"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go! for a few pieces of money. temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone!"
No, this is not the speech Ed Miliband will make on Parliament's return, telling the coalition their time is up. It could be the voice of the people demonstrating their total distrust of all politicians. But it is that of Oliver Cromwell on April 20th 1653, when he marched the rump out of the House, and began his period of personal rule. Mind you, the more more famous version of this speech was quoted by Bulstrode Whitlocke who wrote, "You have sat too long here for any good that you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" This version does have a little more drama about it.
Following the execution of Charles I on January 30th 1649, the Commonwealth of England was declared and was ruled by a Parliament until that fateful day, when Cromwell's loyal commanders expelled the members for the second time.
The first time had occurred in November 1648 when those MPs Cromwell believed would not support a trial and execution of the King were purged, by Colonel Thomas Pride. The remaining members were known as the Rump, and this was what Cromwell kicked out in 1653.
Abolishing the House of Lords and the monarchy, the Rump became the sole arbiter, and all the powers of the monarch became absorbed into it, and through a series of committees and commissions, carried out all administrative for central and local government.
The situation for the democratic progress looked promising, as Cromwell appeared to be getting his way, and parliament began to prepare for new elections, after Cromwell's decisive victory in the Battle of Worcester in 1651. However, complicated by the issue of war with the Dutch, and the House's seeming reluctance to dissolve itself, seems to have led Cromwell to believe the House was seeking to perpetuate itself. This is certainly the image put forward in the film 'Cromwell' starring Richard Harris.
Whatever the precise reasons, the country found itself now ruled by an elite called the 'Barebones' (after Praise-God Barbon one of its members), who were nominated by the army, and although often ridiculed as being 'inferior' was mainly made up of gentry, and lower nobility.
However, this legislature was an ineffective body, there were no lawmakers amongst its members, and there were increasing tensions between radicals (Fifth Monarchists etc), Moderates and Conservatives over religious reform. In March 1653 the radicals gained enough support to defeat a Bill supporting the status quo, the Moderates and Conservatives invited Cromwell to one again take over. For a third time, soldiers marched on parliament under Cromwell's command, to expel the 'barebones.'
Oliver Cromwell was sworn in as Lord Protector on 16th December 1653, and began a unique experiment in British constitutional history. I do not intend to make this a detailed examination of this period, this is more a celebration of that period.
Cromwell's main task, as he saw it, was to restore order and good sense to politics, and to a large extent in that he succeeded. The war with the Dutch was ended, and there were reductions in taxation.
He made a concession in 1657, which considering the times was quite remarkable. Religious intolerance was rife, especially by protestants against catholics, yet Cromwell himself within those confines was in favour of freedom of worship. There was also an economic element, in that Jews (expelled from England by Edward I) had played a substantial role in Dutch economic success, and he invited them to return.
That same year he was offered the crown, but after a period of agony, decided against accepting, and on April 13th said, “I would not seek to set up that which Providence hath destroyed and laid in the dust, and I would not build Jericho again.”
Cromwell continued to rule until his death on September 3rd 1658, and on his death was succeeded by his son Richard. However, Richard wasn't really cut out for the task, and eventually he stood down, paving the way for the return of King Charles II in 1660.
Some revenge was extracted by the new regime, and Cromwell's body was exhumed and hanged. His head after was much travelled in the following centuries, before eventually being buried at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, his old University.
It is often difficult, outside perhaps the Jewish community, to judge what Oliver Cromwell's legacy is, but many of the constitutional changes to the way parliament is run, were instigated at that time.
For Ireland his name is one of death and destruction as he suppressed their religious freedoms, and committed atrocities, especially at Drogheda in 1649, even if they didn't match the myths that subsequently grew up.
However, hero or villain, Oliver Cromwell is one of the most famous names in English history. His 'warts and all' phrase is often used (even though like most quotes, that's not quite what he said), and shows Cromwell up as a man seemingly without vanity.
To me Cromwell is a great man, and stands up for those who resist arbitrary power, and the defence of law. I don't agree with his actions in Ireland, but it is so easy to criticise at this distance in time.
As the twentieth century ended, in a poll of the ten greatest Britons Oliver Cromwell came tenth, which indicates how he has become a part of our national heritage, and British school children will still be studying him, and his legacy for years to come.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Cameron's first war...right or wrong?
David Cameron stated a few moments ago that British planes were now engaged in action over Libyan airspace. This is in response to the actions of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, as he repels a rebel uprising in the country.
Unlike in Iraq, the British, french and US forces are acting under the auspices of the United Nations, with resolution 1973 being passed in the early hours of Friday. In his statement to the House of Commons later that day, David Cameron laid out the extent of the action allowed, and Labour leader Ed Miliband expressed support for the government's actions, and our forces involved.
A joint statement was published yesterday, from the British, French and US as well as Arab States:
Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.
Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.
Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable.
If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and this Resolution will be enforced through military action.
The beginning of operation 'Odyssey Dawn' marks a new era, and is David Cameron's first war, since he assumed office just ten months ago. Already we, along with the US, are firing tomahawk missiles at Libyan Army tanks, yet as we know all too well from the Iraq conflict, the innocent often get caught up in these matters.
Resolution 1973 is clear in its remit, and this is where the danger lies, as it won't take much to go beyond it. President Obama has quite rightly stated that American ground forces will not be used, and I would like to hear David Cameron say the same. If things move on, and the UN sanctions it, I will make my mind up then, but we have already been tainted by the stigma of regime change, which is against international law, as currently understood.
The official position is that it imposes a 'No Fly Zone' for other than planes involved in humanitarian missions, and allows for the targeting of ground forces if they are believed to be a threat. However, my fear here, is that this can be interpreted as attacking airfields and bases of troops, thought to be loyal to the regime, would be legitimate. The missile attacks seem to support this fear, and I'm very concerned that this could be seen as an act of war by surrounding states, particularly Iran.
The big question is what is the next stage if Gaddafi refuses to leave peacefully, or no one tries to overthrow him. Both Cameron and Obama have explicitly called for Gaddafi to go, and if he remains in place do they have a plan of action?
Currently the 'allies' have the support of several Arab states, but if Libyan civilians start to die in large numbers then that could quickly ebb away, and even if the majority of UN security members supported further military action, the Russians and Chinese would veto it, and the lesson of Iraq would surely prevent unilateral action by allied states.
There is also the wider issue of what seems to happening in other states in the region, as reports come in of protests in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, with varying levels of state brutality in response.
For many of us, these should not be ignored, because they are suppliers of much of our oil, and have in the past supported us in actions in the region, as indeed did Gaddafi. We must be consistent in this, which is why the action taken over Libya presents such a problem as expectations may well be heightened as to how we will react if the authorities start stamping down on the protesters and rebels.
It is certainly apparent that Gaddafi is different from other leaders, in that there is evidence that he can act very unpredictably, and seems to be in a state of denial as to what is happening in his country. But, there have been plenty of reports of brutality and killings in Yemen and Bahrain, and the public would expect the international community to take action, if these develop along similar lines to Libya.
David Cameron did well to take the international community along with him on the 'No Fly Zone,' and the extension to enable action to protect Libyan citizens and humanitarian missions is the right one. However, he mustn't lose sight of what that objective is, and allow himself to be dragged into taking further action, without official support from the United Nations.
As hard as it would be to take, if the UN fails to support further action, for whatever reason, Cameron must accept it, and if other countries take things further, he must stay out. Harold Wilson gained a lot of credit with the British electorate when he refused to send troops into Vietnam, although he offered other types of support.
Therefore, for the moment, I am fully supportive of David Cameron, and the lead he has taken, but offer a word of caution that he must stay within the remit of Resolution 1973. That is all I ask Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander to do, offer full support, but ask the right questions, and ensure that David Cameron is constantly reminded of his responsibilities, not only to Britain, but also our service personnel, and the wider international community.
Unlike in Iraq, the British, french and US forces are acting under the auspices of the United Nations, with resolution 1973 being passed in the early hours of Friday. In his statement to the House of Commons later that day, David Cameron laid out the extent of the action allowed, and Labour leader Ed Miliband expressed support for the government's actions, and our forces involved.
A joint statement was published yesterday, from the British, French and US as well as Arab States:
Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.
Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.
Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable.
If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences, and this Resolution will be enforced through military action.
The beginning of operation 'Odyssey Dawn' marks a new era, and is David Cameron's first war, since he assumed office just ten months ago. Already we, along with the US, are firing tomahawk missiles at Libyan Army tanks, yet as we know all too well from the Iraq conflict, the innocent often get caught up in these matters.
Resolution 1973 is clear in its remit, and this is where the danger lies, as it won't take much to go beyond it. President Obama has quite rightly stated that American ground forces will not be used, and I would like to hear David Cameron say the same. If things move on, and the UN sanctions it, I will make my mind up then, but we have already been tainted by the stigma of regime change, which is against international law, as currently understood.
The official position is that it imposes a 'No Fly Zone' for other than planes involved in humanitarian missions, and allows for the targeting of ground forces if they are believed to be a threat. However, my fear here, is that this can be interpreted as attacking airfields and bases of troops, thought to be loyal to the regime, would be legitimate. The missile attacks seem to support this fear, and I'm very concerned that this could be seen as an act of war by surrounding states, particularly Iran.
The big question is what is the next stage if Gaddafi refuses to leave peacefully, or no one tries to overthrow him. Both Cameron and Obama have explicitly called for Gaddafi to go, and if he remains in place do they have a plan of action?
Currently the 'allies' have the support of several Arab states, but if Libyan civilians start to die in large numbers then that could quickly ebb away, and even if the majority of UN security members supported further military action, the Russians and Chinese would veto it, and the lesson of Iraq would surely prevent unilateral action by allied states.
There is also the wider issue of what seems to happening in other states in the region, as reports come in of protests in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain and Yemen, with varying levels of state brutality in response.
For many of us, these should not be ignored, because they are suppliers of much of our oil, and have in the past supported us in actions in the region, as indeed did Gaddafi. We must be consistent in this, which is why the action taken over Libya presents such a problem as expectations may well be heightened as to how we will react if the authorities start stamping down on the protesters and rebels.
It is certainly apparent that Gaddafi is different from other leaders, in that there is evidence that he can act very unpredictably, and seems to be in a state of denial as to what is happening in his country. But, there have been plenty of reports of brutality and killings in Yemen and Bahrain, and the public would expect the international community to take action, if these develop along similar lines to Libya.
David Cameron did well to take the international community along with him on the 'No Fly Zone,' and the extension to enable action to protect Libyan citizens and humanitarian missions is the right one. However, he mustn't lose sight of what that objective is, and allow himself to be dragged into taking further action, without official support from the United Nations.
As hard as it would be to take, if the UN fails to support further action, for whatever reason, Cameron must accept it, and if other countries take things further, he must stay out. Harold Wilson gained a lot of credit with the British electorate when he refused to send troops into Vietnam, although he offered other types of support.
Therefore, for the moment, I am fully supportive of David Cameron, and the lead he has taken, but offer a word of caution that he must stay within the remit of Resolution 1973. That is all I ask Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander to do, offer full support, but ask the right questions, and ensure that David Cameron is constantly reminded of his responsibilities, not only to Britain, but also our service personnel, and the wider international community.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
What if....forming the coalition was Cameron's biggest mistake?
As we approach the local elections on May 5th, the coalition parties both face an uncertain fate, with both expecting to get 'huge kicking' from the electorate. The cuts and other policies such as tuition fees, are proving to be intensely unpopular, and dissatisfaction is high. So although David Cameron and his government have made many mistakes since taking office, was his biggest one entering into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats?
