Was there something more substantial in the PM’s big speech for the sector?
Despite the theme of the Labour Party Conference, I don't feel like anyone was holding out reasonable hope (again) for anything substantial for higher education.
Sure, you could tick off the stock phrases as they rolled by: a school system "overly focused on the university route and not enough on technical education," start-ups and scale ups that would pour out of our "world-class universities," and the current favorite rhetoric around young people "trying to save but looking at a student loan which never gets any smaller."
In one of the many passages about his late father, Burnham noted that "he could have gone to university himself, but times were different then so it wasn’t an option," but he voted Labour "so his sons could do that". This, at least, reflect the widespread reality that many parents do aspire that their children will go to university as a part of a pathway to a fulfilling career.
But none of these phrases led into a policy response of any sort.
Outside of the sector, one of many eye-catching moments was an admission that "Brexit hasn't given us control." He was clear that Brexit hadn't done much else of benefit either, so he promised to "to lay out to the country the different options are for Britain’s long-term relationship with our European partners."
This isn't new ground for this Labour government. Burnham's predecessor Keir Starmer sought a post-Brexit across a range of economic areas; he was neither blind to the problems caused as a result of our national decision to leave the EU, nor to the necessity of a carefully negotiated deal with the EU in seeing a better way forward.
The EU, for its part, had one clear demand. The restoration of home tuition fees in the UK for students based in the EU. This was the way young people from the EU paid for UK university courses prior to 2021 - but for the past 5 cycles they have needed to pay the far higher fees charged to the rest of the world. It is not too much of a stretch to say that movement on this issue is a prerequisite for any movement on our relationship with the EU.
The 2021 change cut EU recruitment in half at a stroke - there has been no meaningful recovery since that point. A UCAS undergraduate intake of around 10,000 floats at around 5,000, and it is not unreasonable to think it is the cost that is stemming the demand. Reversing the decision would be expensive - but not the £0.5bn that was suggested by the Russell Group last time this was debated. EU students would become OfS fundable (so SPG funding would be allocated on their behalf). Universities would have to swallow a decline in international fee income (but remember that the total number of EU students is lower than the number of students from China, or the number of students from India and Pakistan together). About a third of full-time first degree EU domiciled students end up at the Russell group, the remainder are spread fairly evenly around the sector.
It also strikes me that the prerequisite nature of this likely EU red line would mean that a review of how higher education is funded in Engalnd could make the move look cheaper, and also offer something to the many who are demanding action on graduate repayments. Our best hope of a review of higher education funding before the next election (the plan for closer unity with the EU would be a part of the next manifesto) may be the full renegotiation that Burnham signaled at Labour's 2026 conference.