My views on the issue of tuition fees are well established. I wrote earlier this year on this blog that I believed the only way for tuition fees to go was up and following the publication of the Browne Review I wrote this article supporting it's proposals. But I would like to say a few words about the mass of student opposition that has arisen to the proposals in recent weeks.
First of all I think it is reasonable to say that there is a great deal of ignorance amongst those protesting against the fee rise. There is an awful lot of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding the changes. I question how many protesters have actually bothered to read the proposals and could give you a good, factual account of what they contain. Too many people are labouring under the impression that they are going to have to pay fees upfront, that everyone will pay £9,000 and that the poor will be worse off under these proposals - none of which is true.
The LibDems have taken an awful lot of flack over this decision and have borne the brunt of the protester's anger. I have to admit that I have warmed to the LibDems in recent months; they've done the right thing in swinging their full weight behind the coalition. It is entirely fair for the students who the LibDems wooed in to voting for them to now feel aggrieved but for the Labour President of the NUS, Aaron Porter, to take to the airwaves and criticise the LibDems for breaking their promise is an act of rank hypocrisy. I would suggest that amongst Mr Porter (I am assuming he voted for his own party) and the rest of his friends there are a hell of a lot of people protesting who did not vote for the LibDems at the General Election and voted for Labour or the Tories. The fact is that Labour introduced top-up fees in 2004, Labour commissioned the Browne Review and if Labour had won the election they would almost certainly now be introducing its proposals. So all the protesters who voted Conservative or Labour are getting what they voted for and they should stop this vilification of Nick Clegg.
The student protesters are not campaigning on behalf of the poor, they aren't campaigning in favour of the elderly or the infirm they are protesting to protect their own self-interest. They believe a cleaning lady should pay for their degree - I do not. I believe that the average 23.5% increase in earnings a graduate receives compared to a non-graduate is a privilege they should pay for not the tax payer.
Friday, 3 December 2010
Saturday, 13 November 2010
The fight for freedom in Burma goes on
I break from my blogging hiatus to blog on an issue for which I have always had a deep passion; the plight of the people of Burma.
The world can rejoice today at the news that Aung San Suu Kyi has finally been released by the military junta in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi was elected as Burma's rightful Prime Minister in 1990 and remains Burma's legitimately elected leader. During her 15 years of house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi became a symbol across the world, not only of the struggle in Burma, but for the cause of democracy in oppressed nations world-wide. Her release today rights a great injustice against a remarkably courageous woman who richly deserves her Nobel Peace Prize which she is yet to receive in person.
However Aung San Suu Kyi is just one of thousands of political prisoners being held by the Burmese regime. General Shwe's government, which has ruled Burma since a coup in 1962, is responsible for the extensive use of child soldiers, the practice of forced labour, the use of torture and the mass murder of thousands of its own citizens. Elections held last week, which were boycotted by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, were a complete fraud with only candidates approved by the military junta allowed to run. The fight for freedom in Burma is far from over.
I would therefore urge anyone who reads this blog to visit the website of the Burma Campaign UK and join the campaign for human rights and freedom in Burma.
The world can rejoice today at the news that Aung San Suu Kyi has finally been released by the military junta in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi was elected as Burma's rightful Prime Minister in 1990 and remains Burma's legitimately elected leader. During her 15 years of house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi became a symbol across the world, not only of the struggle in Burma, but for the cause of democracy in oppressed nations world-wide. Her release today rights a great injustice against a remarkably courageous woman who richly deserves her Nobel Peace Prize which she is yet to receive in person.
However Aung San Suu Kyi is just one of thousands of political prisoners being held by the Burmese regime. General Shwe's government, which has ruled Burma since a coup in 1962, is responsible for the extensive use of child soldiers, the practice of forced labour, the use of torture and the mass murder of thousands of its own citizens. Elections held last week, which were boycotted by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy, were a complete fraud with only candidates approved by the military junta allowed to run. The fight for freedom in Burma is far from over.
I would therefore urge anyone who reads this blog to visit the website of the Burma Campaign UK and join the campaign for human rights and freedom in Burma.
Monday, 5 July 2010
No Mr Speaker, we don't detest it
John Bercow, the pain that is the Speaker of the House of Commons has pronounced that Harriet Harman and future Leaders of the Opposition will have the number of questions they are allowed to ask at Prime Minister's Questions cut. Apparently we, the public, 'detest' the 'cut and thrust' of PMQs. Do we really? I for one don't want to turn my TV on a Wednesday at 12 o'clock and see our MPs sitting quietly, politely asking questions and Ministers giving bland, civil service responses. I want the Prime Minister, of whatever political party, to be subject to aggressive interrogation on the floor of the House. A little theatre and a little barracking here and there wouldn't go a miss too.
This is the latest of Mr Bercow's 'reforms' to the House which have included some positive steps....well a couple at most. Otherwise Mr Bercow has been a disaster as Speaker. Elected in a move designed to do nothing but annoy the Conservative Party, Mr Bercow has no respect for the traditions and history of Parliament - shown by the fact that one of his first acts as Speaker was to drop the Speaker's ceremonial dress. Since then we've seen him use his official apartment to provide free accommodation for his nanny, his wife exploit her position as the Speaker's wife to mount a political career supporting the Labour Party and a series of over-zealous, politically-correct moves designed to make the Commons more in to line with the 21st Century.
I would say only this to Mr Bercow and his attempts at reform. It is not for him to reform the House, it is for the House to reform itself. As Speaker Lenthall said 'I have not eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House shall direct me, whose servant I am.'
This is the latest of Mr Bercow's 'reforms' to the House which have included some positive steps....well a couple at most. Otherwise Mr Bercow has been a disaster as Speaker. Elected in a move designed to do nothing but annoy the Conservative Party, Mr Bercow has no respect for the traditions and history of Parliament - shown by the fact that one of his first acts as Speaker was to drop the Speaker's ceremonial dress. Since then we've seen him use his official apartment to provide free accommodation for his nanny, his wife exploit her position as the Speaker's wife to mount a political career supporting the Labour Party and a series of over-zealous, politically-correct moves designed to make the Commons more in to line with the 21st Century.
I would say only this to Mr Bercow and his attempts at reform. It is not for him to reform the House, it is for the House to reform itself. As Speaker Lenthall said 'I have not eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House shall direct me, whose servant I am.'
Saturday, 3 July 2010
The false dichotomy of penal reform
We have, this week, been offered a choice by the media and some politicians between the 'Prison Works' attitude of former Home Secretary, Michael Howard and Ken Clarke's so called 'lenient' approach to criminal justice (Mr Clarke this week outlined a radical overhaul of the way we run our prisons). In being offered this choice, we have been made to assume that the two are mutually exclusive, polar opposites and that we have to either lock all criminals up until they rot in jail or let lots of axe murderers out on to the streets. This is a false dichotomy - both Clarke and Howard are right.
Michael Howard is correct that prison works in that it keeps dangerous offenders of our streets and deprives the most serious offenders of their liberty as punishment for crimes they have committed. Nobody is suggesting that murderers should not go to jail or that those who are a genuine threat to others should not remain behind bars. We will, under Ken Clarke's reform proposals, continue to send to jail those who deserve to go there.
But when you consider that 40% of prisoners re-offend when they are released from prison, can one really say that prison works in dealing with the problem of crime in our society? No it doesn't.
That is where Ken Clarke's radical changes to the criminal justice system comes in. At the moment prisons, as Douglas Hurd once said, are simply an expensive way of making bad people worse. There are few programmes operating in our prisons that try to educate prisoners, equip them with skills, treat their drug habits and even do basic things like teach prisoners to read and write and where they do exist, the prisoners that need them are invariably on short-term prison sentences so the programmes are ineffective. Would it not be more worthwhile, and a better use of public funds for that matter, to deal with these minor offenders in the community and then concentrate on long-term habitual offenders in our jails?
Ken Clarke's reforms will do exactly that. Recognising that short-term prison sentences aren't a way of reforming and rehabilitating offenders, he promises to engage the private and voluntary sector in helping minor offenders outside of prison in order to stop them from offending again. If we teach criminals to read and write (literacy rates are shockingly low in prisons) and make sure they've got the right training and skills to get a job then we'll break the cycle of crime that has been plaguing our society for far too long.
Ken Clarke's policy is not some way of 'going soft' on criminals. It is the first real policy a government has come forward with to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' by addressing the question of why so many people go on to re-offend. This policy not only makes financial sense in these strained economic times, but it makes moral sense as well. We need more radical thinkers like Ken Clarke - society would be much better off as a consequence.
Michael Howard is correct that prison works in that it keeps dangerous offenders of our streets and deprives the most serious offenders of their liberty as punishment for crimes they have committed. Nobody is suggesting that murderers should not go to jail or that those who are a genuine threat to others should not remain behind bars. We will, under Ken Clarke's reform proposals, continue to send to jail those who deserve to go there.
But when you consider that 40% of prisoners re-offend when they are released from prison, can one really say that prison works in dealing with the problem of crime in our society? No it doesn't.
That is where Ken Clarke's radical changes to the criminal justice system comes in. At the moment prisons, as Douglas Hurd once said, are simply an expensive way of making bad people worse. There are few programmes operating in our prisons that try to educate prisoners, equip them with skills, treat their drug habits and even do basic things like teach prisoners to read and write and where they do exist, the prisoners that need them are invariably on short-term prison sentences so the programmes are ineffective. Would it not be more worthwhile, and a better use of public funds for that matter, to deal with these minor offenders in the community and then concentrate on long-term habitual offenders in our jails?