Why do I say this? It's because I believe that the coalition has given the Conservatives the confidence to go forward with their policies on cuts, and face down the protests and marches that have, and will, be coming. At the moment they seem to be protected, as the Liberal Democrats are feeling the brunt of the public's ire, but as the recent Barnsley Central by-election showed, the Conservatives themselves are vulnerable.
So, what other options did Cameron have following the May 2010 General Election, a result which left no one in charge, but the Conservatives the biggest party? The arithmetic meant the Labour Party was not in a position to form anything other than a multi-party coalition, but they felt that this wasn't really a feasible option, and the gap between them and the Liberal Democrat negotiators, particularly David Laws and Danny Alexander, was too large. So Gordon Brown ordered them to stop, and informed the Queen he would step down as soon as a new government could be formed.
Although negotiations with the Liberal Democrats had made some progress, rumblings inside David Cameron's own party, particularly over the prospect of a referendum on electoral reform, led to him thinking a full coalition would cause more problems than it solved. Therefore, a much looser 'confidence and supply' agreement was reached, in which the Liberal Democrats would support policies they felt they could live with.
Chancellor George Osborne and Chief Secretary Philip Hammond had wanted to cut very severely, in the hope of paying off the deficit within four years, and hope that the recovery in the private sector had taken off sufficiently for substantial growth to occur in the year leading up to 2015. However, they quickly realised that a budget with this aim would not get through the House, so they knew they would have to rein back.
Discussion with the Liberal Democrats revealed that they felt that Labour's plan top half the deficit in four years was their preferred option, but the Tories wanted to make deeper cuts, even if they realised that elimination was not likely. The agreement was that they would seek to halve the deficit within three years, and eliminate it totally in the first half of a new parliament, when they hoped the economy was more or less back on track, and growing strongly.
So when George Osborne's emergency budget was presented in June, he brought forward a number of policies which sounded restrained, and there was less of an emphasise on cutting, and more on how to create opportunities for growth. The Labour Party, whilst still believing the cuts were too severe, were forced to say they were pleased to see that growth was a high priority, even if they disagreed with some of the detail. Another aspect was that Osborne had been persuaded to levy the banks more than his instincts would have allowed him with a majority behind him.
There were a number of other contentious issues, which the Conservative minority government were forced to be much more circumspect on. The Building Schools for the Future fund was cut, but Education secretary Michael Gove restricted it to projects that were very early in the process of design. Although this caused disquiet in the areas affected, and accusations of Labour areas being targeted, Gove was able to assure them that once a new, more efficient, funding process had been developed, most of them would go ahead.
The Browne report on the future of university funding was published that October, and the government were debating whether to follow its recommendations. Browne had advised tuition fees should rise to £12,000, but David Cameron felt this would be too high. Business secretary David Willetts suggested £9,000, but Cameron knew he would never get this through the House, as the Liberal Democrats had pledged during the election, to vote against any rise. Yet cuts in university funding, which although not the 80% feared, at 40% were still substantial, and the gap had to be filled somehow.
Therefore, the plan put before the House was to double fees to around £6,000 a year, with the hope and expectation that most would see rises in the region of 33%, or £4,500. The sweetener in the deal was that universities that showed a commitment to students from poorer backgrounds would get additional funds in the future, once the economy had recovered. The other big change was that the fees would not be upfront, but repaid after graduation once a salary of £21,000 had been achieved. It was expected the average student would leave university with debts of around £35,000.
The Labour opposition felt this increase was too much, but supported the principle of a smaller increase, and brought forward amendments to that effect. In the end an agreement was reached on a rise in the maximum to £4,800 a year, and with the support of a large proportion of the Labour members, the bill passed, as most Liberal Democrats stuck to their pledge, though one or two, felt the rise was reasonable given the circumstances. There were a number of demonstrations by students against the rises, but these were Small and despite the noise, easily contained by the police.
A number of other measures were brought forward which were much circumscribed, Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms being the main one. It was felt within the government that as this was not something they had included in their manifesto, they would have too much difficulty getting it through, and it was quietly dropped, much to Lansley's chagrin. Lansley's constant briefing against Cameron led to him being shifted sideways to Communities at the first reshuffle, when Eric Pickles was moved to defence and Liam Fox dropped from the cabinet altogether.
Although slow, the economy continued to grow, and cuts in public services were much smaller than it was feared they would be, and councils were able to target them better, so it was felt the less well off weren't being singled out. The boundary changes bill was much amended, and in the end, the Boundaries Commission were charged with reducing the number of MPs to 600 over the next two parliaments, and should seek to equalise constituencies within a certain threshold. The Labour party were unhappy about this, but the Liberal Democrats supported it, and Labour were happy that there would still be a full consultation process, thought eh Commission's overriding target would take priority in the end.
So with the economic picture looking better, unemployment high, but not thought to be surprising considering the crisis that had occurred, and David Cameron proving to be a popular Prime Minister, and the polls showing the Conservatives to have a lead over Labour, he decided to go for an election in October 2012 following the party conferences.
The Boundaries Commission changes had not yet kicked in, so it was fought under the previous ones and the result was Conservative 327, Labour 254, Liberal Democrat60 with others gaining one extra seat, as the Greens doubled their membership. This gave the Conservatives an overall majority of two, but they continued to govern circumspectly, realising it could so easily be lost.
The 2017 General Election proved even more fruitful, as the Conservatives prudent control of public finances meant that they were returned with a majority of 60 and in a position to push on with reforms to public services, they had held back on for so many years. In 2019 David Cameron stepped down and was replaced by Fraser Nelson who had been elected in 2012, and had proved to be a brilliant Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
David Cameron had seen off two labour leaders, with Ed, and then David Miliband both failing to take Labour back into office. The Conservatives mantra that Labour had left just a huge mess behind them had taken hold, and the sensible approach the government had taken was a stark contrast to the 'tax and spend' policies of the previous government. The leader that Nelson faced was Labour's first woman leader, Stella Creasey, but that is another story.
This is, of course, only one of many possible scenarios, but not completely without merit I believe. In this May's local elections the Liberal democrats will be hammered, but the Conservatives will also take a big hit. The drastic cuts look as though they will lead to a stagnant economy at best, and if the coalition last the full five years, the Conservatives could face a huge defeat, regardless of the boundary changes, and whichever electoral system we have in place.
The protests against the cuts are going to be widespread, and the future looks bleak. The changes to the NHS, and education are unpopular, and the public are very quickly becoming disenchanted, and the honeymoon is well and truly over.
The Liberal Democrats may well have virtually disappeared as a single party, especially if the May elections reflect the national polls, and the referendum on the Alternative Vote is badly lost.
But, more than anything, the Liberal Democrats have been seen to have betrayed many of their principles for the trappings of power, and had allowed, almost without protest, to let the Conservatives ride roughshod over the public services, with the cuts in benefits for the disabled, pregnant mothers, housing and many others.
Without the Liberal Democrats, a minority Conservative government, with Liberal democrat support on certain issues would have been forced to rein back on what it wished to do, and instead of the possibility of one term, with many more years in opposition, it could have meant nearly a decade of Conservative rule.
So, although greeted as a brave act when first proposed, and then acted upon, it is possible that creating the coalition was David Cameron's first big mistake, and the doom of the Conservatives.
Why do I say this? It's because I believe that the coalition has given the Conservatives the confidence to go forward with their policies on cuts, and face down the protests and marches that have, and will, be coming. At the moment they seem to be protected, as the Liberal Democrats are feeling the brunt of the public's ire, but as the recent Barnsley Central by-election showed, the Conservatives themselves are vulnerable.
So, what other options did Cameron have following the May 2010 General Election, a result which left no one in charge, but the Conservatives the biggest party? The arithmetic meant the Labour Party was not in a position to form anything other than a multi-party coalition, but they felt that this wasn't really a feasible option, and the gap between them and the Liberal Democrat negotiators, particularly David Laws and Danny Alexander, was too large. So Gordon Brown ordered them to stop, and informed the Queen he would step down as soon as a new government could be formed.
Although negotiations with the Liberal Democrats had made some progress, rumblings inside David Cameron's own party, particularly over the prospect of a referendum on electoral reform, led to him thinking a full coalition would cause more problems than it solved. Therefore, a much looser 'confidence and supply' agreement was reached, in which the Liberal Democrats would support policies they felt they could live with.
Chancellor George Osborne and Chief Secretary Philip Hammond had wanted to cut very severely, in the hope of paying off the deficit within four years, and hope that the recovery in the private sector had taken off sufficiently for substantial growth to occur in the year leading up to 2015. However, they quickly realised that a budget with this aim would not get through the House, so they knew they would have to rein back.
Discussion with the Liberal Democrats revealed that they felt that Labour's plan top half the deficit in four years was their preferred option, but the Tories wanted to make deeper cuts, even if they realised that elimination was not likely. The agreement was that they would seek to halve the deficit within three years, and eliminate it totally in the first half of a new parliament, when they hoped the economy was more or less back on track, and growing strongly.
So when George Osborne's emergency budget was presented in June, he brought forward a number of policies which sounded restrained, and there was less of an emphasise on cutting, and more on how to create opportunities for growth. The Labour Party, whilst still believing the cuts were too severe, were forced to say they were pleased to see that growth was a high priority, even if they disagreed with some of the detail. Another aspect was that Osborne had been persuaded to levy the banks more than his instincts would have allowed him with a majority behind him.
There were a number of other contentious issues, which the Conservative minority government were forced to be much more circumspect on. The Building Schools for the Future fund was cut, but Education secretary Michael Gove restricted it to projects that were very early in the process of design. Although this caused disquiet in the areas affected, and accusations of Labour areas being targeted, Gove was able to assure them that once a new, more efficient, funding process had been developed, most of them would go ahead.
The Browne report on the future of university funding was published that October, and the government were debating whether to follow its recommendations. Browne had advised tuition fees should rise to £12,000, but David Cameron felt this would be too high. Business secretary David Willetts suggested £9,000, but Cameron knew he would never get this through the House, as the Liberal Democrats had pledged during the election, to vote against any rise. Yet cuts in university funding, which although not the 80% feared, at 40% were still substantial, and the gap had to be filled somehow.
Therefore, the plan put before the House was to double fees to around £6,000 a year, with the hope and expectation that most would see rises in the region of 33%, or £4,500. The sweetener in the deal was that universities that showed a commitment to students from poorer backgrounds would get additional funds in the future, once the economy had recovered. The other big change was that the fees would not be upfront, but repaid after graduation once a salary of £21,000 had been achieved. It was expected the average student would leave university with debts of around £35,000.
The Labour opposition felt this increase was too much, but supported the principle of a smaller increase, and brought forward amendments to that effect. In the end an agreement was reached on a rise in the maximum to £4,800 a year, and with the support of a large proportion of the Labour members, the bill passed, as most Liberal Democrats stuck to their pledge, though one or two, felt the rise was reasonable given the circumstances. There were a number of demonstrations by students against the rises, but these were Small and despite the noise, easily contained by the police.
A number of other measures were brought forward which were much circumscribed, Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms being the main one. It was felt within the government that as this was not something they had included in their manifesto, they would have too much difficulty getting it through, and it was quietly dropped, much to Lansley's chagrin. Lansley's constant briefing against Cameron led to him being shifted sideways to Communities at the first reshuffle, when Eric Pickles was moved to defence and Liam Fox dropped from the cabinet altogether.
