach was refreshing. More importantly, this type of intellectual introspection had the potential to allow both open debate and an active empowerment of Muslim students in the UK.

Yet for the most part, iERA has failed to achieve either of these. Rather, as a number of Youtube videos will show, the organisation often finds itself taking up self defeating positions in attempting to assert forms of moral superiority over other belief systems. No better is this shown than in the UCL debate, where a question on the concept of morality and incest arises. In response to Mr.Tzortzis' question on 'why is incest bad?', Krauss argues that the latter word is contentious- that the term 'bad' is abstract and contextual. Though societies have a tendency to disapprove of it, to place the question in such absolute terms removes both the consensual component of sexual relations, as well as the act of sex in a cultural context. Rather than a philosophical consideration, iERA supporters at both the debate and on social media berated Mr.Krauss for “proving atheists have no moral basis”.

Such misappropriation is far from uncommon, and in some ways is facilitated by the way iERA operates. A simple Google or Youtube search will show that most of its activities have taken place within Islamic societies, or as part of its 'Big Debates' project. The majority of these debates will focus on the merits of Islam over atheism, often seeing Hamza Tzortzis facing off against a prominent atheist spokesperson. But while this might seem like the makings of an engaging and open discussion, a closer looks suggests that the environments in which iERA operate- areas where large congregations of the organisation's purporters can assemble and easily outnumber their ideological opponents, provides obvious advantages.

Furthermore, the tech-savvy folk at iERA know how to do PR remarkably well. In fact, their content is what most young Muslims will probably enjoy watching. Yet, in a Youtube driven culture where instantaneous tropes are the norm, videos showing iERA speakers apparently 'owning' atheists in forced debate , as well as convincing street-level religious conversions captured on camera, give further acclaim to the organisation's influence. No wonder that even young Muslims abroad are turning to iERA.

However, the problem with iERA is that it has been given a fairly easy ride by most Islamic societies. Rather than providing genuine, open intellectual discussions, the conditions in which the organisation functions allows it to proselytize on its own terms, preaching to the converted while using their events to further strengthen their authority within Islamic apologetics circles. And though this might be good at making Muslim students enthusiastic about their faith, it does little to place Islam within the frame of intellectual, scholarly discussion. Despite all of Mr.Tzortzis' enviable charisma and charm, the current structure of iERA events renders the organisation simply as another evangelical group using a public platform to proselytize.

While iERA may provide a more engaging outlet for religious thought, it does a disservice to Muslim students by reducing intellectual debates to oversimplified absolutes. For while such methods might make for a good speech, particularly against an arrogant atheist, it does little to tackle the real issues that young Muslims face in Britain today. Rather, it perpetuates the unfortunate notion that Islamic societies are closed off, unwelcoming pariahs to those not affiliated with Islam. Certainly, this is undesirable in a diverse campus community.

The Relevance of Feminism Today

As students in 2013, it’s often easy to forget the importance of feminism. Indeed, the very term often brings with it the caricatured image of angry hippies burning bras and chanting vengeful slogans against their perceived male oppressors. Yet, far from the vibrant, radical groups of the sixties and seventies, campus feminism today seems to be better associated with issues surrounding well-being, student support and welfare.

Does this change indicate a victory for the feminist movement? If you take Universities Minister’s word for it, the insurgency of feminism is so profound that it has become “the single biggest factor for the lack of social mobility in Britain” – on account those women once predestined to be housewives have had the audacity to attend university. In 2010, 16 per cent more girls gained A*-C grades in their GCSEs than boys, while over 50 per cent of females gained university places.
Looking at these statistics, you could be forgiven in thinking ‘feminism’ is an outdated term. But if that’s the case, why are we hearing so much about it these days? As an opposition speaker in the ‘Remove The Sun’ debate this term said: If women are numerically more represented, then why are such minor issues being resurrected by feminist groups on campus?