Ken Clarke's reforms will do exactly that. Recognising that short-term prison sentences aren't a way of reforming and rehabilitating offenders, he promises to engage the private and voluntary sector in helping minor offenders outside of prison in order to stop them from offending again. If we teach criminals to read and write (literacy rates are shockingly low in prisons) and make sure they've got the right training and skills to get a job then we'll break the cycle of crime that has been plaguing our society for far too long.
Ken Clarke's policy is not some way of 'going soft' on criminals. It is the first real policy a government has come forward with to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' by addressing the question of why so many people go on to re-offend. This policy not only makes financial sense in these strained economic times, but it makes moral sense as well. We need more radical thinkers like Ken Clarke - society would be much better off as a consequence.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Give Tony Hayward a break
Another bad day for BP and its Chief Executive, Tony Hayward, today as pictures of him on a yachting trip are plastered across the newspapers. The story has provoked another barrage of criticism as Americans accuse him of being insensitive and 'insulting'.
However Mr Hayward has not had an easy few weeks and such savage criticism does seem a little excessive considering what Mr Hayward has done. I don't see why people have such a problem. What do people expect Mr Hayward to do on his day off? Sit in a dark, empty room doing nothing? Or not have a day off at all?
I don't buy in to this argument that somehow the criticism of BP is motivated by an anti-British sentiment on the part of the Obama administration and the US political establishment. The reality is if an American company had been drilling in the North Sea and the same sort of environmental catastrophe had occurred, we'd expect an equally tough and abrasive line from our own politicians. Instead Mr Obama and other American politicians of both parties are using this incident to score political points, not to extend some sort of grudge against the British.
Nevertheless Mr Hayward is becoming a victim in this. He does have questions to answer and is accountable for the evident blunder his company has made. But saying his Mr Hayward has 'no right to free time at all' (as one American put it) is disproportional and unnecessary. It is time we gave Mr Hayward a break.
However Mr Hayward has not had an easy few weeks and such savage criticism does seem a little excessive considering what Mr Hayward has done. I don't see why people have such a problem. What do people expect Mr Hayward to do on his day off? Sit in a dark, empty room doing nothing? Or not have a day off at all?
I don't buy in to this argument that somehow the criticism of BP is motivated by an anti-British sentiment on the part of the Obama administration and the US political establishment. The reality is if an American company had been drilling in the North Sea and the same sort of environmental catastrophe had occurred, we'd expect an equally tough and abrasive line from our own politicians. Instead Mr Obama and other American politicians of both parties are using this incident to score political points, not to extend some sort of grudge against the British.
Nevertheless Mr Hayward is becoming a victim in this. He does have questions to answer and is accountable for the evident blunder his company has made. But saying his Mr Hayward has 'no right to free time at all' (as one American put it) is disproportional and unnecessary. It is time we gave Mr Hayward a break.
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Why you should all vote Conservative on May 6th
The election is nearly over and I've completely failed at keeping up a regular blog - I did try and I hope what people did read was somewhat illuminating.
But at the time of writing, 24 hours from now and the whole thing will be over, the fate of the nation decided.
Tomorrow's election is the most important in my life time and probably the closest fought in my parent's lifetime's too. None of us have any clear idea what the result tomorrow will be; a freak in the election system could easily produce another Labour government, a hung parliament seems likely but a Conservative majority is not impossible. The race really is open and with many voters deciding who they vote for when they step in to the polling booth, this is my last chance to try to convince you to Vote Conservative tomorrow.
Britain is broken - literally and metaphorically. The government is currently spending £170 billion more than it receives in taxes and we're running a national debt which is pushing £1 trillion. British society is broken with violent crime on the rise and family breakdown at record levels. And our political system is broken, rotten and in need of reform. All this after thirteen years of a Labour government.
A vote for Labour tomorrow means five more years of decay and five more years of economic ruin. Labour's only solution to the problems we are facing is to give the state more power to interfere in our lives whilst taxing jobs and penalising hard-working families. The Liberal Democrats are a vacuous excuse of a political party whose policies don't stand up to scrutiny. Mr Clegg's talk of a 'new politics' is empty rhetoric - a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for five more years of Gordon Brown.
But there is an alternative. From May 7th we can have a government that will start cutting the deficit now by cutting government waste whilst protecting front line public services. The Conservatives will cut £6.5 billion in government waste this year. Labour have identified £15 billion of waste which they want to go on wasting for another year; if the government is wasting our money they should stop wasting it now, not wait for another twelve months.
From May 7th we can have a government that isn't in denial about the crumbling society we see around us. The Conservatives want to support families by rewarding marriage in the tax system and would restore pride in our communities by empowering citizens to make decisions about their local areas.
From May 7th we can have a government that would cut the cost of political by reducing the number of MPs by 10% and slashing ministerial pay 5% and freezing for the rest of the parliament whilst at the same time giving us the chance to recall MPs who are failing their constituents.
From May 7th we can have a Conservative government that will bring an end to 13 years of Labour miss-rule.
I can't vote in this election so this is my plea to those that can. It's my generation that has witnessed the gap between the rich and poor grow under a Labour government, my generation that is seeing over 20% youth unemployment and my generation that has been burdened with Gordon Brown's gigantic debt. So I plead with you, for the sake of the young people of Britain, do not put us through the pain of another five years of Labour government. Please, Vote Conservative.
But at the time of writing, 24 hours from now and the whole thing will be over, the fate of the nation decided.
Tomorrow's election is the most important in my life time and probably the closest fought in my parent's lifetime's too. None of us have any clear idea what the result tomorrow will be; a freak in the election system could easily produce another Labour government, a hung parliament seems likely but a Conservative majority is not impossible. The race really is open and with many voters deciding who they vote for when they step in to the polling booth, this is my last chance to try to convince you to Vote Conservative tomorrow.
Britain is broken - literally and metaphorically. The government is currently spending £170 billion more than it receives in taxes and we're running a national debt which is pushing £1 trillion. British society is broken with violent crime on the rise and family breakdown at record levels. And our political system is broken, rotten and in need of reform. All this after thirteen years of a Labour government.
A vote for Labour tomorrow means five more years of decay and five more years of economic ruin. Labour's only solution to the problems we are facing is to give the state more power to interfere in our lives whilst taxing jobs and penalising hard-working families. The Liberal Democrats are a vacuous excuse of a political party whose policies don't stand up to scrutiny. Mr Clegg's talk of a 'new politics' is empty rhetoric - a vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for five more years of Gordon Brown.
But there is an alternative. From May 7th we can have a government that will start cutting the deficit now by cutting government waste whilst protecting front line public services. The Conservatives will cut £6.5 billion in government waste this year. Labour have identified £15 billion of waste which they want to go on wasting for another year; if the government is wasting our money they should stop wasting it now, not wait for another twelve months.
From May 7th we can have a government that isn't in denial about the crumbling society we see around us. The Conservatives want to support families by rewarding marriage in the tax system and would restore pride in our communities by empowering citizens to make decisions about their local areas.
From May 7th we can have a government that would cut the cost of political by reducing the number of MPs by 10% and slashing ministerial pay 5% and freezing for the rest of the parliament whilst at the same time giving us the chance to recall MPs who are failing their constituents.
From May 7th we can have a Conservative government that will bring an end to 13 years of Labour miss-rule.
I can't vote in this election so this is my plea to those that can. It's my generation that has witnessed the gap between the rich and poor grow under a Labour government, my generation that is seeing over 20% youth unemployment and my generation that has been burdened with Gordon Brown's gigantic debt. So I plead with you, for the sake of the young people of Britain, do not put us through the pain of another five years of Labour government. Please, Vote Conservative.
Friday, 23 April 2010
Honouring our Armed Forces
Last night's debate, which was a vast improvement on the one of seven days ago, focused on foreign affairs and defence, exposing once more the fact that Labour cannot be trusted to run our Armed Forces. The merits of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are for a separate blog, but when any government sends our troops to war, they have a moral duty to ensure they are suitably equipped, well-paid and properly cared for if they get injured. Labour has failed on all three accounts.
A lack of helicopters, boots that melt in the desert heat, cutting the TA training budget - Labour is guilt of all these things. So I was pleased yesterday that the Conservatives launched their Armed Forces Manifesto - setting out what they would do to help our Armed Forces.
It's full of pretty good stuff. Protecting the defence budget in 2010/11 whilst the Strategic Defence Review is underway, giving our service personnel the equipment they need - not the useless rubbish they've been given under Labour, doubling the money troops get for serving overseas, bursaries for the children of service personnel killed in conflict, extra support for veterans when they leave the forces and a military covenant that enshrines our duties towards our forces.
You'll find it hard to find braver people than the men and women of our Armed Forces and it's time we gave them the respect they deserve. Labour and the Liberal Democrats must now meet the Conservative's commitments to our men and women in uniform.
A lack of helicopters, boots that melt in the desert heat, cutting the TA training budget - Labour is guilt of all these things. So I was pleased yesterday that the Conservatives launched their Armed Forces Manifesto - setting out what they would do to help our Armed Forces.
It's full of pretty good stuff. Protecting the defence budget in 2010/11 whilst the Strategic Defence Review is underway, giving our service personnel the equipment they need - not the useless rubbish they've been given under Labour, doubling the money troops get for serving overseas, bursaries for the children of service personnel killed in conflict, extra support for veterans when they leave the forces and a military covenant that enshrines our duties towards our forces.
You'll find it hard to find braver people than the men and women of our Armed Forces and it's time we gave them the respect they deserve. Labour and the Liberal Democrats must now meet the Conservative's commitments to our men and women in uniform.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
The TV Debates Blog Round 1: Is this all they have to offer?
The media hype has been going on for days. Across the country people were sat in front of their TVs waiting for it to begin. This will change our politics we were told. This was going to decide the election. Oh, then they showed the leaders debate and everybody fell asleep.
