Brit universities told to keep up the world-class research with less cash Despite ambitions to position itself as a science and tech superpower, the UK has cut the budget for the government body responsible for university research funding. As the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) announced nearly £14 billion ($18 billion) of R&D funding for sciences, green energy, and space " …
Meanwhile various universities are looking at massive job cuts due to underfunding, for example my local university double-decimating at around 20% staff cuts with a £35M deficit:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2dep4522w8o
Edinburgh University is looking to "save" £140M with broadly similar issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrz0nxdlrxo
Cardiff was one of the first to announce similar, not getting better:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k5n0k101lo
There is a need for many of the students, for example Cardiff does a lot of nursing and Dundee has the dental teaching hospital, both desperately needed by the NHS but due to suffer cuts nevertheless.
And the terrible thing is that a 10% or 20% cut can decimate a university and the stream of (badly needed) proper qualiity graduate students it produces, but as far as gov't spending across the board is concerned it doesn't even move the needle. Much more effective savings could be achieved in other areas where they will do far less damage.
This is a typical case of being penny-wise but pound-foolish. Perhaps those deciding on the funding of education should be better educated themselves.
The UK government have blocked foreign, especially Chinese students and capped fees. Foreign students subsidised the locals. This was game over for Uni budgets. There are cuts across the board. Students, courses, tutors, assets. The nationalist assault on foreign students will relegate the entire sector and some unis will close. The manipulative focus on STEM is also a disaster. Non-STEM courses cost less and contribute hugely to the economy of the UK. STEM students are graduating into a sector that is sacking them and replacing them with AI.
I guess the UKG believe that they need a few generations of unqualified people to replace migrant workers, so are taking an axe to the UK uni sector. This will not end well. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face. The same stupidity that gave us Brexit. It seems that UK politicians are incompetent, corrupt, or both. And not just the Tories.
"The UK government have blocked foreign, especially Chinese students and capped fees. Foreign students subsidised the locals."
Where did you get that from? Universities take massive numbers of foreign students, especially Chinese ones at the 'better' universities, and they pay way higher fees.
> Where did you get that from?
Read the articles referenced
Plus almost any on cement made by a UK university about its funding situation with respect to student numbers
Universities take took massive numbers of foreign students, because that was the model the Conservatives set up; ie. The foreign students s subsidised the home students. then with Brexit et al the Conservatives went all anti foreign students due to immigration concerns, but the foreign students were simply exploiting the system the Conservatives had set up…
"...reap the benefit of all those bright young things..."
Overseas students are very important to university admissions these days, but once they graduate they tend to eff off back where they came from, taking all their new knowledge with them.
With my UK head on, I think we have to find some way of educating and keeping indigenous grads in UK, lest the 'Brain Drain' becomes irreversible. There has to be a sensible mix of subjects as well...we can't exists with everyone graduating in Hospitality or Golf Course Management *.
As for 'poaching' from top-tier/prestigious institutions in the US....good luck with that! There are only so many places available in the Russel group anyway..
* For example. I'm not singling these qualifications out or disparaging them, despite my personal STEM bias :-)
>” Overseas students are very important to university admissions these days, but once they graduate they tend to eff off back where they came from, taking all their new knowledge with them.”
That is the purpose of education, those students go back and hopefully have a good opinion of the UK and so will encourage more to come to be educated and if in positions of power, award business contracts to UK companies. From an industry viewpoint we need to get food at creaming off talent for our own industry.
"Despite ambitions to position itself as a science and tech superpower, the UK has cut the budget for the government body responsible for university research funding."
A basic misunderstanding here. All a government has to do is announce that the country will be a world leader in science, tech, AI and a few other things that have slipped my mind at the moment it will happen. It certainly won't need such inconveniences as investment. Same with decreeing net zero and EV adoption. So cutting budget won't make any difference and that "despite" is entirely misplaced.
"It certainly won't need such inconveniences as investment. Same with decreeing net zero and EV adoption."
Erm, most of the net zero "investment" is paid directly by energy bill payers or car buyers. Government policy dictates what the car companies can sell you, and that's where the "plucked from an MP's arse" fines of £15k per non-EV car sold (over set limits) comes from. In the energy sector they've already shut down all the coal plant, and now they're busy offering big banks risk-free, guaranteed return investments in renewables. No government money is spent on that, they are choosing how they'll spend your money. So far around half a trillion quid has been wasted by the UK government on electricity sector programmes that they've required, but we're on the hook for. And then they tell you that it's all about markets.