Although slow, the economy continued to grow, and cuts in public services were much smaller than it was feared they would be, and councils were able to target them better, so it was felt the less well off weren't being singled out. The boundary changes bill was much amended, and in the end, the Boundaries Commission were charged with reducing the number of MPs to 600 over the next two parliaments, and should seek to equalise constituencies within a certain threshold. The Labour party were unhappy about this, but the Liberal Democrats supported it, and Labour were happy that there would still be a full consultation process, thought eh Commission's overriding target would take priority in the end.
So with the economic picture looking better, unemployment high, but not thought to be surprising considering the crisis that had occurred, and David Cameron proving to be a popular Prime Minister, and the polls showing the Conservatives to have a lead over Labour, he decided to go for an election in October 2012 following the party conferences.
The Boundaries Commission changes had not yet kicked in, so it was fought under the previous ones and the result was Conservative 327, Labour 254, Liberal Democrat60 with others gaining one extra seat, as the Greens doubled their membership. This gave the Conservatives an overall majority of two, but they continued to govern circumspectly, realising it could so easily be lost.
The 2017 General Election proved even more fruitful, as the Conservatives prudent control of public finances meant that they were returned with a majority of 60 and in a position to push on with reforms to public services, they had held back on for so many years. In 2019 David Cameron stepped down and was replaced by Fraser Nelson who had been elected in 2012, and had proved to be a brilliant Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
David Cameron had seen off two labour leaders, with Ed, and then David Miliband both failing to take Labour back into office. The Conservatives mantra that Labour had left just a huge mess behind them had taken hold, and the sensible approach the government had taken was a stark contrast to the 'tax and spend' policies of the previous government. The leader that Nelson faced was Labour's first woman leader, Stella Creasey, but that is another story.
This is, of course, only one of many possible scenarios, but not completely without merit I believe. In this May's local elections the Liberal democrats will be hammered, but the Conservatives will also take a big hit. The drastic cuts look as though they will lead to a stagnant economy at best, and if the coalition last the full five years, the Conservatives could face a huge defeat, regardless of the boundary changes, and whichever electoral system we have in place.
The protests against the cuts are going to be widespread, and the future looks bleak. The changes to the NHS, and education are unpopular, and the public are very quickly becoming disenchanted, and the honeymoon is well and truly over.
The Liberal Democrats may well have virtually disappeared as a single party, especially if the May elections reflect the national polls, and the referendum on the Alternative Vote is badly lost.
But, more than anything, the Liberal Democrats have been seen to have betrayed many of their principles for the trappings of power, and had allowed, almost without protest, to let the Conservatives ride roughshod over the public services, with the cuts in benefits for the disabled, pregnant mothers, housing and many others.
Without the Liberal Democrats, a minority Conservative government, with Liberal democrat support on certain issues would have been forced to rein back on what it wished to do, and instead of the possibility of one term, with many more years in opposition, it could have meant nearly a decade of Conservative rule.
So, although greeted as a brave act when first proposed, and then acted upon, it is possible that creating the coalition was David Cameron's first big mistake, and the doom of the Conservatives.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Protest! The song remains the same?
In London and Manchester yesterday, the 28th January there were large marches against the rise in tuition fees and the cuts the coalition government is imposing on Britain. These are just the latest in a series of protests and ther are many more to come. But! Are we seeing a new age of protest? Is there anything new about them? Will they have any effect?
The people have been protesting, and rebelling, against the forces of authority and oppression since ancient times. In Britain alone we learn of the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, the enclosure riots of the 16th century, the English Civil War, Peterloo, the Suffragettes, the Jarrow March, and the Poll Tax Riot to name but a few.
France had its revolution in the late 18th cnetury, followed swiftly by the Americans, then in the mid-19th century there were a series of uprisings especially in 1848. Other parts of the world have also experienced their own revolutions, and protests. So protesting is an essential element as people try to make themselves heard, and even overthrow their governments.
For the modern generation, the first experience, albeit second hand for most Britons, is the movement that swept away the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989. These tapped into a changing mood, and, with the exception of Romania, seem to have been largely peaceful. The revolution however, was only possible because the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had indicated that they would not intervene, if the people rose up against their imposed governments. South Africa's change was of a different nature, having built up over a long period of time, international sanctions playing a part, and the government eventually deciding on a peaceful handover themselves.
So the protests of the early 21st century are following a long tradition, but is there anything different about them in any significant respect? Technology is playing a big part, the ability to email, tweet and text to organise protests has enabled fairly rapid organisation, and relaying of information. This is then enhanced by using the internet and social networking sites such as facebook and twitter to keep people updated on events.
In 2008 Barack Obama's campaign made very good use of technology to organise, and now it is being used in Egypt as the people rise up to try and oust Mubarak who has been in charge for thirty years. The authorities fear of technological advances being used is such that they have cut off internet links, and blocked mobile networks. The Egyptian uprising is inspired by the forcing out of Tunisia's long-serving leader Ben Ali, and it has similarly inspired the same in Sudan.
Egypt and Sudan's are youth led, in a way reminiscent of Europe's 1848 movements (Young Turks,Young French etc.), and it is reported today that a group calling itself 'Youth for Change' is protesting in Khartoum. It seems that there is now a sweeping movement across the North African/Arabian border states, and it will be very interesting to see if other states such as Algeria and Libya get caught up.
In the wake of the financial crisis, nobody has escaped the effects, with Britain suffering especially badly of the major industrialised countries. There are many arguments as regards the reasons for this, which will be argued about for generations to come. However, what Britain does have is a government that believes drastic cuts are needed to pay off the deficit by 2014.
As a result a number of measures have been taken, which will come into effect over the coming years. There are two main areas affected by the government's policies, public services and universities (including further education), as well as a rise in VAT, which is regressive. many jobs are going to be lost in the near future, many in the public services, but private companies, especially those who work closely with the public sector, are also going to feel the pinch. The government is hoping the private sector will be able to fill the gap in services and employment, but unless the current downturn turns out to be a blip, that could well turn out to be a false premise.
The rise in tuition fees, and the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance has caused the first stirrings, as students all over the country have marched against them. Although teachers, lecturers and parents have joined in as support, it is the youth who have been the drivers of these protests. The irony of the part played by university students, is that they will not be liable for the rises in tuition fees, but they feel as though they are playing a part on behalf of future students. Many of these are those currently in their first year of A level courses, who have had their maintenance allowance abolished, with nothing, as yet, to replace it. But this is what links these protests with those in Egypt, Tunisia and Sudan, that it is the next generation leading them, and not the forces of the past.
Public sector strikes could be the next move, but those who will be losing their jobs are now beginning to join with the young protesters to make their opinions known. and although the unions will play a part in organising these, it is new movements such as UK uncut, led by Aaron Peter's, that are the driving force.
As said technology has played a big part in the organising of these protests, and the ability of participants to quickly disperse information, means that we can all follow what is happening. There are many more protests planned over the coming months, as the unions and others join in, as the cuts begin in earnest.
We therefore come to our first question, are we seeing a new age of protest? The answer to that, in reality, is no. Protest has been an integral part of society in one form or another since the polis came into existence, and almost certainly long before then. Whatever the changes in organisation and information dispersal, they are the continuation of a long tradition when people feel they are being treated unfairly by government, whether that is true or just a perception. The cuts, and policies, are affecting people and they feel that this is the only way to make themselves heard.
The second question is there anything new about them? Again I have to say no, because as in many ways all the great revolutions, the current protest movements all over the world, are driven by a similar imperitive, the failure of the old politics. Whether it is the ancien regimes of France in 1789 and Britain in 1642 and 1776, apartheid in South Africa, Communism in Eastern Europe, or the political system in Britain western Europe, or North Africa and Arabia. It is this failure that is seen as the reasons behind the high unemployment and economic difficulties facing people all over the world, and their seeming unwillingness to deal with the root causes.
For many years now, certainly in Britain, political participation has been falling, and people have become more engaged through other mediums such as the green movement, or the National Trust, it is through civil society that people have expressed themselves. Turnout in General Elections has also fallen, as the electorate feel as though the parties, and their representatives do not actually really understand the issues they face in their lives.
The expenses scandal brought this to a head, as it seemed to confirm what many have believed for years, that politicians are only out for themselves. They also feel, with some justification, that those they elect to represent them in parliament, have very little real experience of ordinary life, with millionaires in government telling them "we're all sharing the pain," or leaders of other parties that have done little else but politics. There seem to be very few who have similar backgrounds to those that voted for them, and even fewer seeming to reach the upper echelons, then if they do, as with Alan Johnson, are dismissed as 'postie,' as though his having had what many would consider a real job, and makes it appear that the ordinary person in the street is considered less important, and that their experiences have nothing to tell the policiticians.
So we come to the most important question, will they have any effect? History already tells us the results of many past revolutions, whether successful or not. The Tunisian regime has fallen, and Egypt seems to be on the cusp of a new age, but both these country's rulers were long standing, and their positions were long regarded as undemocratic, as even when elections were held, they weren't regarded as free or fair. When the people rebelled, and decided that change was needed, they had a common target, as the regimes had lost the support and trust of the people, and the armies decided not to intervene on behalf of the authorities.
The protesters in Britain face a different set of problems, as the government is freely elected, and because the facility exists to punish them through the ballot box, a revolution of the sort in Tunisia (or even Britain in the 17th century) is highly unlikely. But that doesn't make the protests invaluable, or that they will not affect policy.
In 1990 the Poll Tax riots were not responsible alone for Margaret Thatcher's removal from office. They were an expression of great unhappiness with one element of government policy, but that was just representative of a government, and leader seen to have lost touch, and it became apparent that if Mrs. Thatcher remained in place the Conservatives would almost certainly lose the next election. Margaret Thatcher was therefore replaced by John Major nine months later, and the Conservatives managed to win the subsequent election in 1992.
The current protests are occurring very soon into the new government's term, and are going to get more frequent as economic pressures and policies combine to affect the people of Britain. The government is a coalition, and many in the junior partner, the Liberal Democrats, are less then happy about the policies the government is enacting. In the polls at the moment it is the Liberal Democrats taking the hit, and if they do very badly in May's local elections, pressure will be brought to bear on the party's MPs. There may even be calls in some quarters for them to withdraw from the coalition, though highly unlikely at this stage.
The Conservatives are not immune from this, and if the economic situation continues to worsen, the pressure to change direction will be immense. A poor performance by the Tories in May, especially if they are almost wiped out in the Scottish and Welsh elections, and David Cameron will come under internal pressure to make changes in policy. At the moment the government is resisting all calls to alter course, and lessen the impact of the cuts, saying they are necessary to restore faith in public finances. But if things do not begin to improve measurably for ordinary people quite quickly, then they could find themselves facing a similar situation to the government in 1990.
Overall then, the new wave of protests at home and abroad are nothing new, and even the reasons are very much the same. Unemployment, or fear of it, economic difficulties, leaders out of touch with the ordinary man and woman in the street, and that the politicians are only concerned with their own comforts.
The real difference is that new technology enables mass protest to be organised quickly, and that those all over the world can follow eventsw as they happen. The twenty-four hour media allows us to see the pictures, whilst we read the thoughts of those involved, and gain a wider understanding of what is happening.
So although the reasons for mass protests remain the same, it is the way they are organised that makes them different. The ability to cross boundaries, and to relay information, and therefore the authorities ability to control the dispersal of that information is restricted.
When I was on the December 9th protest in London, I was able to provide a running commentary on my phone, and today's events were relayed on twitter, and we were able to see instance photographs of protesters being pepper sprayed. At this moment I have twenty-four hour news on, and can watch the situation in Egypt unfold before my eyes.