We learnt very little from this debate. Gordon Brown spent most of his time trying to cuddle up to LibDem voters and gave the clearest signal yet that Labour will push for a Lib-Lab pact after the election. David Cameron did what he is a good at - he performed well and confidently but we didn't expect him to do anything else did we? And then most people learnt what Nick Clegg actually looked like. Oh and for those that did know who the leader of the Liberal Democrats is, Nick Clegg (who will never be Prime Minister of this country) reminded us he was the MP for Sheffield, then he did it again, and again oh and just in case you didn't catch it, he did it again.
There were the obvious dividing lines between the parties. Gordon Brown thinks that if the state doesn't do just about everything the world is going to collapse. The Tories showed us that it is possible to live in a world without the nanny state. Whilst Nick Clegg kept reminding us that we'd had Tory and Labour governments for the last 65 years but left us no clearer what the Liberal Democrats believed in other than some abstract concept of 'fairness'. Then they all told us how they'd been to meet Mrs Jones, who lives in Burnley, worked for 50 years in the NHS, has had her house burnt down by yobs, served in the Royal Navy, likes eating babies and every other detail about Mrs Jones' life in order to back up each answer. Enough with the anecdotes please!
They might as well have done the debate in a room without any other human beings in it at all as the audience were so pointless. They weren't allowed to clap, they weren't allowed to laugh and the could only breath at specific intervals designated by the production team. Although I did notice that on at least one occasion one lady broke rule 45.7b and could clearly be seen....smiling. The shame. The limited role of the audience in the debates took out all life from the debates and left them sterile, stage-managed, pre-rehearsed pieces of political theatre. I want to see Margaret Beckett-esque booing (for those that don't know what I'm referring to she was once booed constantly by a Question Time audience), I want to see people turning on one of the leaders and I don't want all my questions asked by members of the medical-related professions.
It would be wrong to comment on such an auspicious occasion without commenting on how the participants looked. First of all, the fiasco of Alistair Stewart's tie ranks alongside Peter Sissions' famous 'Burgundy tie' moment after the death of the Queen Mother as a sheer catastrophe in TV tie moments. Cameron dressed well and again performed with style. Clegg, well apart from the momentary shot of his bum we got from some handy ITV camera work, he kept staring in to the lens getting closer and closer; I felt like he was going to stick his head out of the television at one point. Then there was Gordon, when is someone going to tell him not to smile - it really is quite off-putting.
I had my doubts about whether these debates were at all appropriate for our parliamentary system and they did just personalise politics even more making this whole debate about Clegg-Cameron-Brown and their personalities. Those who shared my doubts should feel vindicated; we were right.
We were told this was going to be a massive boost to our tired and broken democracy, if this is all the political class to offer then I have little faith that interest in our political system can be restored.
We learnt very little from this debate. Gordon Brown spent most of his time trying to cuddle up to LibDem voters and gave the clearest signal yet that Labour will push for a Lib-Lab pact after the election. David Cameron did what he is a good at - he performed well and confidently but we didn't expect him to do anything else did we? And then most people learnt what Nick Clegg actually looked like. Oh and for those that did know who the leader of the Liberal Democrats is, Nick Clegg (who will never be Prime Minister of this country) reminded us he was the MP for Sheffield, then he did it again, and again oh and just in case you didn't catch it, he did it again.
There were the obvious dividing lines between the parties. Gordon Brown thinks that if the state doesn't do just about everything the world is going to collapse. The Tories showed us that it is possible to live in a world without the nanny state. Whilst Nick Clegg kept reminding us that we'd had Tory and Labour governments for the last 65 years but left us no clearer what the Liberal Democrats believed in other than some abstract concept of 'fairness'. Then they all told us how they'd been to meet Mrs Jones, who lives in Burnley, worked for 50 years in the NHS, has had her house burnt down by yobs, served in the Royal Navy, likes eating babies and every other detail about Mrs Jones' life in order to back up each answer. Enough with the anecdotes please!
They might as well have done the debate in a room without any other human beings in it at all as the audience were so pointless. They weren't allowed to clap, they weren't allowed to laugh and the could only breath at specific intervals designated by the production team. Although I did notice that on at least one occasion one lady broke rule 45.7b and could clearly be seen....smiling. The shame. The limited role of the audience in the debates took out all life from the debates and left them sterile, stage-managed, pre-rehearsed pieces of political theatre. I want to see Margaret Beckett-esque booing (for those that don't know what I'm referring to she was once booed constantly by a Question Time audience), I want to see people turning on one of the leaders and I don't want all my questions asked by members of the medical-related professions.
It would be wrong to comment on such an auspicious occasion without commenting on how the participants looked. First of all, the fiasco of Alistair Stewart's tie ranks alongside Peter Sissions' famous 'Burgundy tie' moment after the death of the Queen Mother as a sheer catastrophe in TV tie moments. Cameron dressed well and again performed with style. Clegg, well apart from the momentary shot of his bum we got from some handy ITV camera work, he kept staring in to the lens getting closer and closer; I felt like he was going to stick his head out of the television at one point. Then there was Gordon, when is someone going to tell him not to smile - it really is quite off-putting.
I had my doubts about whether these debates were at all appropriate for our parliamentary system and they did just personalise politics even more making this whole debate about Clegg-Cameron-Brown and their personalities. Those who shared my doubts should feel vindicated; we were right.
We were told this was going to be a massive boost to our tired and broken democracy, if this is all the political class to offer then I have little faith that interest in our political system can be restored.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
A proposal for a new form of localism
Today’s Conservative Party election manifesto provided some excellent ideas about reinvigorating local decision-making in England; referendums on directly-elected Mayors in England’s major cities, the power for local residents to take over community facilities in their area and a chance for local residents to block massive rises in Council tax by referendum are all policies we must applaud.
But there remains a massive gap in local government in England. As Simon Jenkins points out in a 2004 paper ‘Big Bang Localism’, in France the lowest level of local government is the Commune which typically has 1,580 residents, in Germany the smallest unit of meaningful local government has 4,925 residents on average whilst in Spain it is 4,930. In contrast England’s’ lowest level of local government (with the exception of Parish Councils) are the 472, metropolitan boroughs, district councils and unitary authorities, the average size of which is 118,400. Notice a gap?
I don’t mean to belittle the work of Parish Councils but they are hardly shining examples of councils working at a local level to benefit their communities. I am sure there are many excellent Parish Councils and Parish Councillors who do a lot of good work but many areas of the UK don’t benefit from the services of a Parish Council. London, with its 8 million residents, has no parish councils; similarly most of the big cities in the UK are without them too. In fact, only 35% of the UK has Parish Councils.
Labour’s answer for devolving more power was to adopt European-style regions which John Prescott championed a few years back. However those plans were shelved as another level of bureaucrats between Whitehall and our town halls with do nobody any favours. It is another aspect of the European system that I suggest England should adopt – the organic low-level units of local government that could really enhance local government in England.
The UK should be divided up in to tens of thousands of Communities with around 1,000 people living in them depending on the geography of the area. The boundaries of those communities should reflect the traditional community boundaries which local people identify with, not the artificial boundaries used by the Boundary Commission for local government wards, but real organic communities which people would identify with if asked ‘where do you come from’?
These Communities should then be left to run themselves. They need not have elected councils, but monthly ‘town-hall meetings’ which any resident can attend and smaller working groups made up of people who are actually passionate about a particular issue – not Councillors forced to make the numbers up on some local authority committee. The residents can then vote on proposals for spending their community budget and community facilities can actually be those that the local people want. Give them responsibility for parks and open spaces, youth services, community centres, footpaths and street lighting (amongst other things).
Decision-making at this local level will give us local services tailored to local needs because it’s local people deciding on those services. It will promote sustainability and long-term cost effectiveness so it’s a policy all parties should embrace.
The Conservative manifesto is a good start at promoting localism but the Tories should seriously consider going one step further.
But there remains a massive gap in local government in England. As Simon Jenkins points out in a 2004 paper ‘Big Bang Localism’, in France the lowest level of local government is the Commune which typically has 1,580 residents, in Germany the smallest unit of meaningful local government has 4,925 residents on average whilst in Spain it is 4,930. In contrast England’s’ lowest level of local government (with the exception of Parish Councils) are the 472, metropolitan boroughs, district councils and unitary authorities, the average size of which is 118,400. Notice a gap?
I don’t mean to belittle the work of Parish Councils but they are hardly shining examples of councils working at a local level to benefit their communities. I am sure there are many excellent Parish Councils and Parish Councillors who do a lot of good work but many areas of the UK don’t benefit from the services of a Parish Council. London, with its 8 million residents, has no parish councils; similarly most of the big cities in the UK are without them too. In fact, only 35% of the UK has Parish Councils.
Labour’s answer for devolving more power was to adopt European-style regions which John Prescott championed a few years back. However those plans were shelved as another level of bureaucrats between Whitehall and our town halls with do nobody any favours. It is another aspect of the European system that I suggest England should adopt – the organic low-level units of local government that could really enhance local government in England.
The UK should be divided up in to tens of thousands of Communities with around 1,000 people living in them depending on the geography of the area. The boundaries of those communities should reflect the traditional community boundaries which local people identify with, not the artificial boundaries used by the Boundary Commission for local government wards, but real organic communities which people would identify with if asked ‘where do you come from’?
These Communities should then be left to run themselves. They need not have elected councils, but monthly ‘town-hall meetings’ which any resident can attend and smaller working groups made up of people who are actually passionate about a particular issue – not Councillors forced to make the numbers up on some local authority committee. The residents can then vote on proposals for spending their community budget and community facilities can actually be those that the local people want. Give them responsibility for parks and open spaces, youth services, community centres, footpaths and street lighting (amongst other things).
