When I was growing up the use of bad language was relatively liberal, however there was one expression that my granny would never tolerate: ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA). Only recently did I discover the origins of her deep rooted dislike for the phrase. As with most of my granny’s strongly held convictions the root was the Thatcherite agenda of the 1980’s.

Whenever the Thatcher government had run out of arguments in order support an unpopular policy it would return to the same old same old argument, of TINA! From the testing of the poll tax in Scotland, to flooding the pits, or even the sinking of the Belgrano, the argument was always the same - TINA. As a public sector worker my Granny was on the wrong end of many a TINA, and so now refuses to acknowledge it as an argument. She says that if the government believed it was fair to only impose the poll tax on Labour voting Scotland it should have said it, and if the Government believed it was fair to flood coal mining pits following the miners strike, it should have said so, and if it made military and strategic sense to sink the Belgrano then that argument should have been made. Instead TINA was used as a way to prevent alternative suggestions from being heard.

To many the markets agenda that has prevailed post Thatcher has been built on the view that ‘There Is No Alternative’ to the use of markets to deal with issues of public sector funding and quality.

Which brings me meandering along towards my point, which is this: I believe we have witnessed a turning point in the use of TINA, with the government’s U-turn over the privatization of the post office. Initially we had a perfect TINA - the minister used the exact phrase, ‘there is no alternative’. As the funding model for individual post offices was not working, the market was deemed the only alternative. Subsequently an alternative funding model was devised by the New Economic Foundation whereby the post offices could take on some banking functions. This week we witnessed the government adopting the proposals and agreeing in principle to a ‘people’s bank’.

The parallels are striking! In our campaign we are already hearing some vice chancellors and some politicians (from all sides) stating ‘There Is No Alternative’ to increasing top up fees. So we must prepare ourselves. To quote Kanye West, our campaign must be “Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger”, so that we can influence the debate, and shape the agenda like never before.

My challenge to the government (and all political parties) is this: let the debate happen, don’t hide behind TINA. If you believe in the use of the markets in education then say that, but if you don’t, when a better alternative funding model is presented, adopt it.

This is a pivotal time for the debate over the use of markets in public services, and we are lucky as a National Union that one of our biggest issues will be at the very centre of that debate. Lets make the most of it. Lets contribute towards the death of TINA!

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/edmarsh/276103.aspx