If you live in London and are in the habit of keeping abreast of the news, the city does everything it can to prevent you from doing it in the most traditional and, frankly, the best way possible – reading a standard national daily. And this is not just London, but increasingly across the U.K. and the West. But nowhere is it as disheartening and reprehensible as in the U.K., given our long-standing culture of newspaper reading and being home to some of the most respected broadsheets in the world. In recent years, residents of this country have been systematically deprived of free access to newspapers, not least by institutions that are meant to be guardians of intellectual fulfilment and nourishment of people – our universities and libraries.
When I took up membership at a public library in the borough of Bermondsey a couple of years ago, the staff told me they do not hold print copies of newspapers because they had halted deliveries during Covid in order to minimise the spread of the virus. It was a plausible explanation, I suppose, back when we were not fully sure that we had well and truly seen off the pandemic. But two years later, as fear of Covid has receded into history, the library in question has still not restored deliveries of newspapers. And it isn’t the only one not to do so. Many other public libraries in other boroughs give me the same reason for the absence of newspapers to this day.
Two years since the end of Covid, libraries across the city refuse to provide their patrons with access to the most basic offering of any library and cite Covid as the reason. At this stage, you know it is not a reason anymore. It is a pretext. A convenient excuse to explain away their reluctance to buy the newspapers for their users. Because when you ask them why they have still not resumed their subscription, they have no answer. “You can read them online,” they say. But what if I do not want to read them online? A library should give me a choice to read the newspaper digitally or in print.
And many people who support the trend of the decline of print newspapers tend to speak of getting the news online as though it were the same thing. That it is patently not is well-established, as is the superiority of print reading. As Mary Wakefield wrote in the Spectator recently: “You pick up a paper in pursuit of news and in the hope of understanding it… No one picks up their iPhone to grapple with complex geopolitical truths. We prod at them when we’re bored, like lab rats looking for treats.” Even reading the so-called e-versions of the standard dailies, I would venture, is not an acceptable substitute. Because picking up a smartphone or a laptop means that you are exposed to a myriad potential distractions on the internet that want your attention and won’t allow you a moment of in-depth concentration.
It is also argued that most people of this generation do not like to read newspapers in print and prefer to get their news online or on intellectually edifying sites like Instagram. And therefore, the libraries are merely adapting to the new status quo. It may well be true that younger people favour the internet to keep up to date, but that is no justification to do away with print newspapers completely. Firstly, the harmful implications of consulting social media for news is well-documented and public institutions have a moral duty to provide access to trustworthy sources of news. Just because people nowadays resort to social media excessively doesn’t mean that libraries and universities can wash their hands of their duty to provide access to more reliable platforms.
Secondly, while many young people these days do indeed get their news online, there is still a minority of us who favour print. And it behoves public institutions to cater to all of its audience, not just those who demand less of its resources. Finally, many of these centres are happy to see off print not because that is what people seem to want, but instead because the trend panders to their own lethargy. It is easier and cheaper for the libraries not to subscribe to print editions. Claiming that people are not into print anymore is a ready-made excuse for cancelling the subscriptions indefinitely. It is important to recognise, therefore, that such institutions are not innocuous actors merely adapting to changed circumstances, but are agents actively promoting the extinction of print for their own convenience.
And such agents include not just public libraries, but also universities, offices and other places that traditionally provided daily newspapers. In some cases, the quest to get one’s hands on a broadsheet is beset by incredible levels of absurdity. When I was a student at the London School of Economics (LSE) not too long ago, the library did not contain a print edition of the Financial Times newspaper. Why not? “Not since Covid.” Surprise surprise. And it remains that way. A PhD student studying economics in a famous university in Scotland laments that her library did not contain a copy of the FT, nor does her department, and was asked to get approval from her supervisor, which was denied. Because there was no justification why she wanted a print edition when the digital one was available. It is the same university that spent a pretty penny on erecting a highly modern academic building fitted with gender-neutral toilets.
In the eyes of many university administrations it seems as though students who prefer print are getting ideas beyond their station. How dare they desire what they are not entitled to! Another friend who works in the finance industry was told by his company that it has cancelled its subscription to a print business paper because its new essential supplies provider does not do newspapers. There is a queue for a digital subscription, however, would he like to join it?
This phenomenon is rather unique to the West. I found an institutional bias in favour of digital in other European countries including Germany and Ireland. But in places such as India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, it would be laughable for a library or an office not to hold copies of all the standard newspapers. I recall the feeding frenzy I found myself in with some fellow students as we scrambled to get hold of the Hindu in the college library when I attended university in Delhi. It is ironic given Britain’s role in introducing modern-day journalism in these countries.