The people have been protesting, and rebelling, against the forces of authority and oppression since ancient times. In Britain alone we learn of the Peasant's Revolt of 1381, the enclosure riots of the 16th century, the English Civil War, Peterloo, the Suffragettes, the Jarrow March, and the Poll Tax Riot to name but a few.
France had its revolution in the late 18th cnetury, followed swiftly by the Americans, then in the mid-19th century there were a series of uprisings especially in 1848. Other parts of the world have also experienced their own revolutions, and protests. So protesting is an essential element as people try to make themselves heard, and even overthrow their governments.
For the modern generation, the first experience, albeit second hand for most Britons, is the movement that swept away the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989. These tapped into a changing mood, and, with the exception of Romania, seem to have been largely peaceful. The revolution however, was only possible because the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, had indicated that they would not intervene, if the people rose up against their imposed governments. South Africa's change was of a different nature, having built up over a long period of time, international sanctions playing a part, and the government eventually deciding on a peaceful handover themselves.
So the protests of the early 21st century are following a long tradition, but is there anything different about them in any significant respect? Technology is playing a big part, the ability to email, tweet and text to organise protests has enabled fairly rapid organisation, and relaying of information. This is then enhanced by using the internet and social networking sites such as facebook and twitter to keep people updated on events.
In 2008 Barack Obama's campaign made very good use of technology to organise, and now it is being used in Egypt as the people rise up to try and oust Mubarak who has been in charge for thirty years. The authorities fear of technological advances being used is such that they have cut off internet links, and blocked mobile networks. The Egyptian uprising is inspired by the forcing out of Tunisia's long-serving leader Ben Ali, and it has similarly inspired the same in Sudan.
Egypt and Sudan's are youth led, in a way reminiscent of Europe's 1848 movements (Young Turks,Young French etc.), and it is reported today that a group calling itself 'Youth for Change' is protesting in Khartoum. It seems that there is now a sweeping movement across the North African/Arabian border states, and it will be very interesting to see if other states such as Algeria and Libya get caught up.
In the wake of the financial crisis, nobody has escaped the effects, with Britain suffering especially badly of the major industrialised countries. There are many arguments as regards the reasons for this, which will be argued about for generations to come. However, what Britain does have is a government that believes drastic cuts are needed to pay off the deficit by 2014.
As a result a number of measures have been taken, which will come into effect over the coming years. There are two main areas affected by the government's policies, public services and universities (including further education), as well as a rise in VAT, which is regressive. many jobs are going to be lost in the near future, many in the public services, but private companies, especially those who work closely with the public sector, are also going to feel the pinch. The government is hoping the private sector will be able to fill the gap in services and employment, but unless the current downturn turns out to be a blip, that could well turn out to be a false premise.
The rise in tuition fees, and the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance has caused the first stirrings, as students all over the country have marched against them. Although teachers, lecturers and parents have joined in as support, it is the youth who have been the drivers of these protests. The irony of the part played by university students, is that they will not be liable for the rises in tuition fees, but they feel as though they are playing a part on behalf of future students. Many of these are those currently in their first year of A level courses, who have had their maintenance allowance abolished, with nothing, as yet, to replace it. But this is what links these protests with those in Egypt, Tunisia and Sudan, that it is the next generation leading them, and not the forces of the past.
Public sector strikes could be the next move, but those who will be losing their jobs are now beginning to join with the young protesters to make their opinions known. and although the unions will play a part in organising these, it is new movements such as UK uncut, led by Aaron Peter's, that are the driving force.
As said technology has played a big part in the organising of these protests, and the ability of participants to quickly disperse information, means that we can all follow what is happening. There are many more protests planned over the coming months, as the unions and others join in, as the cuts begin in earnest.
We therefore come to our first question, are we seeing a new age of protest? The answer to that, in reality, is no. Protest has been an integral part of society in one form or another since the polis came into existence, and almost certainly long before then. Whatever the changes in organisation and information dispersal, they are the continuation of a long tradition when people feel they are being treated unfairly by government, whether that is true or just a perception. The cuts, and policies, are affecting people and they feel that this is the only way to make themselves heard.
The second question is there anything new about them? Again I have to say no, because as in many ways all the great revolutions, the current protest movements all over the world, are driven by a similar imperitive, the failure of the old politics. Whether it is the ancien regimes of France in 1789 and Britain in 1642 and 1776, apartheid in South Africa, Communism in Eastern Europe, or the political system in Britain western Europe, or North Africa and Arabia. It is this failure that is seen as the reasons behind the high unemployment and economic difficulties facing people all over the world, and their seeming unwillingness to deal with the root causes.
For many years now, certainly in Britain, political participation has been falling, and people have become more engaged through other mediums such as the green movement, or the National Trust, it is through civil society that people have expressed themselves. Turnout in General Elections has also fallen, as the electorate feel as though the parties, and their representatives do not actually really understand the issues they face in their lives.
The expenses scandal brought this to a head, as it seemed to confirm what many have believed for years, that politicians are only out for themselves. They also feel, with some justification, that those they elect to represent them in parliament, have very little real experience of ordinary life, with millionaires in government telling them "we're all sharing the pain," or leaders of other parties that have done little else but politics. There seem to be very few who have similar backgrounds to those that voted for them, and even fewer seeming to reach the upper echelons, then if they do, as with Alan Johnson, are dismissed as 'postie,' as though his having had what many would consider a real job, and makes it appear that the ordinary person in the street is considered less important, and that their experiences have nothing to tell the policiticians.
So we come to the most important question, will they have any effect? History already tells us the results of many past revolutions, whether successful or not. The Tunisian regime has fallen, and Egypt seems to be on the cusp of a new age, but both these country's rulers were long standing, and their positions were long regarded as undemocratic, as even when elections were held, they weren't regarded as free or fair. When the people rebelled, and decided that change was needed, they had a common target, as the regimes had lost the support and trust of the people, and the armies decided not to intervene on behalf of the authorities.
The protesters in Britain face a different set of problems, as the government is freely elected, and because the facility exists to punish them through the ballot box, a revolution of the sort in Tunisia (or even Britain in the 17th century) is highly unlikely. But that doesn't make the protests invaluable, or that they will not affect policy.
In 1990 the Poll Tax riots were not responsible alone for Margaret Thatcher's removal from office. They were an expression of great unhappiness with one element of government policy, but that was just representative of a government, and leader seen to have lost touch, and it became apparent that if Mrs. Thatcher remained in place the Conservatives would almost certainly lose the next election. Margaret Thatcher was therefore replaced by John Major nine months later, and the Conservatives managed to win the subsequent election in 1992.
The current protests are occurring very soon into the new government's term, and are going to get more frequent as economic pressures and policies combine to affect the people of Britain. The government is a coalition, and many in the junior partner, the Liberal Democrats, are less then happy about the policies the government is enacting. In the polls at the moment it is the Liberal Democrats taking the hit, and if they do very badly in May's local elections, pressure will be brought to bear on the party's MPs. There may even be calls in some quarters for them to withdraw from the coalition, though highly unlikely at this stage.
The Conservatives are not immune from this, and if the economic situation continues to worsen, the pressure to change direction will be immense. A poor performance by the Tories in May, especially if they are almost wiped out in the Scottish and Welsh elections, and David Cameron will come under internal pressure to make changes in policy. At the moment the government is resisting all calls to alter course, and lessen the impact of the cuts, saying they are necessary to restore faith in public finances. But if things do not begin to improve measurably for ordinary people quite quickly, then they could find themselves facing a similar situation to the government in 1990.
Overall then, the new wave of protests at home and abroad are nothing new, and even the reasons are very much the same. Unemployment, or fear of it, economic difficulties, leaders out of touch with the ordinary man and woman in the street, and that the politicians are only concerned with their own comforts.
The real difference is that new technology enables mass protest to be organised quickly, and that those all over the world can follow eventsw as they happen. The twenty-four hour media allows us to see the pictures, whilst we read the thoughts of those involved, and gain a wider understanding of what is happening.
So although the reasons for mass protests remain the same, it is the way they are organised that makes them different. The ability to cross boundaries, and to relay information, and therefore the authorities ability to control the dispersal of that information is restricted.
When I was on the December 9th protest in London, I was able to provide a running commentary on my phone, and today's events were relayed on twitter, and we were able to see instance photographs of protesters being pepper sprayed. At this moment I have twenty-four hour news on, and can watch the situation in Egypt unfold before my eyes.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Resignation, resignation...a question of judgement!
Resignation, resignation....well, only two so far, but Baroness Warsi's consistently pathetic performances, and David Cameron's less than supportive language over her speech on Islamophobia, might yet force her to step down. Whilst Mr. Cameron deserves credit for wanting to promote diversity within the Conservative Party, the promotion of a failed parliamentary candidate, wasn't the right person for such an important symbol.
However, that is something for the future, and will probably pass by almost unnoticed in the wake of the last twenty-four hour's events.Firstly, the resignation of Alan Johnson as Labour's Shadow Chancellor, and secondly that of Andy Coulson as David Cameron's Director of Communications.
Although the circumstances surrounding both resignations are completely different, there are also similarities in the background, principally that of judgement. However, the long term effects could have different ramifications.
Alan Johnson's appointment as Shadow Chancellor by Ed Miliband came as a surprise to practically everybody. he admitted himself that his economic knowledge was lacking depth, though as a former health, education and especially Work and Pensions Secretary would have provided an understanding of economic matters.
The appointment of Alan Johnson was always more about politics than economics. He needed to make a senior appointment of a David Miliband supporter, as the Shadow Cabinet elections had put Ed Balls supporters into three of the top four places. However, there was nothing to stop him appointing Johnson as either Shadow Home or Foreign Secretary, both jobs he had done in reality.
The second political reason was Johnson's 'ordinary guy' persona, compared to George Osborne's privileged upbringing and his lack of understanding of, 'how ordinary people live,' as David Heath said. To a certain extent this worked as a tactic, but Alan Johnson's lack of detailed knowledge often caught him out.
However, in mitigation for Mr. Johnson, I suspect outside distractions prevented him from learning these details, as he was more than capable of grasping them. It is this that I believe brings Ed Miliband's judgement into question, in that Alan Johnson's family issues must have been known by then, and it would probably have been wiser to appoint him to a portfolio he was more familiar with.
The third political element, of course, is that in his early days as leader Ed Miliband possibly felt appointing either Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper as Shadow Chancellor, would create more immediate problems than solve them. As it was public differences between Mr. Miliband and Mr. Johnson on various polices did that anyway. However, I always find it amusing that disagreement and debate within the Labour Party are displayed as splits, whilst in other parties, as vigorous debate, which shows they are thrashing out ideas. If parties want clones, then leader's should just appoint those that agree with them.
So, Ed Balls now has the job he's always wanted (perhaps more then leader, which Yvette is probably better suited to), and the Tory response is predictable. But I'm not talking about that today, just to say, that his expertise in economic matters is indisputable, and George Osborne won't be able to get away with trying to throw it back at him by asking detailed questions on particular aspects of economics, such as the National Insurance rate..
The second big event has happened in just the last few hours, and that is the resignation of Andy Coulson as David Cameron's Director of Communications. This is principally over the allegations he has faced for the last few years, over phone hacking whilst he was editor at the News of the World.
As Mr. Coulson has constantly denied any knowledge, thereby showing he must have been a pretty awful editor, I will not comment on the legal situation which is an ongoing investigation. However, considering all the issues surrounding the hacking, for which former NOTW journalists are serving sentences and facing trials, it does bring David Cameron's judgement into question.