"Thought y'all supposedly voted the right wing nutjobs out?"
This has nothing to do with ideology, the money is running out. 8.2% of government spending expected to be on debt interest. The 'green madness' increased regulation and energy costs and yet we still want all the nice things. The covid response was very expensive, incredibly so. You can believe the covid response was right (lockdowns and furlough, etc) but must still recognise we need to pay for it, it was all borrowing.
@AC
"If tax were restructured to tax people hoarding accumulated wealth which they never spend instead of taxing what remains of the middle class, the problem would be resolved overnight."
How do they hoard it? If they lock it in a vault it loses value. If they put it in a bank it is invested out into the economy. If it is in the stock market or venture funds or whatever then it is invested in the economy making people in the country richer.
The rich will just leave or at least move their money away. Then you dont get to use it. The middle class have to be taxed to support the growing demands for more tax money.
How do they hoard it?
Well, the money is in all those empty new flats in London, land, houses, shares, just about anything.
The assets are held in an overseas trust, or the owner is tax resident abroad.
Tax is minimised in ways that are not open to uk taxpaying residents.
Even if someone v.v. rich is uk tax resident, the rate of tax paid on income is bigger than the rate of tax paid on capital gains / dividends.
Naturally - like water - no moral comment - money flows to things that tend to be taxed less.
Things will not change until the tax rate levied on wealth >= tax rate on earned income.
"Tax is minimised in ways that are not open to uk taxpaying residents."
Ah, but the dumb plebs hard working populous are lead to believe that if they toil very, very, hard then they too will ascend. And have access to wealth and the secret cheat codes of lower taxation.
Oh we do laugh at these poor fools! There are some on these very pages, would you believe?
@a pressbutton
"Well, the money is in all those empty new flats in London, land, houses, shares, just about anything."
Shares being the quick one- that is investing in the businesses that employ people and increase productivity. If they buy property they have to pay to maintain the property and it isnt an asset if it just sits into dilapidation. If it is rented out then it is providing shelter for someone in the country too. Land again needs maintenance.
To buy them requires the UK economy gets money by selling them and ongoing maintenance which also gets taxed. If these 'rich' people aint even here they are giving us money and dont even use what they pay us for.
"The assets are held in an overseas trust, or the owner is tax resident abroad."
Who cares if they are overseas? If we talk about shares they are held worldwide with differing tax regimes. If its buildings/land they pay us for and pay us in maintenance.
"Even if someone v.v. rich is uk tax resident, the rate of tax paid on income is bigger than the rate of tax paid on capital gains / dividends."
Good. Because we want people to invest into our economy, it makes us all richer.
"Naturally - like water - no moral comment - money flows to things that tend to be taxed less."
Yes. So if we want money to flow here you have just described what we need to do to get it. As the saying goes- I have never been employed by a poor person.
"Things will not change until the tax rate levied on wealth >= tax rate on earned income."
And in that world you will own nothing, have nothing and be grateful for the crusts of those who keep it for themselves.
The top 1% of earners contribute 29% of the tax take. The top 10% contribute 59%, and you don't have to be on a ridiculous salary to be in that 10% category: the threshold is about £75K. Since Labour came to power, 11000 from that top 1% have left the UK, leading to a tax loss equivalent to 500,000 average tax payers. If a wealth tax is introduced then you can say goodbye to the rest of them - they are the most mobile people in the economy. Who you will hit is all those who have an expensive property, bought 50 years ago or perhaps inherited, but very little income, who will then have to sell it to pay the tax on its value.
>11000 from that top 1% have left the UK, leading to a tax loss equivalent to 500,000 average tax payers.
[citation needed] it wasn't an average cross-section of £75K earning doctors/dentists/tube-drivers that left the country. It was Russian/indian billionaires that moved their official residence to Portugal/BVI/Narnia and these people paid no tax.
The top 1% earners might contribute 29%tax, but the top 0.0001% contribute bugger-all
Some good songs tho - "Taxman" by the beatles
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman
And you were right - at a ***96%*** marginal rate not many left.
England is not a restaurant you dine at, complain about the bill, and then piss off into the night.