Decision-making at this local level will give us local services tailored to local needs because it’s local people deciding on those services. It will promote sustainability and long-term cost effectiveness so it’s a policy all parties should embrace.
The Conservative manifesto is a good start at promoting localism but the Tories should seriously consider going one step further.
Monday, 12 April 2010
Dangerous economic nationalism from the Labour Party
The Labour Party is venturing a dangerous path of economic nationalism with its proposals for a ‘Cadbury’s law’. Labour is proposing to give Ministers the power to block any takeover of British firms if it is not in the ‘national interest’. Not only does it contradict the principles of free trade and encouraging global markets but Labour’s plans give worryingly large amounts of power to ministers to interfere in the free market.
Under Tony Blair Labour abandoned this old socialist rhetoric and embraced free trade and free markets. This latest announcement gives us all the proof we needed (if we needed any more) that the days of ‘New Labour’ are over. Labour are now on the road back to the politics of the 1980s, in hock to the trade unions, and following a path that will ruin Britain’s credibility in the world economy.
What does it matter if Cadbury’s, Jaguar and Corus Steel are owned by foreign companies? It has no impact on the consumer here in Britain. I am quite sure Kraft doesn’t have some plan to alter the recipe for Dairy Milk or take Crunchies off our shelves. These companies will stay be paying tax on their earnings in Britain and countless overseas companies are owned by Britons. The sheer stupidity of this policy is evidence that it was the unions’ contribution to the Labour manifesto.
In the aftermath of the recession we have a great opportunity to promote free trade and open markets across the world; this is good for the British economy and good for the British people. Free trade will also be the best route to promoting the interests of developing countries when developed nations’ remove barriers to free trade such as the Common Agricultural Policy. Retreating to protectionism and a dangerous economic nationalism benefits nobody and damages Britain’s reputation as a place where people want to come and do business. Labour should shelve this plan immediately.
Under Tony Blair Labour abandoned this old socialist rhetoric and embraced free trade and free markets. This latest announcement gives us all the proof we needed (if we needed any more) that the days of ‘New Labour’ are over. Labour are now on the road back to the politics of the 1980s, in hock to the trade unions, and following a path that will ruin Britain’s credibility in the world economy.
What does it matter if Cadbury’s, Jaguar and Corus Steel are owned by foreign companies? It has no impact on the consumer here in Britain. I am quite sure Kraft doesn’t have some plan to alter the recipe for Dairy Milk or take Crunchies off our shelves. These companies will stay be paying tax on their earnings in Britain and countless overseas companies are owned by Britons. The sheer stupidity of this policy is evidence that it was the unions’ contribution to the Labour manifesto.
In the aftermath of the recession we have a great opportunity to promote free trade and open markets across the world; this is good for the British economy and good for the British people. Free trade will also be the best route to promoting the interests of developing countries when developed nations’ remove barriers to free trade such as the Common Agricultural Policy. Retreating to protectionism and a dangerous economic nationalism benefits nobody and damages Britain’s reputation as a place where people want to come and do business. Labour should shelve this plan immediately.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Vince Cable is attempting to deceive the British people
Over the past year the media has perpetuated this saintly image of Vince Cable as the man who made all the right calls during the recession. The BBC likes to call him 'Saint Vince' and some newspapers have taken to call him the 'most trusted man in British politics'. But I fear I now have to commit a modern day heresy and suggest that Vince Cable is not the man he would like us to think he is. The reality is behind his quiet, personable bank manager image, Vince Cable is a man who is out to mislead the British people.
The latest Liberal Democrat poster is an outright lie. Published today, the Liberal Democrats attempt to warn voters of a Tory 'VAT bombshell' if they win the election, despite the fact that at no time have the Tories committed to raising VAT. Struggling to defend this ridiculous accusation on the Politics Show this lunchtime, Mr Cable said that it was a 'reasonable prediction' as to what might happen under a Conservative government, yet his poster is quite adamant that the Tories would raise VAT. What's even more astonishing is the fact that Mr Cable then went on to refuse to rule out raising VAT himself. The hypocrisy!
Mr Cable has a history for flip-flopping over Liberal Democrat tax and spending policy. At the last election the Lib Dems wanted huge taxes on the super rich then Mr Clegg attempted to appeal to Tory voters with a pledge for major tax cuts. Then there were the Liberal Democrat promises for 'savage cuts' which they have now retreated from as they won't be cutting this fiscal year. Not the straight-talking Mr Cable we've come to know.
This incident seems to contradict the Liberal Democrats desire for a 'clean' politics. It just shows that the Lib Dems are the real nasty party of British politics.
The latest Liberal Democrat poster is an outright lie. Published today, the Liberal Democrats attempt to warn voters of a Tory 'VAT bombshell' if they win the election, despite the fact that at no time have the Tories committed to raising VAT. Struggling to defend this ridiculous accusation on the Politics Show this lunchtime, Mr Cable said that it was a 'reasonable prediction' as to what might happen under a Conservative government, yet his poster is quite adamant that the Tories would raise VAT. What's even more astonishing is the fact that Mr Cable then went on to refuse to rule out raising VAT himself. The hypocrisy!
Mr Cable has a history for flip-flopping over Liberal Democrat tax and spending policy. At the last election the Lib Dems wanted huge taxes on the super rich then Mr Clegg attempted to appeal to Tory voters with a pledge for major tax cuts. Then there were the Liberal Democrat promises for 'savage cuts' which they have now retreated from as they won't be cutting this fiscal year. Not the straight-talking Mr Cable we've come to know.
This incident seems to contradict the Liberal Democrats desire for a 'clean' politics. It just shows that the Lib Dems are the real nasty party of British politics.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Increasing National Insurance is the worst thing anybody could do to the economy
Gordon Brown doesn't seem to realise that he's just got it wrong on the whole National Insurance debate. Even when members of his own Business Council say he's wrong and come out in support of the Tories, the Prime Minister is still adamant that he is right and they are wrong.
But he is wrong; increasing National Insurance is possibly the worst thing anybody could do for the economy at the moment. The plan to increase National Insurance flies in the face of all economic sense. It relies on the idea that is better for government to spend money than it is for business. Government spending will not help stimulate growth and get us out of this recession. Growth in the economy will come from the private not public sector. That is why it is completely senseless to put an extra tax on business at the very time we need business to be thriving.
What's more the increase in National Insurance is not just an extra tax on an already overregulated and overtaxed (the UK has got progressively less competitive under Labour), it is a tax on jobs. Whilst the effects of the recession are now most often calculated according to the level of debt we've reached, we must not forget the human costs of the recession as well - particularly unemployment. So why is the government introducing a tax that even the government's own Treasury minister, Stephen Timms, admits will cost jobs? We need more people working, not less.
As for Lord Mandelson's claim that the only people complaining about the VAT rise are 'metropolitan CEOs' it is big business more tha anyone else that can afford the rise. It's small businesses who are hit most. An increase in National Insurance will hit a company with half a dozen employees more than it will hit big firms like M&S.
Labour aren't going to win this debate. Gordon Brown should stop digging himself in to an even bigger hole.
But he is wrong; increasing National Insurance is possibly the worst thing anybody could do for the economy at the moment. The plan to increase National Insurance flies in the face of all economic sense. It relies on the idea that is better for government to spend money than it is for business. Government spending will not help stimulate growth and get us out of this recession. Growth in the economy will come from the private not public sector. That is why it is completely senseless to put an extra tax on business at the very time we need business to be thriving.
What's more the increase in National Insurance is not just an extra tax on an already overregulated and overtaxed (the UK has got progressively less competitive under Labour), it is a tax on jobs. Whilst the effects of the recession are now most often calculated according to the level of debt we've reached, we must not forget the human costs of the recession as well - particularly unemployment. So why is the government introducing a tax that even the government's own Treasury minister, Stephen Timms, admits will cost jobs? We need more people working, not less.
As for Lord Mandelson's claim that the only people complaining about the VAT rise are 'metropolitan CEOs' it is big business more tha anyone else that can afford the rise. It's small businesses who are hit most. An increase in National Insurance will hit a company with half a dozen employees more than it will hit big firms like M&S.
Labour aren't going to win this debate. Gordon Brown should stop digging himself in to an even bigger hole.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
The case for a Royal Commission on drugs
During the course of the election campaign it is my aim to write a blog (almost) every day. Posts will be a combination of reflections on the course of the campaign and my own suggestions for policies the next government, whatever its complexion, should adopt.
Former UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage, recently called for a comprehensive review of drugs policy and suggested legalising all currently controlled substances. On Radio 4's Any Questions, the UKIP leader said: 'prohibition in this whole area simply isn't working...I think we need a full Royal Commission on drugs...I think there is an argument that says that if we decriminalised it [drugs], we'd make the lives of millions of people far better than they are today'.
Whilst Mr Farage's support for the decriminalisation of all drugs is a view to which I am not totally unsympathetic, I agree with him entirely that we need a Royal Commission to review current drugs legislation in the United Kingdom. Our current drugs laws - dating to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, that created the current Class A, B, C, system - simply aren't working.
Current classifications do not represent the true risks involved in using different types of drugs. The fact that ecstasy is in the same category as heroin when the medical effects of each are totally different (the effects of ecstasy are far less severe) demonstrates the level of confusion in drugs policy at the moment. Labour and the Conservatives need to break the taboo on drugs and think outside their usual mantra of being 'tough on drugs' (even though nobody knows what that means).
