Side Byrnes 17/03/10
Ollie Cromwell points to the swathes of unemployment left by Labour.
Wat Tyler expands on this, and takes the govenrment to task about the vast increase on public sector jobs.
North Eastern Manufacturing Jobs Have Been Slashed Under Labour claims David Skelton, PPC for North Durham
And in the midst of all the outrage at Christopher Chope over the vulture funds bill comes a voice of sanity – Vulture Culture, or One rule for foreign debt, another for British victims
Refusal to implement “creative” Conservative proposals deny University to thousands.
Last summer, the number of applicants was up 60,000 on the previous year, yet the number of undergraduate places available rose by just 13,000, leading David Willetts to announce that he would seek to fund a further 10,000 places by encouraging graduates – through a 10 per cent discount on their loan repayments – to pay off their debts ahead of schedule, thus saving the taxpayer £300 million in interest subsidies. A pragmatic solution to fund the investment that Britain needs for a skilled workforce to recover from the recession which was welcomed from many corners including the Russell Group, and the President of the NUS, despite his affiliation to the Labour Party described it as a “creative solution to a serious short term problem”, and then proceeded to write a damning piece on Labour’s failure to meet the demand for places. Would this apply the pressure needed for the short term fix to go through?
Sadly not, and this year we we the situation become even worse, with upto 275,000 missing out on University this year due to stubbornness – something that David Lammy shows clearly.
David Lammy, the Higher Education Minister, said: “There is a record number of students – over two million – at university. That’s 390,000 more than in 1997 and next year we expect there will be more students than ever before.
“But getting a place at university has always been, and should be, a competitive process.
“Not everyone gets the grades and some decide university is not for them. But, it’s early days and students haven’t even sat their A-levels yet.”
With demand likely to go on rising and public spending set to fall, the next government will have to settle on a more sustainable policy, sadly the current government has no clue or drive to implement the changes we need to bring the benefits of choice and competition are to reach those who have been systematically denied them by the current system, something that Tories have at least managed to ponder over.
The only joker on Lords reform is Jack Straw.
New Labour share remarkable similarities with Old Labour in that they’ve never been prone to widespread theoretical debate indeed – the ongoing prevarication and confusion over House of Lords reform is veering perilously close to being farcical. The idea that this Labour government should be in favour of any reform that removes power from the executive should bring a tear to the eye.
They’ve has never been sure about how precisely the membership of the House of Lords should be determined, and on what basis or according to what criteria although any attempts to strengthen the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons have invariably been resisted by most Labour leaders. They have however, unhesitatingly accepted that the executive’s policies should ultimately prevail in the House of Commons, the more confident the chamber becomes in blocking government legislation, the more interest there is on the Labour side in limiting its powers. Lords reform – in Labour’s eyes is that so govern unimpeded ahem “efficiently”, rather than about adding further democratic checks.
Likewise, reforms which might either enhance the role and influence of backbenchers in the House of Commons have also been brushed aside “I’m sorry that has not been terribly clear but please don’t be suspicious. It’s just quite complicated,” Harriet Harman told MP’s that were itching to have some meager amounts of power back.
Assuming we take Straw seriously however, there shouldn’t be any doubt that he transition to an elected House, if and when it takes place, will be a complex process. As the White Paper on Lords reform notes the Commons votes and the work of the cross-party group have established a number of points of agreement. These points aren’t agreed by all MPs and certainly not by the majority of members of the Lords – never mind the division on the issue within the Labour party. The only reason that it could have been raised now, and so drastic is to create dividing lines ahead of the election.
Jack Straw noted himself that “Lords reform can come with a heavy political cost”, including “disruption to the legislative programme” For any government, tackling the most serious recession in half a century should be a much higher priority; the Government is open to serious criticism if they allow Parliament to occupy itself with these matters at the cost of postponing urgent measures of social and economic reform it’s time to attack the Government, while maintaining that Lord’s reform is of the upmost priority in the future to allow partnership with the Commons in holding the government to account, not as a rival for power. Once we’ve sorted out Gordon’s mess of course.