As I said earlier, if Andy Coulson didn't know about the hacking, he must have been a very bad editor, if he did, then it is obvious it would always come back to haunt him, with possible legal ramifications. Either way David Cameron's judgement failed, in that he either appointed someone not very good, or someone up to his ears in illegal activity. Both reflect very badly on David Cameron, and Coulson's resignation was deemed more important than Tony Blair's second appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry.
We, therefore, have two prominent resignations, both of which reflect negatively on the judgement of the main party leaders. So, who is most damaged, and is it long term?
Ed Miliband has only been leader for about 120 days, and can be expected to make misjudgements along the way, all leaders do. However, he now has the chance to put things right, and only time will tell us if he has managed that. Critics of him have said he's made plenty, but as they were carping from the moment he took over, their neutrality is doubtful. In recent weeks there has been a marked improvement, and the appointment of the Times' Tom Baldwin as his Communications Director seems to have helped.
The long term impact of Andy Coulson's resignation are, I believe, tied up in two things. Firstly, the outcome of all the legal proceedings, as if Coulson is ever convicted of an offence, that will come back to Mr. Cameron. The second is, that even if Mr. Coulson is cleared legally, is dependent on the performance of the coalition. If the economic recovery fails to be sustained, and/or if Cameron comes under increasing pressure from Conservatives opposed to the alliance with the Liberal Democrats, then it becomes a stick to beat him with. If the policies are seen to work, then it will become a footnote in history.
Similarly, Ed Miliband's performances as leader over the next few months, leading up to the May elections (and referendum?), will decide how important the whole Alan Johnson affair turns out to be. By the time of the party Conference in September (beginning exactly a year after Ed Miliband became leader), a good performance in the local elections, along with providing strong opposition (Ed Balls playing a major role here) will mean it is practically forgotten.
The twenty-four hour media cycle raises all these issues, and in order to fill space they are analysed ad infinitum. However, it is only in the longer term that the rue effects will be known, and I will watch it all unfold with great interest. In my personal opinion, I think it is David Cameron who will suffer the more negative impact in the end, because it will be part of a long list of misjudgements held against him.
As the economic situation in the medium term (it will take time for the long term picture to become clear) is not looking particularly rosy, as the cuts and VAT rise start to impact on people's lives, then the media will be very negative. The backbenchers in the Conservative Party are stirring, and have made threats, and because they are especially unhappy with the coalition agreement (which they see as having given too much to the Liberal Democrats), will use the Coulson situation to weaken David Cameron's position.
Labour's opponents who read this, if any, will no doubt point to Ed Balls, and David Miliband as those making similar moves, yet despite their yearnings, there is no evidence of that, whilst David Cameron's own troops have been publicly briefing against him, with the issue of Europe looming in the near future.
I'll finish there, but the situation for both leaders will be an evolving one, with no certainty of what will happen, we can only speculate.
However, that is something for the future, and will probably pass by almost unnoticed in the wake of the last twenty-four hour's events.Firstly, the resignation of Alan Johnson as Labour's Shadow Chancellor, and secondly that of Andy Coulson as David Cameron's Director of Communications.
Although the circumstances surrounding both resignations are completely different, there are also similarities in the background, principally that of judgement. However, the long term effects could have different ramifications.
Alan Johnson's appointment as Shadow Chancellor by Ed Miliband came as a surprise to practically everybody. he admitted himself that his economic knowledge was lacking depth, though as a former health, education and especially Work and Pensions Secretary would have provided an understanding of economic matters.
The appointment of Alan Johnson was always more about politics than economics. He needed to make a senior appointment of a David Miliband supporter, as the Shadow Cabinet elections had put Ed Balls supporters into three of the top four places. However, there was nothing to stop him appointing Johnson as either Shadow Home or Foreign Secretary, both jobs he had done in reality.
The second political reason was Johnson's 'ordinary guy' persona, compared to George Osborne's privileged upbringing and his lack of understanding of, 'how ordinary people live,' as David Heath said. To a certain extent this worked as a tactic, but Alan Johnson's lack of detailed knowledge often caught him out.
However, in mitigation for Mr. Johnson, I suspect outside distractions prevented him from learning these details, as he was more than capable of grasping them. It is this that I believe brings Ed Miliband's judgement into question, in that Alan Johnson's family issues must have been known by then, and it would probably have been wiser to appoint him to a portfolio he was more familiar with.
The third political element, of course, is that in his early days as leader Ed Miliband possibly felt appointing either Ed Balls or Yvette Cooper as Shadow Chancellor, would create more immediate problems than solve them. As it was public differences between Mr. Miliband and Mr. Johnson on various polices did that anyway. However, I always find it amusing that disagreement and debate within the Labour Party are displayed as splits, whilst in other parties, as vigorous debate, which shows they are thrashing out ideas. If parties want clones, then leader's should just appoint those that agree with them.
So, Ed Balls now has the job he's always wanted (perhaps more then leader, which Yvette is probably better suited to), and the Tory response is predictable. But I'm not talking about that today, just to say, that his expertise in economic matters is indisputable, and George Osborne won't be able to get away with trying to throw it back at him by asking detailed questions on particular aspects of economics, such as the National Insurance rate..
The second big event has happened in just the last few hours, and that is the resignation of Andy Coulson as David Cameron's Director of Communications. This is principally over the allegations he has faced for the last few years, over phone hacking whilst he was editor at the News of the World.
As Mr. Coulson has constantly denied any knowledge, thereby showing he must have been a pretty awful editor, I will not comment on the legal situation which is an ongoing investigation. However, considering all the issues surrounding the hacking, for which former NOTW journalists are serving sentences and facing trials, it does bring David Cameron's judgement into question.
As I said earlier, if Andy Coulson didn't know about the hacking, he must have been a very bad editor, if he did, then it is obvious it would always come back to haunt him, with possible legal ramifications. Either way David Cameron's judgement failed, in that he either appointed someone not very good, or someone up to his ears in illegal activity. Both reflect very badly on David Cameron, and Coulson's resignation was deemed more important than Tony Blair's second appearance before the Chilcot Inquiry.
We, therefore, have two prominent resignations, both of which reflect negatively on the judgement of the main party leaders. So, who is most damaged, and is it long term?
Ed Miliband has only been leader for about 120 days, and can be expected to make misjudgements along the way, all leaders do. However, he now has the chance to put things right, and only time will tell us if he has managed that. Critics of him have said he's made plenty, but as they were carping from the moment he took over, their neutrality is doubtful. In recent weeks there has been a marked improvement, and the appointment of the Times' Tom Baldwin as his Communications Director seems to have helped.
The long term impact of Andy Coulson's resignation are, I believe, tied up in two things. Firstly, the outcome of all the legal proceedings, as if Coulson is ever convicted of an offence, that will come back to Mr. Cameron. The second is, that even if Mr. Coulson is cleared legally, is dependent on the performance of the coalition. If the economic recovery fails to be sustained, and/or if Cameron comes under increasing pressure from Conservatives opposed to the alliance with the Liberal Democrats, then it becomes a stick to beat him with. If the policies are seen to work, then it will become a footnote in history.
Similarly, Ed Miliband's performances as leader over the next few months, leading up to the May elections (and referendum?), will decide how important the whole Alan Johnson affair turns out to be. By the time of the party Conference in September (beginning exactly a year after Ed Miliband became leader), a good performance in the local elections, along with providing strong opposition (Ed Balls playing a major role here) will mean it is practically forgotten.
The twenty-four hour media cycle raises all these issues, and in order to fill space they are analysed ad infinitum. However, it is only in the longer term that the rue effects will be known, and I will watch it all unfold with great interest. In my personal opinion, I think it is David Cameron who will suffer the more negative impact in the end, because it will be part of a long list of misjudgements held against him.
As the economic situation in the medium term (it will take time for the long term picture to become clear) is not looking particularly rosy, as the cuts and VAT rise start to impact on people's lives, then the media will be very negative. The backbenchers in the Conservative Party are stirring, and have made threats, and because they are especially unhappy with the coalition agreement (which they see as having given too much to the Liberal Democrats), will use the Coulson situation to weaken David Cameron's position.
Labour's opponents who read this, if any, will no doubt point to Ed Balls, and David Miliband as those making similar moves, yet despite their yearnings, there is no evidence of that, whilst David Cameron's own troops have been publicly briefing against him, with the issue of Europe looming in the near future.
I'll finish there, but the situation for both leaders will be an evolving one, with no certainty of what will happen, we can only speculate.
Friday, 10 December 2010
protests not riots!
The London Standard last night produced a headline, calling yesterday's student protests, 'The Siege of Parliament,' yet this is a gross exaggeration. The protesters, the vast majority of them students, but there were also parents, teachers, lecturers, out supporting the cause. Indeed, whilst I was there, I ran into a young man studying architecture in London. He remembered me, from when I had taught him in year nine. Thus reminds me of why I'm there, and why I will continue to support the young people of Britain, and their educational future. I am fighting for the pupils I have taught, and will teach, to have the right, and I say the right to achieve the highest education they can.
The day started peacefully enough, meeting up with some friends at Embankment station, and then proceeding to Trafalgar Square. We were entertained for a time by the rantings of a man walking up and down out side the National Gallery, railing against the evils of socialism, or it started off like that, but twisted all over the place, so it was hard to decide what he was on about. We came to the conclusion in the end that he was probably UKIP.
We eventually joined the march on the Strand, and went up towards Parliament Square, or we would have, but as the way was blocked by the police, we had to deviate to get in. So I would be interested to know how we were supposed to follow a route that was blocked? Still, I'm sure that some rational explanation will be forthcoming.
Those who think the students should just roll over and let all this happen, wonder why these things happen. It's because people feel passionate about their futures, and of those coming up behind them. I have never known a Tory to go out and protest about things, indeed, if they believed the actions that the Labour government were so awful, why weren't they on the streets exercising their right to protest? Is it because they don't actually believe in anything, and just let things happen.
Nothing happened where we were for a number of hours, though when we went to grab some food, we saw of the news, police charging with horses. I have heard that objects were thrown, which isn't good, but was a horse charge a proportionate response? It threatened the safety of the protesters, though unfortunately a police rider seemed to fall, from their horse, though I understand not badly hurt.
As we went to rejoin the main demonstration, our way was blocked by police. I argued that we had a right to make peaceful protest, but to no avail. It seems that in ConDem Britain, the right to protest peacefully is denied.
However, not to be put off, we went around to Whitehall, where the police were happy to let us through. Now if you want to say that they were negligent, you may well have a point, because it was shortly afterwards that horses were brought up to block us in.
Unfortunately the police who were in the immediate vicinity were just sitting in their vans, so when they were asked to arrest someone who had attempted to steal someone's mobile, they totally ignored it. It also subsequently emerged, that if someone had been stabbed, they would still have sat there (I got this first hand from a police officer). Property more important than doing their jobs it appears.
As the expected time for the end of the debate, and the votes, approached (it was here that I ran into my former pupil), the crowd were in an excited mood. Following the news that tuition fees would rise, naturally there was great disappointment, and we sought to leave, but we were hemmed in. As you would expect, the protesters started to get annoyed, and unfortunately some people started to throw bottles around fairly randomly. We stayed well away from this, but were unable to leave.
Then out of nowhere the police appeared, dressed in riot gear. For a time they just stood there, then they drew batons, and stood there threateningly. It was here that things got a bit out of hand. A number of the protesters, had dismantled some of the railings, and threw them at the police. The police naturally have a right to defend themselves, but they were well protected. However, they just charged at the area where the railing had come from, randomly hitting out. I saw one young man get hit on the head who didn't get out the way quickly enough, and a young woman was also hit on the head.