The erosion of print remains a pressing concern for the media industry, driving many to shift online and expand their digital footprint. While they must do it to attract an audience and stay relevant in a digital-savvy world, institutions have a responsibility to protect and promote print not just as a reliable source of information, but as a medium that does not impair the human ability to concentrate. To devote deep attention to something is a sublime human activity that the internet can cripple. Print newspapers encourage that activity and it must not be sacrificed at the altar of digital and social media. Institutions like libraries and universities whose task it is to promote intellectual enlightenment have failed us all in this regard and have connived to hasten the death of print.
Aditya is a writer with a Master’s in International Relations from the London School of Economics (LSE). Find him on on X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Expurgated version of the headline
“Labour Hasn’t Done its Homework”
The policy may well be “crackers” but it plays well to the audience Labour plays to. But I don’t much care whether it is crackers or not, I just think it’s wrong because it is a politically motivated attack on people exercising their free choice to opt out of the state indoctrination camps.
Well said – this is the heart of the matter. Not only do private schools enable people to escape indoctrination, they supply employment to a tranche of the educated class – like the author – who in one way, shape or form object to overweening state power. The left longs to impoverish such heretics. Finally, as bastions of high standards and free thought (now somewhat compromised), private institutions doubly expose the abysmal failure of the comprehensive dump. With Stalinist tenacity and no care at all for real world fallout, the malignant, oppressive goons of the left want to stamp them out. The darkness, in matters of schooling, policing, health, banking, foreign policy (the long kow-tow to red Beijing), the church, the media, the arts, journalism, has never been more Stygian in my lifetime.
Indeed – I would not want to work in any school (and few schools would have me, as I am Literally Hitler) but if I had to then an independent school could be an option, if it had the right leadership.
I went to a local boys’ private school as a day pupil back in the 1980s on an assisted place. My parents were both working and, with a lot of sacrifices, were able to send my brother and me to the school. When my Mum lost her job at our local TV station as a result of the 1990s’ ITV franchise war closing many TV stations around the country, I left the school because I wasn’t happy there and restarted my A Levels at a further education college. My brother left when he finished his GCSEs.
Now, there’d be no possibility of people like my brother and me ever going there in the first place. A VAT increase would wipe out even more pupils and close many. I can imagine all the schools are looking to the super-rich from abroad, the same as the universities.
From what I understand, my old school is a co-educational school now – I haven’t been involved with old boys’ clubs or anything. It’s likely woke as hell, doing everything the leftists want.
My conclusion is that the wealthy leftists who now run much of the left in this country want these schools for their children and no one else’s. We’re in the odd situation here – one that’s happened with Democrats in the USA – where the left are run by the super-rich and the right of centre, usually self-made, are less rich.
I live in an area of north London where the private schools have been taking unfair advantage of their privileged tax status in engaging in extremely expensive luxurious development projects to the detriment of their resident neighbours. These projects are driven by the headmater wanting to create a legacy but primarily in trying to cater nowadays for an extremely wealthy international clientele rather than as used to be local children. Private schools and universities too need to go back to looking after the locals not foreigners, otherwise privately educated people like me, will also question why they should be having these tax advantages.
Well that may be the case for the schools you have in mind and possibly others, but it’s surely not the case for all of them. You could also argue that people sending their kids to those schools are saving taxpayer’s money so why not reward that in part?
I think universities are a different case as they are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer because student “loans” are not loans and are underwritten by the government. You could also argue that charging foreign students/pupils lots of money subsidises it for the locals.
Why are they not loans? Interest is charged and they are repayable (unless you can’t afford to repay them) – you can’t just walk away from them if you earn sufficient income over many years.
It’s a graduate tax, not a loan. What other “loan” products are simply forgiven if you “don’t have enough money” to pay them back? When you take out a loan, both parties risk something – the lender risks not getting their money back, the lendee risks a CCJ and ruined credit score, or bankrupty. Students loans are risk-free for students and universities. The effect has been to subsidise a huge increase in people going to university partly from those who graduate and earn decent money, which I don’t think completely unreasonable, and partly from general taxation because such a high % of “loans” are likely to be defaulted on.
I could equally ask what tax are you aware of that is calculated by reference to a principal advanced and and annual interest rate. It feels like a blend of the two, possibly.
None that I am aware of but calling it a loan was political theatre so they had to dress it up, though to be fair it’s capped in terms of the total amount paid which is unusual for a tax
I’ve always found the charitable status odd. Are the ‘fees’ in effect a donation to a charity? The private school I went to had a lot of rundown areas, substandard desks and the lockers were rusty, battered and falling to bits. When I was at the end of my first year there, loads of posh new lockers got put in the entry hall, covered in plastic wrapping. Great! I thought. We’ll have those next year. I forgot about them over the summer holiday.