Beyond the superficial statistics, almost 50 per cent of women across British universities will attest to some degree of abuse, intimidation or discrimination on the grounds of their gender. Just this week, a male candidate for Women’s Officer at UCL has been accused of sexism, after releasing a manifesto which included ; “a desire to attend all Women’s forums to talk about Important Woman Issues such as hair dressing, shopping and walking sassily away from confrontations with your exes”.
In fact, even in the most intellectual of arenas the vitriol of sexist abuse can reign supreme. Two female speakers who reached the final round of a debating competition at Glasgow University, faced a tirade of sexual and misogynistic taunts from the gallery- including from several senior members of the society. In an attempt to intervene, the female chair was referred to as a “frigid bitch”.
The greatest injustice however, are the female students who often remain in the shadows. A report conducted by the National Union of Students noted that one in four females had encountered unwanted sexual attention in their university experience, while over two thirds had received some kind of verbal or non-verbal harassment.

York is certainly no exception. One girl frequently received unwanted physical contact with a college resident in her first year, culminating in inappropriately touching her breasts. Two years on, she still feels embarrassed and humiliated at what happened. Another spoke of sexual harassment while living in her college dorm, which often occurred at the hands of her inebriated flatmate after nights out. She said that both the feeling of humiliation, and the fear that the complaint wouldn’t be taken seriously prevented her from speaking to either YUSU, or to her course colleagues. One of the most shocking stories included someone who was sexually harassed by two male students on a night out to celebrate a friend’s birthday.

More haunting, were the reactions that some of these women received when they spoke out about their experiences. One student was called a liar by her flatmates, while another was accused of ‘over exaggerating’, suggesting instead that she should be grateful for the male attention. Indeed, even in an attempt to confide in another colleague, she was told to “suck it up and get used to it.”
In my mind, it’s these personal stories that truly illustrate the importance of feminism today. While the greater presence of women in higher education should certainly be welcomed, feminism remains vital in removing the fear and humiliation from students who have been unjustly abused. So, while International Women’s Day should celebrate the achievements of females across the world, we should also acknowledge that even in the most intellectual and embracing environments like a university, plenty of work is still required to achieve true gender equality.

The Bonus Debacle Shows Osborne's Fear Of Bankers

nytimes.com

Oh how the mighty have fallen...well not exactly. The EU's latest proposal to cap banker's bonuses at base rate wasn't exactly the Cleansing of the Temple, despite what Mayor of London Boris Johnson might think. However, it may have been one of the first attempts to curb a venomous banking culture that preceded the financial crisis- its painful effects which are all but prescient throughout Britain and mainland Europe today.

This week, Johnson called for the chancellor George Osborne to fight against the EU's supposedly soviet-esque meddling at a meeting in Brussels. To the Mayor, tougher regulation against banks serves only as a piece of extravagant populism, designed merely to distract. Further, such legislation will either encourage clever bankers to break the rules or, in an Ayn Rand induced nightmare, collectively exile themselves to a new promised land somewhere n the far east, where they can enjoy milk and honey while London delves into chaos.

How, at a time when major banks propped up by public ownership are making considerable losses, have they managed to induce fear into our politicians? Though it might be argued that the Conservative Party have always had a close relationship with bankers- particularly since the Thatcher years, even a Labour party apparently removed from Blair-Brown still finds itself arguing for an economy with a strong financial district at its core. And despite of all the chancellor's talk on curbing the 'culture of greed', the Royal Bank of Scotland has rewarded its employees with a bonus pool of £607 million despite recorded losses of £5.2 billion. More audacious, HSBC has announced a bonus pool of over £5 billion, despite scandals over money laundering and disingenuous interest rate swaps.

Osborne argues that the proposal fails on practical grounds. Despite the thirst for banker's blood remaining rife, imposing caps on bonuses will only encourage them to exploit loopholes- in this case, through increasing fixed pay. Under this mechanism, around 5,000 or so bankers would substantially benefit, while superficially capitulating to public demand.

Yet, even this gesture seems to illustrate how little power our political institutions have in administering justice to the financial sector. In fact, its not all that surprising, considering how many favours our government has conducted for failing banks- all thanks to the tax payers who have thus far received next to nothing in return.