The police then squashed us into as small a space as possible, which caused great distress to many, and some were having difficulty breathing. The police had to be made to attend to another person who was hurt, and several were limping from leg injuries. I was being squshed aginst a wall, whilst trying to protect other protesters from being crushed. I am lucky, I'm an adult and 6'2" but these were young people, many of them women, who were being treated like this. It's a miracle that more injuries, let alone serious ones, did not ensue.
Eventually we manged to escape into the square, and sought to leave, but all ways were blocked. We wandered back to the square, where there was more space, and we had been there a good while, before the Treasury was attacked. I do not condone the destruction of property, but you could understand the frustration of the protesters, and it was better to attack the building, than the police, who in the main were just there to do their jobs as instructed.
However, after a good while, the police charged the group on the Treasury walls, and lined up outside the building. They then turned and marched away, and the assault continued, leading to them coming in again. We quickly made out way back to the other side of the square, but were still unable to get away.
We then spent some time talking to a number of police officers outside Westminster Abbey. They were perfectly polite, and we had some honest debate. They understood our view that police tactics had contributed to, though not excused, the violent activity. They also agreed that holding people in one place for long periods of time is bound to provoke anger, but as PCs they had no option but to follow orders. I also asked after an officer I heard had been stabbed, and it appears, that a number of protesters were prevented from leaving, and he was stabbed with a piece of glass. This, is, of course totally unacceptable, and I was pleased the officer was not badly injured, and I trust the perpetrator will be suitably punished.
We were then informed that people were being let out slowly, so we rejoined the queue. However this turned out to be untrue (I'm not accusing the officer of lying, as the news has reported that this happened, but that most could not get out), and we stood there for many hours.
At just after eight, we were told that Westminster Bridge was open so we made our way, but then were told this wasn't so, and were sent back to where we had been. However, we went to ask an officer what was going on, and a senior one informed us that indeed the bridge would shortly be opened. Well, it seems the police idea of shortly is different from ours, as we were held for a good forty-five minutes, before they let us through.
But things were not as they seemed. We walked to the bridge, many people jumping and shouting, 'we are free, we are free,' which was sadly quickly disabused. A second line of police, all in riot gear, held us at the bridge entrance for around half and hour, before then taking us onto the bridge itself. As we got towards the end, we were stopped again, and not allowed to move at all. Some protesters appealed to them saying that their last train was due at Waterloo, but were refused, thereby condemning them to a night in London.
As the crowd's frustration grew, those behind us started to push, and eventually we were shoved, we held our hands up at this point showing we were not responsible, and the first police line broke. We were stopped by a second line, and again, not allowed to move. This was getting seriously dangerous now, and I can understand the police preventing those doing the pushing going further, but we were totally innocent of any of this.
Finally, around half ten, we were enabled to leave, though information from others caught in it, says that they didn't get out until half past eleven. So, I finally made it home around a quarter past one, and caught up on other events.
The lead story was that Charles and Camilla's car had been attacked in Oxford Street. It doesn't matter who was in the vehicle, but the attack was totally out of order, and if those who did it are caught, they should face the consequences.
The attack on the Treasury building was also wrong, and all the violence perpetrated by those who were amongst the protesters was not necessary. A number of police officers have been hurt, most of whom were just doing their jobs, and did indeed seek to protect the protesters as well as the general public (although I haven't heard of any of those being hurt, though as stories emerge, this might have change).
It is those in charge who take the largest proportion of the blame. They are the ones who order the 'containment' (kettling being the media term), which is exactly what the American policy was towards the Soviets in the fifties and sixties, so I'm curious as to whether they think there is a war going on, if a cold one.
Once they had identified those who were committing violence, they should have arrested them, and once order had been restored, allowed the vast majority of peaceful protesters to leave. The entire thing would have been over by seven o'clock, and the destruction to the Treasury building might never have happened.
The holding of thousands in the square, then on the bridge, after being told we were being allowed to leave, was totally unacceptable. I saw one young man having a severe asthma attack, which fortunately he recovered from, but it seems health and safety were not considered important.
I have always been sympathetic to the police in these situations, but seeing their tactics at first hand, and the totally disproportianate reaction of some of them, it is difficult to mauntain that. In the near future, they will be wanting our support as they face severe cuts themselves, but that may not be forthcoming if these sort of tactics continue.
So, that is my view of what happened yesterday. I can only give a personal perspective, because I wasn't in other parts of the crowd. As stories emarge over the following days, we will face claim and counter claim, which a full investigation might hopefully reveal. But, to return to previous points, the violence on both sides was not proportionate to the situation, and those in charge of the police take full responsibility for the holding of thousands of young people for many hours.
These were not riots, these were young men and women making thier feelings known, damage was caused, protesters and police were hurt, but there was no battle with the police. No one actually attacked them, therefore, it was not a riot, but it was a protest.
The day started peacefully enough, meeting up with some friends at Embankment station, and then proceeding to Trafalgar Square. We were entertained for a time by the rantings of a man walking up and down out side the National Gallery, railing against the evils of socialism, or it started off like that, but twisted all over the place, so it was hard to decide what he was on about. We came to the conclusion in the end that he was probably UKIP.
We eventually joined the march on the Strand, and went up towards Parliament Square, or we would have, but as the way was blocked by the police, we had to deviate to get in. So I would be interested to know how we were supposed to follow a route that was blocked? Still, I'm sure that some rational explanation will be forthcoming.
Those who think the students should just roll over and let all this happen, wonder why these things happen. It's because people feel passionate about their futures, and of those coming up behind them. I have never known a Tory to go out and protest about things, indeed, if they believed the actions that the Labour government were so awful, why weren't they on the streets exercising their right to protest? Is it because they don't actually believe in anything, and just let things happen.
Nothing happened where we were for a number of hours, though when we went to grab some food, we saw of the news, police charging with horses. I have heard that objects were thrown, which isn't good, but was a horse charge a proportionate response? It threatened the safety of the protesters, though unfortunately a police rider seemed to fall, from their horse, though I understand not badly hurt.
As we went to rejoin the main demonstration, our way was blocked by police. I argued that we had a right to make peaceful protest, but to no avail. It seems that in ConDem Britain, the right to protest peacefully is denied.
However, not to be put off, we went around to Whitehall, where the police were happy to let us through. Now if you want to say that they were negligent, you may well have a point, because it was shortly afterwards that horses were brought up to block us in.
Unfortunately the police who were in the immediate vicinity were just sitting in their vans, so when they were asked to arrest someone who had attempted to steal someone's mobile, they totally ignored it. It also subsequently emerged, that if someone had been stabbed, they would still have sat there (I got this first hand from a police officer). Property more important than doing their jobs it appears.
As the expected time for the end of the debate, and the votes, approached (it was here that I ran into my former pupil), the crowd were in an excited mood. Following the news that tuition fees would rise, naturally there was great disappointment, and we sought to leave, but we were hemmed in. As you would expect, the protesters started to get annoyed, and unfortunately some people started to throw bottles around fairly randomly. We stayed well away from this, but were unable to leave.
Then out of nowhere the police appeared, dressed in riot gear. For a time they just stood there, then they drew batons, and stood there threateningly. It was here that things got a bit out of hand. A number of the protesters, had dismantled some of the railings, and threw them at the police. The police naturally have a right to defend themselves, but they were well protected. However, they just charged at the area where the railing had come from, randomly hitting out. I saw one young man get hit on the head who didn't get out the way quickly enough, and a young woman was also hit on the head.
The police then squashed us into as small a space as possible, which caused great distress to many, and some were having difficulty breathing. The police had to be made to attend to another person who was hurt, and several were limping from leg injuries. I was being squshed aginst a wall, whilst trying to protect other protesters from being crushed. I am lucky, I'm an adult and 6'2" but these were young people, many of them women, who were being treated like this. It's a miracle that more injuries, let alone serious ones, did not ensue.
Eventually we manged to escape into the square, and sought to leave, but all ways were blocked. We wandered back to the square, where there was more space, and we had been there a good while, before the Treasury was attacked. I do not condone the destruction of property, but you could understand the frustration of the protesters, and it was better to attack the building, than the police, who in the main were just there to do their jobs as instructed.
However, after a good while, the police charged the group on the Treasury walls, and lined up outside the building. They then turned and marched away, and the assault continued, leading to them coming in again. We quickly made out way back to the other side of the square, but were still unable to get away.
We then spent some time talking to a number of police officers outside Westminster Abbey. They were perfectly polite, and we had some honest debate. They understood our view that police tactics had contributed to, though not excused, the violent activity. They also agreed that holding people in one place for long periods of time is bound to provoke anger, but as PCs they had no option but to follow orders. I also asked after an officer I heard had been stabbed, and it appears, that a number of protesters were prevented from leaving, and he was stabbed with a piece of glass. This, is, of course totally unacceptable, and I was pleased the officer was not badly injured, and I trust the perpetrator will be suitably punished.
We were then informed that people were being let out slowly, so we rejoined the queue. However this turned out to be untrue (I'm not accusing the officer of lying, as the news has reported that this happened, but that most could not get out), and we stood there for many hours.
At just after eight, we were told that Westminster Bridge was open so we made our way, but then were told this wasn't so, and were sent back to where we had been. However, we went to ask an officer what was going on, and a senior one informed us that indeed the bridge would shortly be opened. Well, it seems the police idea of shortly is different from ours, as we were held for a good forty-five minutes, before they let us through.
But things were not as they seemed. We walked to the bridge, many people jumping and shouting, 'we are free, we are free,' which was sadly quickly disabused. A second line of police, all in riot gear, held us at the bridge entrance for around half and hour, before then taking us onto the bridge itself. As we got towards the end, we were stopped again, and not allowed to move at all. Some protesters appealed to them saying that their last train was due at Waterloo, but were refused, thereby condemning them to a night in London.
As the crowd's frustration grew, those behind us started to push, and eventually we were shoved, we held our hands up at this point showing we were not responsible, and the first police line broke. We were stopped by a second line, and again, not allowed to move. This was getting seriously dangerous now, and I can understand the police preventing those doing the pushing going further, but we were totally innocent of any of this.
Finally, around half ten, we were enabled to leave, though information from others caught in it, says that they didn't get out until half past eleven. So, I finally made it home around a quarter past one, and caught up on other events.
The lead story was that Charles and Camilla's car had been attacked in Oxford Street. It doesn't matter who was in the vehicle, but the attack was totally out of order, and if those who did it are caught, they should face the consequences.
The attack on the Treasury building was also wrong, and all the violence perpetrated by those who were amongst the protesters was not necessary. A number of police officers have been hurt, most of whom were just doing their jobs, and did indeed seek to protect the protesters as well as the general public (although I haven't heard of any of those being hurt, though as stories emerge, this might have change).
It is those in charge who take the largest proportion of the blame. They are the ones who order the 'containment' (kettling being the media term), which is exactly what the American policy was towards the Soviets in the fifties and sixties, so I'm curious as to whether they think there is a war going on, if a cold one.
Once they had identified those who were committing violence, they should have arrested them, and once order had been restored, allowed the vast majority of peaceful protesters to leave. The entire thing would have been over by seven o'clock, and the destruction to the Treasury building might never have happened.
The holding of thousands in the square, then on the bridge, after being told we were being allowed to leave, was totally unacceptable. I saw one young man having a severe asthma attack, which fortunately he recovered from, but it seems health and safety were not considered important.