A Royal Commission need not lead to the legalisation of any drug that is currently illegal in this country. But it would give us a chance to evaluate the scientific evidence behind each substance currently covered by drugs laws and find a new system that reflects the real medical and social impacts of different drugs and determine appropriate responses from the state for possession and supply of such drugs. The Royal Commission should not simply concentrate on scientific evidence; the Professor Nutt row has proven that drugs policy is as much about the social, moral and economic issues around drugs as the scientific issue. It should take evidence from doctors, scientists, politicians, those who work with drug addicts and drug users themselves.
A Royal Commission would give Britain the chance to adopt a drugs policy that actually deals with the nations' ever-present drugs problem rather than the hopeless excuse of a drugs law we have at the moment.
Former UKIP Leader, Nigel Farage, recently called for a comprehensive review of drugs policy and suggested legalising all currently controlled substances. On Radio 4's Any Questions, the UKIP leader said: 'prohibition in this whole area simply isn't working...I think we need a full Royal Commission on drugs...I think there is an argument that says that if we decriminalised it [drugs], we'd make the lives of millions of people far better than they are today'.
Whilst Mr Farage's support for the decriminalisation of all drugs is a view to which I am not totally unsympathetic, I agree with him entirely that we need a Royal Commission to review current drugs legislation in the United Kingdom. Our current drugs laws - dating to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, that created the current Class A, B, C, system - simply aren't working.
Current classifications do not represent the true risks involved in using different types of drugs. The fact that ecstasy is in the same category as heroin when the medical effects of each are totally different (the effects of ecstasy are far less severe) demonstrates the level of confusion in drugs policy at the moment. Labour and the Conservatives need to break the taboo on drugs and think outside their usual mantra of being 'tough on drugs' (even though nobody knows what that means).
A Royal Commission need not lead to the legalisation of any drug that is currently illegal in this country. But it would give us a chance to evaluate the scientific evidence behind each substance currently covered by drugs laws and find a new system that reflects the real medical and social impacts of different drugs and determine appropriate responses from the state for possession and supply of such drugs. The Royal Commission should not simply concentrate on scientific evidence; the Professor Nutt row has proven that drugs policy is as much about the social, moral and economic issues around drugs as the scientific issue. It should take evidence from doctors, scientists, politicians, those who work with drug addicts and drug users themselves.
A Royal Commission would give Britain the chance to adopt a drugs policy that actually deals with the nations' ever-present drugs problem rather than the hopeless excuse of a drugs law we have at the moment.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
There should be no repeat of 1984-85
Today marks the 25th anniversary of the official end of the Miner's Strike which occurred in British pits between 1984 and 1985. It marked an important victory for our democracy over attempts by Arthur Scargill and his other lunatic friends in the NUM to override the decisions of our democratically elected government. Mr Scargill was not an individual who had the interests of his members at heart, he was simply interested in forwarding his political agenda and the livelihoods of his workers were a means to that end. Since Mrs Thatcher's victory over the NUM and the progressive Trade Union Legislation that was introduced under the Conservatives, we have had a relatively calm period in terms of industrial disputes in this country. But we should not get ourselves in to a mindset that thinks the days of unions attacking the government are over.
There have already been reports in the press that the Trade Unions are building a fighting fund so they can 'unleash hell' on a Conservative Government following the (still) likely outcome of the General Election. A Conservative Government would rightly cut public spending and insist upon restraint across the public sector in terms of wages and other perks. This is something that has been made quite clear to the British people: the Conservatives will cut faster and deeper than Labour and if the British people are sensible enough to accept that and put their faith in the Conservative Party then the unions should not seek to override the democratic wishes of the British people.
I am not suggesting that trade unions should not seek to strive towards better conditions for their members but they should not use their power to pursue political aims. In the 21st Century, it would be completely unacceptable for the trade unions to hold the government of this country to ransom as the NUM attempted to do in 1984.
There have already been reports in the press that the Trade Unions are building a fighting fund so they can 'unleash hell' on a Conservative Government following the (still) likely outcome of the General Election. A Conservative Government would rightly cut public spending and insist upon restraint across the public sector in terms of wages and other perks. This is something that has been made quite clear to the British people: the Conservatives will cut faster and deeper than Labour and if the British people are sensible enough to accept that and put their faith in the Conservative Party then the unions should not seek to override the democratic wishes of the British people.
I am not suggesting that trade unions should not seek to strive towards better conditions for their members but they should not use their power to pursue political aims. In the 21st Century, it would be completely unacceptable for the trade unions to hold the government of this country to ransom as the NUM attempted to do in 1984.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Britain needs a dose of One Nation Toryism
The economic crisis has predominated political headlines in this country for most of the last eighteen months. The next General Election will be fought on economic issues. The part that can most convince the British people it is the best party to sort out our economic mess will be victors in May. What has not been in the news and what will not be the subject of key-note speeches from the party leaders in May is the breakdown in society we are experiencing in Britain today.
To halt this breakdown in the social fabric of the United Kingdom, Britain desperately needs a dose of One Nation Conservatism. Liberal, compassionate, caring conservatism that kick starts the social revival Britain is craving for. This is what David Cameron must offer the British people at the next election because it is the right thing to do.
Unlike some in the Conservative Party, I do not hold some romantic hopes for a Thatcherite revival in Britain after the next election. Indeed I think the last thing Britain needs is a dose of the Iron Lady's medicine. Margaret Thatcher was a fantastic Prime Minister, one of our best. But she was a women of her time. She could only ever have been elected as a Conservative at that time with those set of circumstances. Thatcherism revived the British economy and raised it to great strength. But its complete failure to take account of Britain's social needs as well as its economic needs has meant that Thatcher herself must take some of the blame for our broken society. Thatcherism is always defined in economic terms, nobody can ever really come up with a definition of what Thatcherite Social Policy ever was; that's because Thatcher never really had a social policy. What little social policy she did have largely manifested itself in her cruel vilification of the homosexual community.
But the social challenge facing us today is comparable to the economic challenge facing Thatcher in 1979. That is why Britain needs a One Nation Conservative government that will repair the damage of the last thirty years. Disraeli's observations of a society of 'two nations' in his novel Cybil ring true today. Under Labour, the rich have gotten richer whilst the poor have gotten poorer, Labour has built fewer council houses than the Conservatives did under Thatcher, Britain is now a country devoid of social mobility and we have nearly 20% of 18-24 year olds unemployed. All of this under a government that supposedly cares. A One Nation government, spurred on by the likes of Disraeli and Macmillan, reconciled to the welfare state and Labour's achievements such as the minimum wage, should carry on the great Conservative tradition of social reform after the next election.
If David Cameron does win the next election, as I certainly hope he will, he will have to deal with the nation's finances. But he must do that with regard for the wider ramifications of his actions for society. The Conservatives must not ignore Britain's social needs as they did the last time they were in government; they must realise them and address them. David Cameron will then become the social reformer he so evidently wants to be.
To halt this breakdown in the social fabric of the United Kingdom, Britain desperately needs a dose of One Nation Conservatism. Liberal, compassionate, caring conservatism that kick starts the social revival Britain is craving for. This is what David Cameron must offer the British people at the next election because it is the right thing to do.
Unlike some in the Conservative Party, I do not hold some romantic hopes for a Thatcherite revival in Britain after the next election. Indeed I think the last thing Britain needs is a dose of the Iron Lady's medicine. Margaret Thatcher was a fantastic Prime Minister, one of our best. But she was a women of her time. She could only ever have been elected as a Conservative at that time with those set of circumstances. Thatcherism revived the British economy and raised it to great strength. But its complete failure to take account of Britain's social needs as well as its economic needs has meant that Thatcher herself must take some of the blame for our broken society. Thatcherism is always defined in economic terms, nobody can ever really come up with a definition of what Thatcherite Social Policy ever was; that's because Thatcher never really had a social policy. What little social policy she did have largely manifested itself in her cruel vilification of the homosexual community.
But the social challenge facing us today is comparable to the economic challenge facing Thatcher in 1979. That is why Britain needs a One Nation Conservative government that will repair the damage of the last thirty years. Disraeli's observations of a society of 'two nations' in his novel Cybil ring true today. Under Labour, the rich have gotten richer whilst the poor have gotten poorer, Labour has built fewer council houses than the Conservatives did under Thatcher, Britain is now a country devoid of social mobility and we have nearly 20% of 18-24 year olds unemployed. All of this under a government that supposedly cares. A One Nation government, spurred on by the likes of Disraeli and Macmillan, reconciled to the welfare state and Labour's achievements such as the minimum wage, should carry on the great Conservative tradition of social reform after the next election.
If David Cameron does win the next election, as I certainly hope he will, he will have to deal with the nation's finances. But he must do that with regard for the wider ramifications of his actions for society. The Conservatives must not ignore Britain's social needs as they did the last time they were in government; they must realise them and address them. David Cameron will then become the social reformer he so evidently wants to be.
Friday, 15 January 2010
The Tuition Fees Dilemma
In the very near future, the government will review the current limits on tuition fees. They’ll have three main options: keep the current cap at just over £3,000; increase tuition fees to something like £5,000 a year; or abolish them altogether. With the national debt growing, ministers are in a sticky situation and have a tricky problem on their hands.
‘Top-up fees’ were first introduced in 2004 to deal with a funding crisis in higher education. Universities were demanding more money and they still are today. Universities claim they are struggling to find the cash to continue offering the range of courses and the number of places they want to. They’re even struggling to pay their staff. University lecturers recently went on strike in a dispute over pay.
But the problem is resurfacing once more. The president of Universities UK recently said “Universities will require further injections of resources, from whatever source, if they are to continue to provide the high quality student experience for which we are internationally renowned”. But with the taxpayer running out of money, there is only one source from which this money must come and that is tuition fees.