David Cameron used a speech this week to justify the path of austerity, arguing that there was 'no magic money tree' to protect public services or invest in the economy. Yet ironically, he seems to forget about the beanstalk in Downing Street that just keeps on giving- most notably in the form of quantitative easing. This allowed failing banks to be propped up by a substantial influx of cash, under a gentleman's agreement that it would be lent to small businesses and home owners. Instead, it was used to trade equities and bonds- instruments of speculation that have pushed up the values of assets and commodities across the board. Far from the Bank of England's expectations, this act has done little to protect the most vulnerable in society- particularly those with low and fixed incomes- while demanding considerably more of them in tax increases and service cutbacks. At the same time, its seen those banks with significant holdings becoming far more wealthy, and their senior employees receiving rather healthy remunerations in return.

So despite the continued corruption and government tough talk, why have the banks been relatively unscathed? The answer might be found in the structure of Osborne's past economic strategies. For the most part, these have been predicated on old notions of 'trickle down' theory- one which suggests that cutting taxes for big businesses and reducing government services would initiate a private sector led recovery. Yet, by simultaneously cutting public sector services, there seems no vision of a different 'type' of economy, more accommodating of social enterprises, co-operatives and community-driven projects. Nor does there seem to be much encouragement for these ventures, particularly in the UK's most deprived economies. Instead, the rather insidious belief remains- as long as big bankers are okay, they'll eventually help out those beneath them. Rather than smashing the pyramid of social hierarchy, the government has provided it even more support than ever, in the hope that one day the 'masters of the universe' will come and save the day.

Ultimately, the defence of bonuses derives from fear- not simply of a mass exodus of bankers, but a more profound anxiety of an economy without the foundations of financial services. It is this scaremongering that seems not only to have held the government hostage, but also discouraged the creative thinking needed for real long term growth.

The Enigma of UKIP

While we all expected a Liberal Democrat victory in the Eastleigh by-election, the real shocker for most commentators seems to have been a dreaded four-letter acronym that has overstayed its welcome.

The ascendancy of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to an unexpected second place, has rightly left both the Conservatives and Labour disorientated. It wouldn’t be surprising if an all too gleeful Nigel Farage haunts David Cameron at night. Indeed, even Ed Miliband, whose party leads by over ten points in the polls currently, has recently been flirting with some uncharacteristic policies, most notably an in/out referendum on the EU.

If you believe Nigel Farage – and considering his charisma, it would be easy to – it seems like UKIP could become the new king makers of British politics. This assertion has given a new found confidence to UKIP activists. Indeed, talk of ‘quick action’ on immigration and the inhuman
‘Eurocrats’ in Brussels has made the Purple Peril a formidable force to reckon with.

Conventional wisdom from the strategy hacks at Tory HQ suggest the UKIP surge is the inevitable product of Cameron’s modernisation push. As Colonel Bob Stewart, Tory backbencher commented to the BBC, there was “widespread dismay among the rank-and-file about the direction the party was taking and warned the leadership could not afford to ignore their concerns”. To such people, Cameron needs to scrap the fluffy, light touch liberalism that he has attempted to adopt if he’s to win come 2015.

The problem with this analysis is that it rejects what by-elections actually represent. In fact, if Cameron steps back from the advice of strategists and rebel backbenchers he’ll find that UKIP aren’t as threatening as he’d imagine.

Rather, it might be worth Mr Cameron watching the final episode of Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror series, which aired a few days before the Eastleigh by-election on Channel Four. In the episode, named “The Waldo Moment,” a similar by-election takes place in a fictional town.

Deemed a ‘safe’ Tory seat, the usual candidates crop up: Liam Monroe, the inevitable Conservative winner, Gwendolynn Harris, the career politician and some Lib Dem who no one knows. The twist is that a fourth candidate, Waldo, the foul mouthed, computerised blue bear also runs, throwing a spanner into the inner workings of the political machine.