I have always been sympathetic to the police in these situations, but seeing their tactics at first hand, and the totally disproportianate reaction of some of them, it is difficult to mauntain that. In the near future, they will be wanting our support as they face severe cuts themselves, but that may not be forthcoming if these sort of tactics continue.
So, that is my view of what happened yesterday. I can only give a personal perspective, because I wasn't in other parts of the crowd. As stories emarge over the following days, we will face claim and counter claim, which a full investigation might hopefully reveal. But, to return to previous points, the violence on both sides was not proportionate to the situation, and those in charge of the police take full responsibility for the holding of thousands of young people for many hours.
These were not riots, these were young men and women making thier feelings known, damage was caused, protesters and police were hurt, but there was no battle with the police. No one actually attacked them, therefore, it was not a riot, but it was a protest.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Fairness in Higher Education!
Tomorrow's tuition fees debate in the House of Commons is something of an unexpected event. When the coalition took power in May, we were still awaiting the Browne Report on the future of funding for higher education in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. yet as soon as it was published in October, the rows started, especially once it was announced tuition fees would at least double, and the Liberal Democrats were all revealed to have pledged to vote against any such measure.
The subject has been a troublesome one, ever since 1990 when the Student Loans Company was established under the Major government. In those days it was as extra assistance to help less well off students with maintenance costs. So when in 1998 tuition fees arrived, to many it probably wasn't a surprise.
The Prime Minister, John Major, instigated the Dearing Report to investigate the funding of higher education for the next twenty years. The report made some 93 recommendations, but key was one that a means tested tuition fee was set, and the then Education Secretary David Blunkett, introduced a £1,000 a year fee (about 25% of the cost) in his Bill in 1998, following the abolition of the grant.
It is often said that Labour broke a pledge not to introduce tuition fees. Yet in an interview before the 1997 election Tony Blair said that, "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education." Semantic games perhaps, but no worse than Michael Heseltine's not having any plans to challenge Margaret Thatcher from 1986-90.
The Labour manifesto in 1997 actually said:
The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad. The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed. The current system is badly administered and payback periods are too short. We will provide efficient administration, with fairness ensured by longer payback periods where required.
So at no stage did Labour say tuition fees would not be introduced, but room for the possibility existed, stating they believed that general taxation would not be sufficient to fund the expansion needed. It was suggested that repayment of the loans be based on earnings, so in reality, the system currently proposed, is an extension of the one already existing. So the question of why the new system would be any fairer is an interesting one.
The Bill was finally passed in June 1998, when the Conservative Party voted against (including Shaun Woodward so at least he's consistent), although in his speech David Willetts said they accepted the principle. But, with a large number of Labour MPs being against, attempted to make political capital.
In 2001 the Blair government did break a pledge not to introduce top-up fees, but they weren't to be paid until after the course was completed, and once the student was earning over £15,000 a year. A number of concessions were made, in order to prevent a backbench rebellion, and the Bill just passed in 2004. However, a cap was imposed of £3000 on the top up fees, which has existed to this day.
So, we now come to the current situation. I do not need to go into detail on the predicament the Liberal Democrats find themselves in, except to say it is one of their own making, and that in order to reduce the rebellion in the Liberal Democrat ranks, a couple of concessions have materialised. Firstly that poorer students would have their first years tuition paid, or two years if over £6,000, which isn't a great deal of help in the long run, as rents and bills etc will still need to be found. I don't see this encouraging any more students from poorer backgrounds, as a £30,000 debt will seem as daunting as a £40,000 one.
The second concession is that rates will be upped annually instead of every 5 years in line with inflation. But perhaps the biggest sign of the Liberal Democrat's chaotic position was Sarah Teather's running away from Sky News reporters today, and her refusal to answer questions http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tuition-Fees-Lib-Dem-Minister-Sarah-Teather-Refuses-To-Defend-Decision-To-Vote-For-Increase/Article/201012215849817?linkedfrom=fb.
As we have seen, there have been protests all over England over the proposed fees, and the cuts in higher education funding. This must be remembered, as this isn't a one issue protest, it's tied up into many reforms and cuts. As well as 80% cuts in university funding, the Education Maintenance Allowance is also disappearing, which has enabled a large number of sixth formers just to travel to their colleges. This along with at least one County Council's (Norfolk) decision to remove subsidies will make further education a pipe dream for many.
However, let's be truthful here, cuts would have happened under whichever government had emerged following the election, and there was a possibility of a fees increase of some sort, though not to this extent. There have been other options available, a graduate tax, supported by Vince Cable and Ed Miliband, but not recommended by Browne, for example.
The Browne Report was eventually published on the 12th October, around seven weeks ago, and based it's recommendations on six principles, the key ones being; more investment should be available for higher education, everyone who has the potential should be able to benefit from higher education, no one should have to pay until they start work and they should be affordable.
Browne then recommended removing the cap and raising the point at which tuition fees are paid back. There is one thing the coalition have done that I do completely agree with, and that is that part-time students be treated on the same basis, enabling greater access, in theory, for those who continue to work, or have families. Although the prospect of greatly increased fees may deter a number, especially those who go into higher education for the fun of it, such as retired people looking to pursue an interest.
Browne did in fact recommend that there should be no limit, though models of up to £12,000 were included. The coalition decided to reject this, and set a limit of £9,000 a year, with the expectation that not many universities would charge that high.
The coalition have stated that they believe the new system to be fair, and will enable greater access to higher education for those from poorer backgrounds. So, in order to be fair, I will measure them against what the Tories themselves are saying and the 'factsheet' created by Alun Mabbutt at Conservative Central office http://www.factsonfees.com/
1) They are following the same system that already exists, in that nothing gets paid back until after university has finished, and not until the graduate is earning £21,000 a year. I have no issue with raising the rate at which repayment starts, and that this applies to everyone is fair in that respect. However, that doesn't address the central issue, over whether doubling, or even trebling fees, will attract more students from poorer backgrounds. Currently, the money is borrowed for fees, and the repayment starts at £15,000, so there isn't really any difference in method, it's just that much more will be owed in the first place.
2)and 3) Repaying the debt will be a concern, and on the face of it, the figures in the table are very reassuring. However, this is more than individual repayment rates, and I'm not going to doubt the figures as they currently are portrayed, but the overall effects of the reforms. The government's flagship quango the Office of Budget Responsibility has said:
"Increasing tuition fees will mean the Government will have to borrow more to fund student loans. The additional cash needed to fund the loans increases the Government’s cash requirement in any year and adds to the public sector net debt."
This would mean that even if student numbers stayed at current levels, and the intention is to encourage more, especially from poorer backgrounds, that by 2014/15, the public sector net debt will have risen by £13 billion.
The irony is that the coalition is constantly stating these cuts and fees are needed to do away with the deficit. Yet not only will the debt be greatly increased, but they will have an adverse effect on inflation, which will affect the interest charged, and mean the amount needing to be repaid is subsequently greater. It will also, in the short term, mean more borrowing which will add to the deficit.
4) According to the Coalition's plans, repayments would cease after thirty years regardless, whereas currently it is twenty-five years, and is cancelled if the graduate becomes unfit for work due to disability. Therefore, although the apparent payment is less, it goes on for 5 years longer, and with potential increases in interest rates could well add up to more, and although the, 'poorest fifth actually paying back less in total than they do currently.' What is apparent is that 80% could actually end up paying more.
5) Are these increases fair? Well according to the figures, graduates earn on average £100,000 over a career more then non-graduates, so it's fair they contribute. In fact, as my own conversations which the next generation of students has shown, the idea of making a contribution isn't the issue, it's the huge increases, and whichever way the coalition spin it, a debt is still a debt. And as has been previously demonstrated, the interest rates could well substantially increase.
The repayment rate is set at 9%, which is the same rate as now, just starting at a higher level, and the interest will be 3% above inflation, at current rates. Now, whilst it is fairer that those earning more repay more, it isn't to hit them with a financial penalty for early repayment. If a graduate goes on to achieve success, or makes early repayment a priority, then they shouldn't be penalised for that. The higher earners would already be paying more in income tax, and it may be at substantially higher rates.
6) The increase in maintenance grants is a good thing, although £344 isn't going to make a tremendous impact in the long run. Universities needing to prove they are taking more students from disadvantaged backgrounds is one thing, but with the increase in fees, the number actually applying could be significantly reduced. The National Scholarship Scheme is of little or no use, in that one years fees, do not take into account that money will still need to be found for the remainder of the course. Therefore, a reduction of £6-9,000 will not help over thirty years. In reality, this is just a sop to wavering Liberal Democrat MPs.
7) This is fine, that parents will not need to contribute to fees, but in order to reduce the potential debt, many will need to help out their children living expenses. This is something many parents, especially those form middle income backgrounds do anyway. However, with a number of increases coming, VAT amongst them, and fears over jobs, parents will contribute much less, or the students will decide that the debts they'll be left with are just far too much.
8) This is an outright lie by the Conservatives. Teaching funding is being cut by 80%, and these are starting now. Arts subjects especially will receive no funding whatsoever, and this is going to have a derogatory effect on quality. Reducing funding does not automatically make teaching better, and will not make them better able to respond to student needs. Indeed, an 80% cut in funding is not equitable with continuing to pay 40% of the costs of higher education, the coalition which to make up their mind which one is true.
9) This is a complete mess, as it relies, like so many of the coalitions policies, on hoped for income. The future funding is just that, in the future, whilst the damage will have already been done. The debt will have increased by a substantial amount by then, if the OBR figures are to be believed, and therefore, the next government will have to find ways to tackle that, and higher education funding seems to have become a target. All these figures, of course, get completely blown out of the water, if student numbers fall substantially, and there appears to be no catering for the worst case scenario, which is poor planning.
10) The Graduate tax is an interesting issue, and the Tories say it would discriminate against the poorest, so let's examine it. Now, it is fair to say that a graduate tax would need to be ring-fenced to ensure the money went back into the system. However, one of the advantages is it avoids a market in fees, and therefore enables students from less well off backgrounds to apply to the universities they wish.
Like the proposed system, education would still be free at the point of delivery, and could over the long run actually raise more money for universities. On the down side, it could mean students who did cheaper degrees, ended up paying more than they cost, but this is before a system has been worked out.
The Conservatives are arguing that high earners would end up paying less as a percentage than lower earners, and that it would start at £6,475. Seeing as no system of graduate tax has yet been discussed in detail by a government or party, this is impossible to state. Any government would be very careful about the rates they set the tax to start at, so typical bluster by the Conservatives, based upon no evidence.
There we have it, the ten main reasons why the coalition believe their system is fair, and will encourage more students from poorer backgrounds. But as we have seen, not only will graduates be saddled with huge debts, which could well affect their chances of getting mortgages, or business loans in the future, the system as it's currently envisaged will add greatly to the debt.
Access to higher education is a right, not a privilege, and anybody who reaches the required standard, and wishes to, should be able to go to university. That's not to decry those who wish to pursue other avenues, and other forms of education are equally important. So apprenticeships, City & Guilds, NVQs are equally important, and should not be pushed aside in this education funding debate.
Therefore, like many others, I will be marching tomorrow in support of the students of the future. I believe it is fundamentally important that all have access to higher, and further, education. The future of the country will rest in the and of the next generation of students, and it is vital that no one is prevented from doing so, by a fear of large debts hanging round their necks.
So, is the proposed system of the coalition government a fair one? Will it encourage more young people into higher education, especially those from poorer backgrounds.
The answer to both is an unequivocal no! It isn't fair precisely because it will not only discourage the less well off form going to university, but many middle income families will also be put off. It will saddle thousands of young people with huge debts, and this is going to affect many future prospects.