In the sixth form, the school’s fortunes had turned somewhat. The yearly intake had dropped by 25 per cent and half my year group quit after GCSEs to do A Levels elsewhere, which was a shock to the school. I left at the end of the first year sixth form. One time, I was in the school basement in the only year I did in the sixth form, helping a porter with move some tables. Those hundreds of ‘new’ lockers were all down there, still wrapped in plastic. They’d used the money from the likes of my parents and the state to buy new gear to keep for future generations, long after I was gone. I felt somewhat aggrieved about that, given the state of the lockers being used the whole time I was there. The school went fully co-ed a couple of years after I left. When I was there the sixth form, the school had quite a few girls, but they managed a paltry eight when I was in the sixth form.
Apparently lots of ex-pupils still hang out together at the school’s old boys’ club. I couldn’t imagine doing that. I got the hell out of there and never went back. Never really saw anyone from there again unless I bumped into them by chance. Lots went to the further education college. I had nothing in common with them anyway, being an assisted place pupil.
That said, parents who use private health and send their kids to private school should be able to get significant tax relief for taking the burden off the state system.
I think the schools qualify as “charities” if they meet certain criteria, such as offering x assisted places or having their pupils doing local community work (helping old folks, teaching reading in schools, etc) or allowing local residents access to sports facilities.
Hello, Chips here, there are not “tax advantages”. There would be “tax advantages” if other people were paying for Education and it was taxed. But they aren’t. 93pc of the market is provided via a state-run, state-funded near monopoly. The VAT-free status of top schools is not far off equivalent, per pupil, to the tax-paid expense in the state sector.
Nobody pays VAT on education. Some people get their education for “free”. Those that pay handsomely are not using the “free” education they are entitled to, they are instead paying quantities of income tax etc to buy education a second time.
I’m pretty convinced that nobody in Labour cares about arcane stuff like second- and third-order effects. They simply need money. And hence, they’re looking for a way to raise indirect taxes people cannot avoid by clever tax evasion schemes. They’re going to raise whatever can be raised and find then out what the outcome will be.
Indeed – and if they can do that by taxing the “rich” then so much the better.
And ‘rich’, in the left’s view, means ‘middle class’. ‘Super rich’ don’t count as they’re the Labour donor class.
Indeed. Most people I know are middle class but are well off enough to live in areas with reasonable state schools, so they will be happy to continue voting Labour, as most of them already do.
There is the conundrum in Labour. From their ivory towers, their six figure salaries and plush lives, I doubt if any Labour politician even knows any poor people anymore (Maybe a cleaner or their gardener). They have no connection with the granite of our nation and cannot grasp the obvious truth that the ONLY people who are taxed in our country are the rich. The only way to make more taxes is to MAKE MORE PEOPLE RICH.
Its the age old story of the guy driving past the bus queue in his Rolls Royce. The Free marketeer will say. ‘Gosh, If I work hard, I might have one of those one day’, and the Socialist will say ‘Look at him, Why doesn’t he catch the bus like us.?’. C’est la vie comrade.
They have no connection with the granite of our nation and cannot grasp the obvious truth that the ONLY people who are taxed in our country are the rich.
That’s obviously wrong because there are plenty of indirect taxes on all kinds of things (and probably second-order indirect taxes, too, eg, assuming someone buys a beer, that someone pays alcohol duty on the price of the beer and VAT on the price of the beer plus alcohol duty — at least, that’s how it works in Germany) and these not only affect everyone, they also affect poorer people disproportionally because these have to spend a higher part of their income which is thus subject to such taxation.
I’m also pretty certain that I’m being taxed and while I earn enough to make savings, I’m far from rich. Rich people own property and can thus make handy amounts of money without working (I’m meanwhile paying £1000 per month as rent for a pretty run-down and chronically mould-infested flat which cannot really be heated in winter, at least not to temperatures people apparently take for granted, ie, something in excess of 15 degrees centigrade [probably less — occasional chattering of teeth on colder days is a regular occurence]).
Fair comment. I had income taxes in my mind when I was typing
.
Hello, Chips here. If Labour don’t care about the effects, which are not “arcane” they are the reality of people’s lives, they must not form a government.
I wonder what is your point….do you agree with me they won’t raise any tax, and will probably cost more, therefore it’s a terrible policy? Or do you instead believe it will raise £1.5bn or whatever, in which case please explain why my reasoning is wrong? Or do you think it’s OK for Labour to wage class war and never mind the cost….that harming posh people is a pleasure not a chore, even if poor people suffer in the process?