" you will hit is all those who have an expensive property, bought 50 years ago or perhaps inherited, but very little income, who will then have to sell it to pay the tax on its value."
And then become homeless because they cannot afford to buy another property with the money left over after tax. And they certainly can't rent, what with having to pay increasing rent on a fixed income.
for sciences, green energy, and space
None of these will grow the economy, but under these wooly terms you can easily sneak in some esoteric R&D and extract monies for mates.
Where is funding for real world projects that actual companies struggle with? (sky rocketing rents, cost of living, brain drain, taxes)
> Where is funding for real world projects that actual companies struggle with?
Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the actual companies?
But maybe you're right -- shuffling bits in FinTech to make imaginary money and hiring and firing thousands of workers at the whims of Wall Street outweighs research in sciences, green energy, and space.
I mean what has research ever done for us, other than create life saving medicines, clean solar energy, and satellite systems that help us predict the weather and communicate with one another virtually instantly?
Oh, and the aqueduct1.
_________________
Wouldn't that be the responsibility of the actual companies?
In ideal world yes, but we have something like taxes that are used to redistribute wealth, so that politicians and civil servants have a taste of power. You know things get over taxed, so you have to come up with grants system and whatnot, where also some of those administering it can make some money on the side.
Typically the "fake" companies, will avoid paying taxes, grease where it needs to be greased and get tax payer money to do nobody knows what.
and we have no growth, productivity and prospects.
> In ideal world yes, but we have something like taxes that are used to redistribute wealth. . .
Uh, well, no, not really.
We have taxes in order to have government, which is charged with providing all sorts of services that make the world liveable, like roads, bridges, airports, air traffic control, and people to keep an eye on all of that infrastructure so that it doesn't fall completely to pieces.
Some countries, like the UK, even provide health care to their citizens, which makes for a generally more productive work force since sick people tend not to be productive.
It's the "real" companies that avoid paying taxes (Double Irish Dutch Sandwich Tax Avoidance anyone?), which, of course, puts tax pressure on everyone else to make up the difference.
As I said elsewhere in this comment thread, we can argue about some corner cases that might be silly or stupid or unproductive but often that's somewhat subjective.
> and we have no growth, productivity and prospects.
That's true, except for the no part of the sentence, at least on two counts.
Productivity has linearly increased vs time with only a twitch or two here and there since 1948.
GDP has grown pretty consistently since 1961.
Prospects? Well, that's, again, somewhat subjective and I leave that as an exercise for the student.
This is not either or. Sure " which is charged with providing all sorts of services that make the world liveable, like roads, bridges, airports, air traffic control, and people to keep an eye on all of that infrastructure so that it doesn't fall completely to pieces.", but they charge more money on top of that. That's the point. We are over taxed.
Then don't get me started at corruption and profiteering when it comes to delivering "statutory" things you mentioned. Everything is over budget and poor quality, because nobody cares. People in procurement don't go to prison over missed deadlines or roads made with different materials than ordered.
I suspect that it's not a matter if won't but can't.
As a Yank, I, of course, can't speak autoritatively about UK universities but I did spend the majority of my working life in research in the employ of a major university here in the States.
The so-called administrative atherosclerosis is largely mandated by law and the funding agencies that fuel the research. And there's all that pesky teaching.
All of that, unfortunately, requires management to make sure that people and suppliers get paid, students have housing, the lights stay on, the floors get swept, the trash gets taken out, hazmat gets handled without poisoning everyone, people don't cheat or get cheated, etc, etc.
There are probably corner cases (some probably pretty silly) about which we could argue but, by and large, most of the administration is really there for a reason and is of direct or indirect benefit to the researchers and the students.
The "announced nearly £14 billion" link states this funding level is a record. So, if UKRI lost £300 million then presumably some other outfit saw an increase in Table 1 of the linked "2025-26 budget allocation".
My question is (iiuc) where are the extra bits of record money and the reallocated £300 million going? (anything worthwhile? did I missread something?)
Cutting back the research budget is an unnoticeable, for most people, addition to communal austerity as Mr Starmer prepares a war economy, that perhaps with conscription and mobilisation in mind; we have been warned that Russian armed forces will be massing on the Channel coast by 2030 unless we Dig (in our pockets) for Victory.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