Nobody denies reform of higher education funding is needed, but the government should delay this ad hoc rise in fees, and wait until a green paper has been brought forward and properly discussed by education experts, and interested groups. This would be followed by a white paper, which can be properly debated and amended in the Houses of Parliament. Too much of the government's legislation has already been shown to be hastily drafted, and poorly thought out. Let's have a proper debate, and the Browne Report should be the basis of that.
The subject has been a troublesome one, ever since 1990 when the Student Loans Company was established under the Major government. In those days it was as extra assistance to help less well off students with maintenance costs. So when in 1998 tuition fees arrived, to many it probably wasn't a surprise.
The Prime Minister, John Major, instigated the Dearing Report to investigate the funding of higher education for the next twenty years. The report made some 93 recommendations, but key was one that a means tested tuition fee was set, and the then Education Secretary David Blunkett, introduced a £1,000 a year fee (about 25% of the cost) in his Bill in 1998, following the abolition of the grant.
It is often said that Labour broke a pledge not to introduce tuition fees. Yet in an interview before the 1997 election Tony Blair said that, "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education." Semantic games perhaps, but no worse than Michael Heseltine's not having any plans to challenge Margaret Thatcher from 1986-90.
The Labour manifesto in 1997 actually said:
The improvement and expansion needed cannot be funded out of general taxation. Our proposals for funding have been made to the Dearing Committee, in line with successful policies abroad. The costs of student maintenance should be repaid by graduates on an income-related basis, from the career success to which higher education has contributed. The current system is badly administered and payback periods are too short. We will provide efficient administration, with fairness ensured by longer payback periods where required.
So at no stage did Labour say tuition fees would not be introduced, but room for the possibility existed, stating they believed that general taxation would not be sufficient to fund the expansion needed. It was suggested that repayment of the loans be based on earnings, so in reality, the system currently proposed, is an extension of the one already existing. So the question of why the new system would be any fairer is an interesting one.
The Bill was finally passed in June 1998, when the Conservative Party voted against (including Shaun Woodward so at least he's consistent), although in his speech David Willetts said they accepted the principle. But, with a large number of Labour MPs being against, attempted to make political capital.
In 2001 the Blair government did break a pledge not to introduce top-up fees, but they weren't to be paid until after the course was completed, and once the student was earning over £15,000 a year. A number of concessions were made, in order to prevent a backbench rebellion, and the Bill just passed in 2004. However, a cap was imposed of £3000 on the top up fees, which has existed to this day.
So, we now come to the current situation. I do not need to go into detail on the predicament the Liberal Democrats find themselves in, except to say it is one of their own making, and that in order to reduce the rebellion in the Liberal Democrat ranks, a couple of concessions have materialised. Firstly that poorer students would have their first years tuition paid, or two years if over £6,000, which isn't a great deal of help in the long run, as rents and bills etc will still need to be found. I don't see this encouraging any more students from poorer backgrounds, as a £30,000 debt will seem as daunting as a £40,000 one.
The second concession is that rates will be upped annually instead of every 5 years in line with inflation. But perhaps the biggest sign of the Liberal Democrat's chaotic position was Sarah Teather's running away from Sky News reporters today, and her refusal to answer questions http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tuition-Fees-Lib-Dem-Minister-Sarah-Teather-Refuses-To-Defend-Decision-To-Vote-For-Increase/Article/201012215849817?linkedfrom=fb.
As we have seen, there have been protests all over England over the proposed fees, and the cuts in higher education funding. This must be remembered, as this isn't a one issue protest, it's tied up into many reforms and cuts. As well as 80% cuts in university funding, the Education Maintenance Allowance is also disappearing, which has enabled a large number of sixth formers just to travel to their colleges. This along with at least one County Council's (Norfolk) decision to remove subsidies will make further education a pipe dream for many.
However, let's be truthful here, cuts would have happened under whichever government had emerged following the election, and there was a possibility of a fees increase of some sort, though not to this extent. There have been other options available, a graduate tax, supported by Vince Cable and Ed Miliband, but not recommended by Browne, for example.
The Browne Report was eventually published on the 12th October, around seven weeks ago, and based it's recommendations on six principles, the key ones being; more investment should be available for higher education, everyone who has the potential should be able to benefit from higher education, no one should have to pay until they start work and they should be affordable.
Browne then recommended removing the cap and raising the point at which tuition fees are paid back. There is one thing the coalition have done that I do completely agree with, and that is that part-time students be treated on the same basis, enabling greater access, in theory, for those who continue to work, or have families. Although the prospect of greatly increased fees may deter a number, especially those who go into higher education for the fun of it, such as retired people looking to pursue an interest.
Browne did in fact recommend that there should be no limit, though models of up to £12,000 were included. The coalition decided to reject this, and set a limit of £9,000 a year, with the expectation that not many universities would charge that high.
The coalition have stated that they believe the new system to be fair, and will enable greater access to higher education for those from poorer backgrounds. So, in order to be fair, I will measure them against what the Tories themselves are saying and the 'factsheet' created by Alun Mabbutt at Conservative Central office http://www.factsonfees.com/
1) They are following the same system that already exists, in that nothing gets paid back until after university has finished, and not until the graduate is earning £21,000 a year. I have no issue with raising the rate at which repayment starts, and that this applies to everyone is fair in that respect. However, that doesn't address the central issue, over whether doubling, or even trebling fees, will attract more students from poorer backgrounds. Currently, the money is borrowed for fees, and the repayment starts at £15,000, so there isn't really any difference in method, it's just that much more will be owed in the first place.
2)and 3) Repaying the debt will be a concern, and on the face of it, the figures in the table are very reassuring. However, this is more than individual repayment rates, and I'm not going to doubt the figures as they currently are portrayed, but the overall effects of the reforms. The government's flagship quango the Office of Budget Responsibility has said:
"Increasing tuition fees will mean the Government will have to borrow more to fund student loans. The additional cash needed to fund the loans increases the Government’s cash requirement in any year and adds to the public sector net debt."
This would mean that even if student numbers stayed at current levels, and the intention is to encourage more, especially from poorer backgrounds, that by 2014/15, the public sector net debt will have risen by £13 billion.
The irony is that the coalition is constantly stating these cuts and fees are needed to do away with the deficit. Yet not only will the debt be greatly increased, but they will have an adverse effect on inflation, which will affect the interest charged, and mean the amount needing to be repaid is subsequently greater. It will also, in the short term, mean more borrowing which will add to the deficit.
4) According to the Coalition's plans, repayments would cease after thirty years regardless, whereas currently it is twenty-five years, and is cancelled if the graduate becomes unfit for work due to disability. Therefore, although the apparent payment is less, it goes on for 5 years longer, and with potential increases in interest rates could well add up to more, and although the, 'poorest fifth actually paying back less in total than they do currently.' What is apparent is that 80% could actually end up paying more.
5) Are these increases fair? Well according to the figures, graduates earn on average £100,000 over a career more then non-graduates, so it's fair they contribute. In fact, as my own conversations which the next generation of students has shown, the idea of making a contribution isn't the issue, it's the huge increases, and whichever way the coalition spin it, a debt is still a debt. And as has been previously demonstrated, the interest rates could well substantially increase.
The repayment rate is set at 9%, which is the same rate as now, just starting at a higher level, and the interest will be 3% above inflation, at current rates. Now, whilst it is fairer that those earning more repay more, it isn't to hit them with a financial penalty for early repayment. If a graduate goes on to achieve success, or makes early repayment a priority, then they shouldn't be penalised for that. The higher earners would already be paying more in income tax, and it may be at substantially higher rates.
6) The increase in maintenance grants is a good thing, although £344 isn't going to make a tremendous impact in the long run. Universities needing to prove they are taking more students from disadvantaged backgrounds is one thing, but with the increase in fees, the number actually applying could be significantly reduced. The National Scholarship Scheme is of little or no use, in that one years fees, do not take into account that money will still need to be found for the remainder of the course. Therefore, a reduction of £6-9,000 will not help over thirty years. In reality, this is just a sop to wavering Liberal Democrat MPs.
7) This is fine, that parents will not need to contribute to fees, but in order to reduce the potential debt, many will need to help out their children living expenses. This is something many parents, especially those form middle income backgrounds do anyway. However, with a number of increases coming, VAT amongst them, and fears over jobs, parents will contribute much less, or the students will decide that the debts they'll be left with are just far too much.
8) This is an outright lie by the Conservatives. Teaching funding is being cut by 80%, and these are starting now. Arts subjects especially will receive no funding whatsoever, and this is going to have a derogatory effect on quality. Reducing funding does not automatically make teaching better, and will not make them better able to respond to student needs. Indeed, an 80% cut in funding is not equitable with continuing to pay 40% of the costs of higher education, the coalition which to make up their mind which one is true.
9) This is a complete mess, as it relies, like so many of the coalitions policies, on hoped for income. The future funding is just that, in the future, whilst the damage will have already been done. The debt will have increased by a substantial amount by then, if the OBR figures are to be believed, and therefore, the next government will have to find ways to tackle that, and higher education funding seems to have become a target. All these figures, of course, get completely blown out of the water, if student numbers fall substantially, and there appears to be no catering for the worst case scenario, which is poor planning.
10) The Graduate tax is an interesting issue, and the Tories say it would discriminate against the poorest, so let's examine it. Now, it is fair to say that a graduate tax would need to be ring-fenced to ensure the money went back into the system. However, one of the advantages is it avoids a market in fees, and therefore enables students from less well off backgrounds to apply to the universities they wish.
Like the proposed system, education would still be free at the point of delivery, and could over the long run actually raise more money for universities. On the down side, it could mean students who did cheaper degrees, ended up paying more than they cost, but this is before a system has been worked out.
The Conservatives are arguing that high earners would end up paying less as a percentage than lower earners, and that it would start at £6,475. Seeing as no system of graduate tax has yet been discussed in detail by a government or party, this is impossible to state. Any government would be very careful about the rates they set the tax to start at, so typical bluster by the Conservatives, based upon no evidence.
There we have it, the ten main reasons why the coalition believe their system is fair, and will encourage more students from poorer backgrounds. But as we have seen, not only will graduates be saddled with huge debts, which could well affect their chances of getting mortgages, or business loans in the future, the system as it's currently envisaged will add greatly to the debt.
Access to higher education is a right, not a privilege, and anybody who reaches the required standard, and wishes to, should be able to go to university. That's not to decry those who wish to pursue other avenues, and other forms of education are equally important. So apprenticeships, City & Guilds, NVQs are equally important, and should not be pushed aside in this education funding debate.
Therefore, like many others, I will be marching tomorrow in support of the students of the future. I believe it is fundamentally important that all have access to higher, and further, education. The future of the country will rest in the and of the next generation of students, and it is vital that no one is prevented from doing so, by a fear of large debts hanging round their necks.
So, is the proposed system of the coalition government a fair one? Will it encourage more young people into higher education, especially those from poorer backgrounds.
The answer to both is an unequivocal no! It isn't fair precisely because it will not only discourage the less well off form going to university, but many middle income families will also be put off. It will saddle thousands of young people with huge debts, and this is going to affect many future prospects.
Nobody denies reform of higher education funding is needed, but the government should delay this ad hoc rise in fees, and wait until a green paper has been brought forward and properly discussed by education experts, and interested groups. This would be followed by a white paper, which can be properly debated and amended in the Houses of Parliament. Too much of the government's legislation has already been shown to be hastily drafted, and poorly thought out. Let's have a proper debate, and the Browne Report should be the basis of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)