The introduction of tuition fees in 2004 prompted concerns that people would be put off by the cost of university and applications would fall. On the contrary, university applications hit another record high this summer and look like they’ll continue to go up. Even with fees, more students from low income families go to university in England than do in Scotland, despite the
fact that students no longer pay tuition fees there. So it seems the cost isn’t putting people off.
But there is the problem of debt. If most of us leave Sixth Form and go on to university, we can expect to leave higher education with a debt of around £15,000, and that is a conservative estimate. It is now a harsh reality for many young people in the UK that they must begin their working lives with massive debts to pay off. However, as much as we like to moan about the debt, we do reap the benefits. Nothing is free in life and the same goes for a good job. With a university degree, graduates are far more likely to get high -earning jobs and get bigger salaries. In a way, the debt you incur at university is an investment in your future.
Futures would not be so bright if we did abolish university tuition fees altogether. With university education free, many more young people would see it as a way to avoid working for another three years and we’d see more and more people going to university and getting degrees. Forget the government’s target of 50% of the population going to university; we would quite
easily exceed that. This has major implications for graduates.
Graduate job prospects are already shrinking. Graduates are being forced to apply for jobs in supermarkets because there are no graduate jobs available. And with more and more people earning degrees, the situation will get worse. Degrees will become less valuable and your three years at university will have gone to waste. Employers will start to asking more and more
often for their employees to have postgraduate degrees because they won’t be able to distinguish between those who don’t.
Somebody ultimately has to pay for university education and money doesn’t grow on trees. In an ideal world we’d turn the clock back 30 years to when people did go to university for free but we can’t. Back then, barely 10% of the population went to university; we’re now talking about 30 —40%. Demands for more cash from universities are only going to grow and with the state already £800 billion in debt, the only way for tuition fees to go is up.
This article was published in the December 2009 edition of The Bus Magazine.
‘Top-up fees’ were first introduced in 2004 to deal with a funding crisis in higher education. Universities were demanding more money and they still are today. Universities claim they are struggling to find the cash to continue offering the range of courses and the number of places they want to. They’re even struggling to pay their staff. University lecturers recently went on strike in a dispute over pay.
But the problem is resurfacing once more. The president of Universities UK recently said “Universities will require further injections of resources, from whatever source, if they are to continue to provide the high quality student experience for which we are internationally renowned”. But with the taxpayer running out of money, there is only one source from which this money must come and that is tuition fees.
The introduction of tuition fees in 2004 prompted concerns that people would be put off by the cost of university and applications would fall. On the contrary, university applications hit another record high this summer and look like they’ll continue to go up. Even with fees, more students from low income families go to university in England than do in Scotland, despite the
fact that students no longer pay tuition fees there. So it seems the cost isn’t putting people off.
But there is the problem of debt. If most of us leave Sixth Form and go on to university, we can expect to leave higher education with a debt of around £15,000, and that is a conservative estimate. It is now a harsh reality for many young people in the UK that they must begin their working lives with massive debts to pay off. However, as much as we like to moan about the debt, we do reap the benefits. Nothing is free in life and the same goes for a good job. With a university degree, graduates are far more likely to get high -earning jobs and get bigger salaries. In a way, the debt you incur at university is an investment in your future.
Futures would not be so bright if we did abolish university tuition fees altogether. With university education free, many more young people would see it as a way to avoid working for another three years and we’d see more and more people going to university and getting degrees. Forget the government’s target of 50% of the population going to university; we would quite
easily exceed that. This has major implications for graduates.
Graduate job prospects are already shrinking. Graduates are being forced to apply for jobs in supermarkets because there are no graduate jobs available. And with more and more people earning degrees, the situation will get worse. Degrees will become less valuable and your three years at university will have gone to waste. Employers will start to asking more and more
often for their employees to have postgraduate degrees because they won’t be able to distinguish between those who don’t.
Somebody ultimately has to pay for university education and money doesn’t grow on trees. In an ideal world we’d turn the clock back 30 years to when people did go to university for free but we can’t. Back then, barely 10% of the population went to university; we’re now talking about 30 —40%. Demands for more cash from universities are only going to grow and with the state already £800 billion in debt, the only way for tuition fees to go is up.
This article was published in the December 2009 edition of The Bus Magazine.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
A terrible day for British democracy
Today has been a terrible day for British Democracy. Three incidents today show just how much this Labour Government (and to a certain extent the entire political establishment) has been willing to disregard our human rights in recent years.
The first is of course the decision to ban Islam4UK; a completely unjustified decision in my opinion. I have no doubt that somehow; Islam4UK will have links to Al-Qaeda or some affiliated terrorist organisation. Nor am I in any doubt that Anjem Choudary is one of the minority of British Muslims who would be happy to see yet more violence on the streets of Britain. But that does not mean we should make his organisation illegal. National security considerations aside, I do not believe the Home Secretary has provided nearly enough evidence to justify the decision to add Islam4UK to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. Abhorrent and extreme as Islam4UK’s views may be, there should be a place in our democracy for the most radical and for the most extreme on both ends of the spectrum. I do not want to live in a country where any group that steps out of line from the establishment’s view of community cohesion is banned. A bad move indeed on the part of the Home Secretary and shame on the Tory frontbench for supporting him.
In the same category is another decision by the Home Office to keep in place the ban on American talk show host Mike Savage entering Britain. Mr Savage is a very controversial individual whose views are probably as extreme as those of Anjem Choudary, although Savage is accused of being offensive towards Muslims, not calling for the imposition of Sharia law. The issue was raised today in the House of Lords by UKIP leader Lord Pearson. I do not in any way agree with Mr Savage (just as I don’t agree with Islam4UK), indeed if Mr Savage had his way I’d probably be dead, but he has every right to say what he wants to and his conservative beliefs should not prevent him from being admitted in to the UK. The so-called excuse is that Mr Savage’s presence in the UK could cause a violent back-lash, why should we allow those that would bring violence in to our politics to hold freedom of speech in this country to ransom? This is yet another sorry episode in British politics and a victory for those that use the threat of violence to stifle free speech.
The third attack on freedom in Britain today came not from the Home Secretary but in the courts. Legal history was made in England and Wales today as a criminal trial took place without a jury, the first since the abolition of the Star Chamber 350 years ago. In a step back in time that makes a mockery of our calls for human rights on the international stage, an English court-room saw four defendants face trial without a jury – completely shocking. Under provisions introduced by this Labour government, one of the very basic principles of our legal system, that a defendant should be trialled by a jury of his peers, has been eroded. Paul Mendle QC got it exactly right today when he said: “Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them.” A fact this government seems to be ignoring.
We should not accept the slow erosion of basic principles of human rights that have underpinned the constitution of this country for centuries. By accepting these attacks on our civil liberties, we wave the white flag of surrender to the very people the government claims to be stopping. Today has been a truly terrible day.
The first is of course the decision to ban Islam4UK; a completely unjustified decision in my opinion. I have no doubt that somehow; Islam4UK will have links to Al-Qaeda or some affiliated terrorist organisation. Nor am I in any doubt that Anjem Choudary is one of the minority of British Muslims who would be happy to see yet more violence on the streets of Britain. But that does not mean we should make his organisation illegal. National security considerations aside, I do not believe the Home Secretary has provided nearly enough evidence to justify the decision to add Islam4UK to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. Abhorrent and extreme as Islam4UK’s views may be, there should be a place in our democracy for the most radical and for the most extreme on both ends of the spectrum. I do not want to live in a country where any group that steps out of line from the establishment’s view of community cohesion is banned. A bad move indeed on the part of the Home Secretary and shame on the Tory frontbench for supporting him.
In the same category is another decision by the Home Office to keep in place the ban on American talk show host Mike Savage entering Britain. Mr Savage is a very controversial individual whose views are probably as extreme as those of Anjem Choudary, although Savage is accused of being offensive towards Muslims, not calling for the imposition of Sharia law. The issue was raised today in the House of Lords by UKIP leader Lord Pearson. I do not in any way agree with Mr Savage (just as I don’t agree with Islam4UK), indeed if Mr Savage had his way I’d probably be dead, but he has every right to say what he wants to and his conservative beliefs should not prevent him from being admitted in to the UK. The so-called excuse is that Mr Savage’s presence in the UK could cause a violent back-lash, why should we allow those that would bring violence in to our politics to hold freedom of speech in this country to ransom? This is yet another sorry episode in British politics and a victory for those that use the threat of violence to stifle free speech.
The third attack on freedom in Britain today came not from the Home Secretary but in the courts. Legal history was made in England and Wales today as a criminal trial took place without a jury, the first since the abolition of the Star Chamber 350 years ago. In a step back in time that makes a mockery of our calls for human rights on the international stage, an English court-room saw four defendants face trial without a jury – completely shocking. Under provisions introduced by this Labour government, one of the very basic principles of our legal system, that a defendant should be trialled by a jury of his peers, has been eroded. Paul Mendle QC got it exactly right today when he said: “Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them.” A fact this government seems to be ignoring.
We should not accept the slow erosion of basic principles of human rights that have underpinned the constitution of this country for centuries. By accepting these attacks on our civil liberties, we wave the white flag of surrender to the very people the government claims to be stopping. Today has been a truly terrible day.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Mr Flip-flop?
If we ever needed confirmation that the Liberal Democrats will say whatever they feel like saying depending on the mood they're in (most of us didn't need the confirmation) then we got it today. Nick Clegg changed his mind again today over his spending plans promising to shelve many of his party's top spending pledges.At the Lib Dem conference last year, we were promised 'savage cuts' from the Lib Dems; they were dumping their pledge to abolish university tuition fees which won them many votes at the last election in student-dominated seats (including my own constituency). But amidst the back-lash, Nick Clegg back-tracked and promised he was still committed to abolishing tuition fees. But then today we hear that he isn't committed to that after all.