As I have done my best to explain in the article, it’s not a particularly “clever” tax evasion, to withdraw kids from private school, then quit work (or go part-time, or retire early); and it certainly isn’t “clever” if schools are forced to cut costs and in the process of destroying taxable activity, less tax is raised.
That’s genrally the route that the ‘politics of envy’ follow. My only concern would be that those hypocritical members of the Labour party, who decry private education but ensure their childen get the benefot from it, will have to get the same crap state education as us proles get.
The kind of people affected by this policy are not stupid.
There are many options open to them.
Many of their older offspring already now avoid swingeing university fees by studying overseas for a great deal less.
It is no surprise that the private tutor market is booming. By the way, what is the difference between private tutors and private education?
It is also no surprise that property prices continue to boom in the vicinity of the many outstanding state schools that do exist.
But the continued obsession of the labour party to reduce choice, diversity, in this country is a reaffirmation of their commitment to totalitarian socialism.
Therein lies the Conservative route back to power if only they were not so hopelessly dim……
Absolutely. There are burgeoning “British private schools” in Portugal at half the price. South Africa is an option too. As is home school.
Which is all part of why there is no money in this policy.
Many parents scarpe by to fund private education. If the cost increases they may send their children to state schools or they may reduce their expenditure on other things. The latter would reduce the tax take from (eg) home improvements, meals out and holiday spending.
Just as with private medical choice, this would make private choices more elitist which would no doubt be welcomed by Pimlico Plumbers, Blair and others who have managed to geta great deal of money for doing not much.
That’s a good point. In the UK private schools tend to be thought of as something for rich families but in low-income countries even very poor parents send their children to private schools, run on a shoestring budget, just to get better tuition. In the UK there may be at least some private schools that are not targeted at wealthy families – out of hours supplementary schools for cultural minorities come to mind.
These days, going to an elite private school makes it very difficult to get into Oxford or Cambridge, not that one would want to.
Labour fail to do their due diligence once again
it is not because we have money we send our children to independent schools but because the safeguarding failures and harmful curriculum within the state system.
Remove the VAT relief and those that are able to will sacrifice even more than they already have to keep their precious children from the State sponsored bricks and mortar schools. For those that would be unable to meet the cost increase we’ll not roll over and send them back to the cesspits but would find an alternative way be that online schooling, home-ed etc.
Thank you, I agree
Ironically, all that Labour’s policy will achieve is the closure of a large number of “lower grade” and therefore lower priced private schools ….. leaving a small number of extremely expensive, elitist institutions – stuffed with the children of the mega-wealthy.
That smaller number of extremely expensive, elitist institutions will continue to dominate the governmental (in the widest sense) Old Boy’s Club which is destroying this country …. with an even more concentrated Group-Think of individuals completely detached from the lives/life experiences of the vast majority of the population.
And State schools, which will have to cope with an influx of pupils forced out of the private sector, won’t have their standards raised; they’ll be lowered as the former private pupils will be a small minority. It is quite likely that the lefty teachers will actively discriminate against them.
State Education – already pretty bad – will sink to the levels of the Socialist NHS.
Thank you, yes I also doubt that State Schools are capable of absorbing an influx. Many have physical constraints. They don’t have the organisation in place. And the inflx won’t be evenly spread, it will be some schools with dozens or hundreds of ex-private school children at the gates.
Even if there was extra money (which there won’t be) the expansion programme will need to be driven by LEAs, and there’s no way they can deliver anything without swallowing half the expense in their own bureaucracy
There are at least two unintended tax consequence here.
My own observation over many years is that a significant subsidy to school fees is made by grandparents. If, in order to meet increased fees, grandparents increase that subsidy then the likelihood is that Inheritance Tax down the line will be reduced – assuming IHT still exists of course.
In addition, I’d like to see the exact calculations on an example school. VAT is a complex tax and having done some work in the past on VAT exemption for education, the outcomes of the application of VAT on fees and the consequential ability to reclaim VAT on purchases will create some unexpected consequences and anomalies, with no two schools being the same.
At the very least I would expect a blanket application of VAT on school fees to trigger a large raft of complex, expensive and time-consuming tax tribunal cases as each school makes a case for its own VAT treatment.
As always, Labour is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Outside of the super rich, us ordinary folks choose a private education for our kids because the state system is genrally poor. If the state system was improved, the demand for private education would fall away.But that will never happen as the Labour supporting teaching unions don’t believe in excellenc, or even improving people.