Side Byrne’s – 8th March 2010
Matt Wardman has an interview about Micropayments for Bloggers.
Creative Tory unveils the trailer for episode five of ‘Election Wars’.
Matthew Taylor and his Conservative Madrasa horror.
Declan Lyons ponders on the DNA database debate.
Bryony Victoria writes on why we shouldn’t know the details of the Jon Venables case.
What to do with EMA?
When Michael Gove was interviewed in the Guardian he was met with one of the many myths that Ed Balls likes to propagate about Tory policy – that they would abolish EMA, and he happily reaffirmed our commitment to it.
“10. Why has only one Conservative MP signed the early day motion supporting the Education Maintenance Allowance? Many students believe you will scrap it.
Shane Chowen, National Union of Students, London NW1
Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”
Now, I personally disagree with him, but as it is it isn’t Tory policy, the hysteria and using it as a campaign issue against the Tories is inapppropriate However EMA is a program we should be considering cutting or reforming in favour of other ways of achieving social justice.
The graph below shows that while there has been an increase in thepercentage of 16-18 year olds in education or training since the EMA was launched,from 75.7 per cent in 2004 to 79.7 per cent in 2008, but over the same period, there has also been a decrease in the proportion of 16-18 year olds in employment, from 14.7 per cent to 10.0 per cent. At the same time, the number of 16-18 year olds not in education, training or employment (NEETs) increased from 9.6 percent to 10.3 per cent between 2004 and 2008.
At a cost of £500 million, it’s a policy thats failed to achieve what it set out to do, and possibly damaged the overall prospects of the few that were taken out of possible employment or training in favour of higher education – after all it hasn’t raised average performance at all for female students and by just one quarter of one A-level grade for male students. Given the failure of the policy to increase participation or attainment, it’s no surprised we see a hash of a policy come from Ed Balls to cover over the cracks in the education system.
Ed Balls announced that bonus payments for teenagers who stay in education after taking their GCSEs are to be scrapped in a bid to save around £100m.
The money saved will be used to provide the EMA for an extra 80,000 16- to 19-year-olds from 2010/11.
From 2011, poorer pupils who qualify for the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) – a payment of between £10-£30 each week – will no longer receive an extra £100 for every six months they stay in education.
As young people will have to participate anyway, it can have no positive incentive effect on attendence, and it can only lessen the effect on attainment since the overall EMA payment is going to do down.
What there is a far better case for public spending, in terms of improving the results of the poorest children is targeting it towards a primary level (With a pupil premium being Conservative policy) , since it’s that the most deprived fall behind and stay there, as I’ve talked about before when addressing Labour’s innumerate teachers. Abolish EMA to help save education. (And stop me getting so drunk on a weekend.)
Has Mandelson just presented the opportunity to bankrupt the Labour Party?
Lord Mandelson has called for the Conservatives to pay back Lord Ashcroft’s money.
Figures show that since 2001, Labour have taken over £10 million from eight reportedly ‘non-dom’ donors, I can only assume this means they are in the process of writing cheques to them.
• Lord Paul – £69,250 in donations to Labour, including £45,000 to Gordon Brown’s leadership campaign. A close friend of Gordon Brown and appointed to the Privy Council last summer, he has admitted to being ‘non-dom’.
• Lakshmi Mittal – £4.125 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Ronald Cohen – £2.55 million in donations to Labour. Cohen was appointed chair of the Social Investment Taskforce, which was announced by the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown.
• Sir Christopher Ondaatje – £1.7 million in donations to Labour.
• Sir Gulam Noon – £532,826 in donations to Labour.
• William Bollinger – £510,725 in donations to Labour.
• Mahmoud Khayami – £985,000 in donations to Labour including £5,000 to Hazel Blears’ deputy leadership campaign. He has helped bankroll two flagship schools, one of which Gordon Brown opened, and was personally thanked for a donation by Tony Blair.
• Dr David Potter – £90,000 in a donation to Labour. He has previously delivered a lecture at Downing Street.
I must say this is quite a surprising Labour policy. Given that the Labour campaign budget is only eight million we should take Peter Mandelson up on his offer wholeheartedly – This could well bankrupt them.