However the reality is, it doesn't matter what Mr Clegg thinks, says or promises he is going to do because he will not form the next government. There is very little chance that Liberal Democrat policies will inform the legislative programme after the general election.
But the one thing he should be telling us, but he won't, is what he'll do in a Hung Parliament. He avoided the question completely today despite the fact that polls show he could be called upon to be the king-maker after May.
Please do us a favour Mr Clegg, stop flip-flopping and tell us something we really want to know.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Council tax rise funding council booze?
I was concerned to read in today's Sunday Sun that Newcastle City Council has spent nearly £25,000 on wine since 2008. At a time when the City Council is going ahead with job cuts across Council services, this is shameful. What's more, this week the City Council announced that it would hit residents hard with a 1.5% increase in Council tax. This represents on average 29p increase in weekly Council tax bills for city residents; it may not seem a lot but in these difficult times, Newcastle City Council should to the right thing and follow the lead of some Tory Councils and freeze Council tax this year.
When a Council is spending £25,000 on booze at the same time as increasing council tax for residents, it obviously has its priorities in the wrong order.
When a Council is spending £25,000 on booze at the same time as increasing council tax for residents, it obviously has its priorities in the wrong order.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Archbishop Carey gets it right on immigration
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, was entirely right yesterday when he called for limits on immigration to the UK. Showing just how much of a better Primate he was than our current Archbishop, Lord Carey has joined a cross-party group of MPs and Peers in calling for a balance migration policy; one advocated for some time by the pressure group Migration Watch.
Lord Carey's contention is that we need to limit net migration levels now in order to prevent the UK's population reaching 70 million which the Office of National Statistics predicts could occur by 2033.
A balanced migration system is not one which says let's lock the door and throw away the key; such a policy, advocated by the British National Party and others, would cause serious damage to the British economy. It remains a fact that migrants have contributed enormously to the British economy over the past 50 years and we will still require them to do so in years to come as our population suffers from a natural decrease. But the stream of migration cannot carry on at current levels. The UK cannot afford to house, feed, educate and provide health care for 70 million people; our resources are already stretched as it is. A balanced migration policy, which balances immigration against emigration is by far the best approach.
Lord Carey also spoke some wise words about the need for migrants to accept the values of this country. I agree with him entirely.
As previous posts on this blog will show, I am a robust defender of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I do not, as some people do, believe that when people come here they should be forced to discard their own religions, cultures and beliefs or practice them in secret. I'm quite happy for Muslims to build mosques (with minarets if they so wish), Jews to eat Kosher food and Sikhs to wear their turbans.
But equally their must be an acceptance amongst migrant communities that Britain is a Christian country, with laws based on Judeo-Christian principles and that our practices, values and culture will continue to be based on our Christian tradition. We should not be ashamed of our Christian heritage, Judeo-Christian values have informed many of the best things in British society; we should celebrate it far more. So should immigrants. I do not see any reason why immigrants cannot retain their own identities, cultures and religions whilst not embracing our history, our language and our traditions.
Archbishop Carey got it exactly right yesterday, more politicians should take note.
Lord Carey's contention is that we need to limit net migration levels now in order to prevent the UK's population reaching 70 million which the Office of National Statistics predicts could occur by 2033.
A balanced migration system is not one which says let's lock the door and throw away the key; such a policy, advocated by the British National Party and others, would cause serious damage to the British economy. It remains a fact that migrants have contributed enormously to the British economy over the past 50 years and we will still require them to do so in years to come as our population suffers from a natural decrease. But the stream of migration cannot carry on at current levels. The UK cannot afford to house, feed, educate and provide health care for 70 million people; our resources are already stretched as it is. A balanced migration policy, which balances immigration against emigration is by far the best approach.
Lord Carey also spoke some wise words about the need for migrants to accept the values of this country. I agree with him entirely.
As previous posts on this blog will show, I am a robust defender of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I do not, as some people do, believe that when people come here they should be forced to discard their own religions, cultures and beliefs or practice them in secret. I'm quite happy for Muslims to build mosques (with minarets if they so wish), Jews to eat Kosher food and Sikhs to wear their turbans.
But equally their must be an acceptance amongst migrant communities that Britain is a Christian country, with laws based on Judeo-Christian principles and that our practices, values and culture will continue to be based on our Christian tradition. We should not be ashamed of our Christian heritage, Judeo-Christian values have informed many of the best things in British society; we should celebrate it far more. So should immigrants. I do not see any reason why immigrants cannot retain their own identities, cultures and religions whilst not embracing our history, our language and our traditions.
Archbishop Carey got it exactly right yesterday, more politicians should take note.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Financial education needs to start with this Government
Ed Balls announced on Monday that from the age of five, all children in the UK will be taught about managing finance. By the time they reach secondary school, students will learn about how to manage bank accounts and also be taught about debt. However if anybody needs education about debt and finance, it's Mr Balls himself and the rest of this sorry government.
On a serious note though, financial education in school does sound like a good plan if it's delivered correctly. It should not go down the route that current provision of political education in schools has gone down, being patchy and poorly delivered on the whole.
But yesterday we saw yet another example of this government's complete inability to deal with the nation's economic problems. Parliament debated the grandly titled 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' which will make it a legal requirement for the government to halve the public deficit by 2013/2014. A laudable aim indeed, but one which we don't need a 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' to achieve and one which we will never achieve under this Labour government. The fact is that Alistair Darling and his gang are completely blind to the need to sort out the deficit now. The Fiscal Responsibility Bill was unveiled in the Queen's Speech in November and heralded by Gordon Brown as this great Bill that will restore stability to the public purse. Then a few weeks later, the Chancellor delivers his Pre-Budget Report and there's not a single announcement about how this government is going to sort out our debt crisis, indeed he announced public spending would rise still further.
The Fiscal Responsibility Bill just typifies Labour's obsession with legislating for pointless reasons.
On a serious note though, financial education in school does sound like a good plan if it's delivered correctly. It should not go down the route that current provision of political education in schools has gone down, being patchy and poorly delivered on the whole.
But yesterday we saw yet another example of this government's complete inability to deal with the nation's economic problems. Parliament debated the grandly titled 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' which will make it a legal requirement for the government to halve the public deficit by 2013/2014. A laudable aim indeed, but one which we don't need a 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' to achieve and one which we will never achieve under this Labour government. The fact is that Alistair Darling and his gang are completely blind to the need to sort out the deficit now. The Fiscal Responsibility Bill was unveiled in the Queen's Speech in November and heralded by Gordon Brown as this great Bill that will restore stability to the public purse. Then a few weeks later, the Chancellor delivers his Pre-Budget Report and there's not a single announcement about how this government is going to sort out our debt crisis, indeed he announced public spending would rise still further.
The Fiscal Responsibility Bill just typifies Labour's obsession with legislating for pointless reasons.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Islam4UK must be allowed to march through Wootton Bassett
The plan by Islam4UK to march through Wootton Bassett is absolutely disgusting. Wootton Bassett has almost become a national memorial for the brave men and women, fighting on the front line in Afghanistan who are dying so I can do things like write this blog; the idea that British Citizens would want to march through that town in the manner they plan to fills me with anger. However their march must be allowed to go ahead.
I do not know much about Islam4UK but I understand them to be an Islamo-fascist organisation, hell-bent on turning the UK in to an Islamic state with Shariah law. They even want to turn Buckingham Palace in to a Mosque (perish the thought). (Link to their website here)
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, has backed a ban on the march stating that he felt 'revulsion' at the thought of the march. I share Mr Johnson's revulsion. But it is exactly because these people repulse us that we should allow them to speak and to march. As long as they are peaceful they have every right to gather in Wootton Bassett and process in the same way that many British citizens gather in Wootton Bassett to honour our war dead. There may come a day when the tide of British opinion turns against you and your views are the views people find repulsive - will you be so much in favour of a ban then? Restricting freedom of speech is seldom acceptable in my opinion; whether it's the BNP, Islam4UK, Gordon Brown or my grandmother - everyone has a right to express their views.
I do not want to live in a country when the majority can silence the minority and the only views we hear are those that conform to to the standards of acceptability. I want to be able to hear the nonsense of Islam4UK so I can challenge them and see how wrong they are. If the Islam4UK march is banned in Wootton Bassett, British democracy will be worse off.
I do not know much about Islam4UK but I understand them to be an Islamo-fascist organisation, hell-bent on turning the UK in to an Islamic state with Shariah law. They even want to turn Buckingham Palace in to a Mosque (perish the thought). (Link to their website here)
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, has backed a ban on the march stating that he felt 'revulsion' at the thought of the march. I share Mr Johnson's revulsion. But it is exactly because these people repulse us that we should allow them to speak and to march. As long as they are peaceful they have every right to gather in Wootton Bassett and process in the same way that many British citizens gather in Wootton Bassett to honour our war dead. There may come a day when the tide of British opinion turns against you and your views are the views people find repulsive - will you be so much in favour of a ban then? Restricting freedom of speech is seldom acceptable in my opinion; whether it's the BNP, Islam4UK, Gordon Brown or my grandmother - everyone has a right to express their views.
I do not want to live in a country when the majority can silence the minority and the only views we hear are those that conform to to the standards of acceptability. I want to be able to hear the nonsense of Islam4UK so I can challenge them and see how wrong they are. If the Islam4UK march is banned in Wootton Bassett, British democracy will be worse off.
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Ten tough choices for 2010
2010 is not only (hopefully) going to be the Year for Change we so desperately need in this country but it is inevitable going to be the year of cuts. Even the Labour Party are now reconciled to the fact that we need drastic cuts in public spending (although you wouldn't think it from the Pre-Budget Report). Today I outline ten cuts I would make to public spending in the next year.
