George Osborne claimed that increasing university fees in 2010 did not deter less well-off students from attending university, so he abolished maintenance grants. However, the author argues this is a contradiction, as the grants previously helped less well-off students afford university. Furthermore, Osborne's new plans to replace state schools with subsidized private academies raises legal questions and continues his pattern of duplicitous policies favoring privatization over public services.

1. In the first Tory budget, May 2015, the Chancellor, George Osborne, made a
statement that went something like this:
“The University sector is one of the jewels in the crown of the British economy.
And when we introduced the new fee structure in 2010, many opposed this
because, so they claimed, it would deny university education to the less well off.
Now I am pleased to report that these concerns are shown to be completely
unfounded. I can announce that students from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds have increased in numbers since 2010 by no less than 30%! So
therefore I am abolishing the maintenance grant which has no longer any
sustainable purpose in supporting those less-well-off students.”
Can anyone spot the contradiction here? ‘Less well off’ students have not been
put off by the hike in fees therefore I can abolish the grant that enabled them to
consider a university education in the first place. Think about it. This is sleight of
hand for which Osborne is famous. He makes a downright discriminatory remark
sound like a reasonable thing to say given that students from less-well-off
backgrounds (what an awful phrase) will go to university no matter what. You
cad! And that’s me being very polite.
Now, after the budget in March 2016, we have the full blown truth of this
duplicity: plucked from thin air, State education provided at a local level is to be
abolished in favour of ‘academies’ which are public private partnership
subsidized by the government. Is this legal?