Waldo’s crude observations of his political opponents immediately make him popular with the electorate. He easily surpasses the Liberal Democrat, and after an appearance at a Question Time-style debate, crushes the Labour candidate too. This isn’t done through better policies (of which Waldo actually says nothing on) but rather in the way he exposes his opponents – as career politicians who believe they’re too good for the public.

Indeed, Waldo’s strengths are not in his capacity to become a better political representative, but a perfect characterisation of ‘anti-politics’.

This isn't too off the mark for UKIP. As Lord Ashcroft’s polling results showed, 83 per cent of those voting UKIP did so as a protest vote. 40 per cent of these voters did so in a practice of tactical voting, while one third of these voters suggested they were likely to vote Tory come 2015. And while some did vote UKIP based on policy, these issues mainly focused on the issue of immigration, rather than the party’s flagship issue, the EU.

What should be noted, particularly to UKIP activists, is that recent successes in by-elections are not indicative of cultural revolution. Rather, UKIP are being used as a protest vote against main political parties.

Furthermore, while Mr. Farage may like to see himself as somewhat of a moral crusader, he probably represents a public sentiment of ‘anti-politics.’ Yet, even if this analysis is wrong, and UKIP will see large gains in 2015, Mr. Farage should heed some lessons from the Lib Dems. By-elections are one thing, but general elections are far fiercer. He’d do well to drop the showmanship, and create some long term policies.

The MAdness of it all

 

To all freshers, there will come a time in your final year, probably during the spring term, where you’ll go through an existential crisis.

Like many of my colleagues, you might try to hide from it by seeking refuge in the confines of the library, in the belief that industrious note-taking will drown out those annoying thoughts of looming unemployment. The strategic amongst you might attempt to avoid the crisis through the pursuit of vocational extra curriculars, hoping that your sudden attendance at Law Society meetings might deceive the gatekeepers at Clifford Chance. And if you’d rather not be haunted by the prospect of moving back to your sleepy home town, cheap vodka is always good for temporary amnesia.

There is of course another route of escape from the brutalities of the real world without the hangovers: the master’s degree.

Indeed, for those of us who were seduced by the charms of Romantic literature and Medieval History in secondary school, only to be deemed incapable management consultants by the grand wizards at Ernst & Young, the option of a masters certainly seems a lucrative distraction.

But there’s a catch. For the luxury of an extra year in the bubble, you’ll be looking to pay on average anywhere from £5,000 to £18,000 on tuition alone. Though it might be easier to get into the ultra-competitive universities, ‘brands’ like the London School of Economics (LSE), herald tuition fees of over £20,000 for their flagship courses. And if you aren’t one of the lucky few to receive research funding, most of this is likely to come out of your own pocket.

Unlike protests against undergraduate fees, the extortionate cost of MA courses has widely gone unchallenged. Rather, many prospective postgraduates justify the costs on the basis that brand strength will increase their chances of employment. Others, despite acknowledging that pursuing this route will add to their student debt, hope that a masters will provide a better means to differentiate themselves within an extremely saturated job market. As a postgraduate recruiter once told me, “These days, it’s next to impossible to secure a job with a BA. Just like in Europe, MAs are becoming a necessity”.

If this assertion holds true, then we truly live in a rather sorry state of affairs. Rather than a university education empowering students, the necessity of advanced degrees seem to illustrate how the higher education industry has profited from student vulnerability. Far from a platform of social mobility, course fees and maintenance costs price out those students without the access to funds. Master’s degrees are no longer predicated on academic advancement, but rather utilised as a ‘cash cow’, in which university administrations can plug funding gaps and cutbacks. Such an industry capitalises on the fears of anxious students, manipulated into believing that only through the pursuit of a masters qualification can they even stand a chance of securing a career outside of Poundland.

This isn’t to say that master’s degrees are entirely worthless, but for postgraduate recruiters to sell their courses on the basis that it ‘enhances’ graduate employment prospects are disingenuous. Such a proposition ignores the higher value most employers place on work experience and internships. Students applying for an MA should do so on the basis of their passion for learning, rather than the fear that an absence of two extra letters on their CV will keep them stuck stacking shelves.