1. Increase VAT to 20%
This is something that has been floated around in the media a lot recently and we know that the government considered raising VAT in the last budget. Although a regressive tax that will affect everyone, it is guaranteed to generate extra government revenue and will make up for the cost of the VAT cut. If announced in this year’s budget but not introduced until 2011, spending on the high-street will increase in the next twelve months as people try to avoid the extra costs, thus helping the recovery.
2. Keep the 50p tax rate for the duration of the next Parliament
The creation of the 50p tax rate is a tax on aspiration and shows just how much Labour is in the process of retreating to its old ways but it is here to stay (for the moment at least). The revenue it will raise will be needed to cut public spending and cut the deficit so the 50p tax rate should remain for the duration of the next Parliament when it should be at the top of the list for tax cuts.
3. Freeze public sector pay
I have already written about the need for the public sector to share the burden of post-recession cuts and there should therefore be a public sector pay freeze for the next two years – causing a real-term cut in pay.
4. Cut the pay of all public sector employees earning over £100,000
Freezing public pay doesn’t go far enough is kerbing the excessively high pay of some people in the public sector. Local authority Chief Executives and those in the higher echelons of the civil service must not simply accept a pay freeze but must accept a 10% cut in pay in the next financial year and a pay freeze the year after. This does not simply extend to civil servants, executives in Royal Mail (which is a publicly owned company), senior NHS Doctors (some of whom are earning in excess of £150,000) and the heads of quangos should also be included in any pay cuts/freezes.
5. Politician’s must show leadership in accepting more modest salaries
Politicians cannot talk about cutting public sector pay whilst enjoying salary increases themselves. Like the pay of those in the higher pay grades, MPs and ministers should all suffer a 10% fall in pay in the 2010-2011 financial year and a freeze the year after. This would cause an MP’s salary to fall from £64,766 a year to £58,289. The same applies to the additional salaries some MPs get for being ministers. Politicians are not the highest paid individuals in the public sector but we should be able to expect our politicians to show leadership in these difficult times.
6. Freeze all forms of state welfare
I suggest below some benefits that should be abolished but those that remain should be frozen just like public sector pay. This should apply to benefits such as Job Seeker’s Allowance, Disability Benefit and Incapacity Benefit and the State Pension. With inflation currently at 1.9%, this would mean a £7 fall in Job Seeker’s Allowance and an £11 fall in the weekly state pension.
7. Abolish Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit
Universal benefits such as the Child Trust Fund and Child Benefit are indefensible in times of economic hardship. Setting up a Trust Fund of £250 for every child when they are born and a second £250 when each child is 7 is completely unnecessary. Additionally, the £20 a week Child Benefit is made regardless of income so a single mother struggling to bring up a family gets the same Child Benefit as a millionaire – that is unfair. Both should be abolished. The shortfalls for the poorest families can be made up in Child Tax Credits which are based on income.
8. Means test winter fuel payments, free bus passes and free television licences
Older people have done very well out of the boom years and Labour’s public spending splurge but many have received benefits they do not need or deserve. Like the Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit, winter fuel payments, free bus passes and the free TV license are blind to the recipient’s financial circumstances. I am not convinced that abolishing these payments completely would be a good thing, ‘fuel poverty’ (the government’s name for people being cold in their houses) is a big problem for those with the lowest incomes. But many older people don’t spend their fuel payment on fuel and others could afford to pay a concessionary fare on the buses – so only those on the lowest incomes should receive these benefits.
9. Cut the cost of politics by reducing the number of MPs and ending government funding of politics
It costs us £500 million each year to run Parliament and much more for the wider cost of running politics in the UK. Many people don’t realise but the government spends millions of pounds a year on funding the Trade Unions and other charities and organisations which exist for purely political purposes. The state should not fund any sort of political activity – whether they are Trade Unions or pressure groups and all funding for these sorts of bodies should end; if such organisations cannot find the cash to run themselves then they obviously don’t have enough support and should consider their future. We should also cut the cost of politics by cutting the number of MPs by 10%, the House of Commons is far too big, and also cutting the number of ministers by a third.
10. Departmental spending cuts of at least 10% in ALL Departments
I have explained some specific projects I would scrap altogether but the government itself has already proposed 7% cuts across the board in Departmental budgets and to ensure we reduce the deficit these need to be at 10%. At the moment there can be no sacred cows, the Tories may have said they’ll protect the Health and International Aid budgets but these too must face the butcher’s knife. Cuts should start with wasteful bureaucracy, cutting unnecessary jobs and administration costs, but then we will have to turn to frontline services at some point. We can only avoid cutting frontline services if we hike up taxes to ridiculous levels – something we should avoid at all costs. This should include the grants to the devolved legislatures in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont.
Some of these proposals were outlined in a report by the Tax Payer's Alliance in September 2009 entitled 'How to save £50 billion'.
1. Increase VAT to 20%
This is something that has been floated around in the media a lot recently and we know that the government considered raising VAT in the last budget. Although a regressive tax that will affect everyone, it is guaranteed to generate extra government revenue and will make up for the cost of the VAT cut. If announced in this year’s budget but not introduced until 2011, spending on the high-street will increase in the next twelve months as people try to avoid the extra costs, thus helping the recovery.
2. Keep the 50p tax rate for the duration of the next Parliament
The creation of the 50p tax rate is a tax on aspiration and shows just how much Labour is in the process of retreating to its old ways but it is here to stay (for the moment at least). The revenue it will raise will be needed to cut public spending and cut the deficit so the 50p tax rate should remain for the duration of the next Parliament when it should be at the top of the list for tax cuts.
3. Freeze public sector pay
I have already written about the need for the public sector to share the burden of post-recession cuts and there should therefore be a public sector pay freeze for the next two years – causing a real-term cut in pay.
4. Cut the pay of all public sector employees earning over £100,000
Freezing public pay doesn’t go far enough is kerbing the excessively high pay of some people in the public sector. Local authority Chief Executives and those in the higher echelons of the civil service must not simply accept a pay freeze but must accept a 10% cut in pay in the next financial year and a pay freeze the year after. This does not simply extend to civil servants, executives in Royal Mail (which is a publicly owned company), senior NHS Doctors (some of whom are earning in excess of £150,000) and the heads of quangos should also be included in any pay cuts/freezes.
5. Politician’s must show leadership in accepting more modest salaries
Politicians cannot talk about cutting public sector pay whilst enjoying salary increases themselves. Like the pay of those in the higher pay grades, MPs and ministers should all suffer a 10% fall in pay in the 2010-2011 financial year and a freeze the year after. This would cause an MP’s salary to fall from £64,766 a year to £58,289. The same applies to the additional salaries some MPs get for being ministers. Politicians are not the highest paid individuals in the public sector but we should be able to expect our politicians to show leadership in these difficult times.
6. Freeze all forms of state welfare
I suggest below some benefits that should be abolished but those that remain should be frozen just like public sector pay. This should apply to benefits such as Job Seeker’s Allowance, Disability Benefit and Incapacity Benefit and the State Pension. With inflation currently at 1.9%, this would mean a £7 fall in Job Seeker’s Allowance and an £11 fall in the weekly state pension.
7. Abolish Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit
Universal benefits such as the Child Trust Fund and Child Benefit are indefensible in times of economic hardship. Setting up a Trust Fund of £250 for every child when they are born and a second £250 when each child is 7 is completely unnecessary. Additionally, the £20 a week Child Benefit is made regardless of income so a single mother struggling to bring up a family gets the same Child Benefit as a millionaire – that is unfair. Both should be abolished. The shortfalls for the poorest families can be made up in Child Tax Credits which are based on income.
8. Means test winter fuel payments, free bus passes and free television licences
Older people have done very well out of the boom years and Labour’s public spending splurge but many have received benefits they do not need or deserve. Like the Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit, winter fuel payments, free bus passes and the free TV license are blind to the recipient’s financial circumstances. I am not convinced that abolishing these payments completely would be a good thing, ‘fuel poverty’ (the government’s name for people being cold in their houses) is a big problem for those with the lowest incomes. But many older people don’t spend their fuel payment on fuel and others could afford to pay a concessionary fare on the buses – so only those on the lowest incomes should receive these benefits.
9. Cut the cost of politics by reducing the number of MPs and ending government funding of politics
It costs us £500 million each year to run Parliament and much more for the wider cost of running politics in the UK. Many people don’t realise but the government spends millions of pounds a year on funding the Trade Unions and other charities and organisations which exist for purely political purposes. The state should not fund any sort of political activity – whether they are Trade Unions or pressure groups and all funding for these sorts of bodies should end; if such organisations cannot find the cash to run themselves then they obviously don’t have enough support and should consider their future. We should also cut the cost of politics by cutting the number of MPs by 10%, the House of Commons is far too big, and also cutting the number of ministers by a third.
10. Departmental spending cuts of at least 10% in ALL Departments
I have explained some specific projects I would scrap altogether but the government itself has already proposed 7% cuts across the board in Departmental budgets and to ensure we reduce the deficit these need to be at 10%. At the moment there can be no sacred cows, the Tories may have said they’ll protect the Health and International Aid budgets but these too must face the butcher’s knife. Cuts should start with wasteful bureaucracy, cutting unnecessary jobs and administration costs, but then we will have to turn to frontline services at some point. We can only avoid cutting frontline services if we hike up taxes to ridiculous levels – something we should avoid at all costs. This should include the grants to the devolved legislatures in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont.
Some of these proposals were outlined in a report by the Tax Payer's Alliance in September 2009 entitled 'How to save £50 billion'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
