It is with the deepest regret that I must inform you that this blog will have to be temporarily suspended.
I have very little time due to homework, revision and coursework. Any extra time is spent on living life and in terms of Politics, my Extended Project Qualification; How far can the rise of New Labour be attributed to the decline of the Liberal Party? I hope that after exams, around May, I will be able to pick this blog up.
Apologies to my non-existent readers!
Cuttle...
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
The New Year's Post That Never Was...
So 2011 started with a bang.
Quite literally; the bang of gunfire.
Two hundred and nineteen dead, that's two hundred and nineteen.
It makes the London tuition fees protests look.... tame?
Let me introduce today's guest publication;
The Life and Death of Democracy - John Keane
It can be thoroughly recommended.
Though, in light of recent events, it would seem Mr. Keane will need to rethink, because right now democracy seems very, much, alive.
As the dēmos, in approximately 500BC, risked their lives to overthrow the powerful aristocracy in Athens, thousands of street protesters took to the streets in Tunisia, in a bid to topple the corrupt control of President Ben Ali. A revolution now commonly known as the Jasmine Revolution.
Unemployment, food inflation, presidential and governmental corruption, lack of freedom of speech and poor living conditions, all attributed to the explosion of protest that erupted in December 2010. The catalyst, however, was the shocking self immolation, on the 17th of December, of a Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. The wave of chaotic protest that followed, would result in Ben Ali fleeing to Saudi Arabia, on the 14th January 2011, leaving his post of 23 years and Tunisia in a 'state of national emergency'.
The exit saw the subsequent, rapid formation of a caretaker coalition government, with the promise of elections within 60days.
However, anger and unrest remained, as the coalition government contained members of President Ali's party, the ConstitutionalDemocratic Rally (RCD) so street protests continued; with new demands that the RCD should be disbanded and all members should be forbidden to stand in future governments.
As a result, on the 27th of January, the Prime Minister removed all former RCD ministers, other than himself from the government.
Events were already revolutionary; but things got even better...
Now, the cue for that wonderful and spontaneous occurrence, which has so often shaped the history of the world; the domino effect.
Almost as soon as the media had returned from one country, it was straight onto the next.
This time to Egypt; where protests began on the 25th of January...
If this was top trumps, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak would win, as he resigned on the 11th of February, following a ridiculous thirty years in power. The protests, largest in Cairo and Alexandria, resulted due to long-term anger at governmental corruption, police oppression, minimum wages, inflation and state of emergency laws. Protesters fought for the resignation of Hosni Mubarak and for democratic reforms to the political system.
At its peak, over 1million protesters scoured the streets of Egypt, at least 365 deaths were reported and the capital city of Cairo was at one point described as being a 'war zone'.
...This wasn't just a bunch of students, with painted faces, waving defaced, mildly amusing posters of Nick Clegg.
Initially Mubarak attempted to cling to power through the use of Egypt's Security Forces, by instigating a curfew and by blocking off forms of communication, such as the Internet and mobile phone networks. But eventually, after days of tantalising 'Will he? Won't he?' moments, Mubarak finally dissolved government, appointed Omar Suleiman as Vice-President and asked the chief of Egypt's air force, Ahmed Shafik to from a new government. Defeat was finally acknowledged when, on the 11th of February, Omar Suleiman announced Mubarak would step down as President and power was to be handed over to the Supreme Council of the Junta, headed by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. For me, this appears to be a slightly worrying situation as military rule can often spell trouble but Tantawi pledged elections would follow in 6months time.
So as Egypt and Tunisia, breathe a sigh of relief, for now...
Libya holds its breath as street protests begin to explode...
WATCH THIS SPACE.
P.S. Happy New Year!
Apologies for the lack of posts recently...
But not future promises made!
Quite literally; the bang of gunfire.
Two hundred and nineteen dead, that's two hundred and nineteen.
It makes the London tuition fees protests look.... tame?
Let me introduce today's guest publication;
The Life and Death of Democracy - John Keane
It can be thoroughly recommended.
Though, in light of recent events, it would seem Mr. Keane will need to rethink, because right now democracy seems very, much, alive.
As the dēmos, in approximately 500BC, risked their lives to overthrow the powerful aristocracy in Athens, thousands of street protesters took to the streets in Tunisia, in a bid to topple the corrupt control of President Ben Ali. A revolution now commonly known as the Jasmine Revolution.
Unemployment, food inflation, presidential and governmental corruption, lack of freedom of speech and poor living conditions, all attributed to the explosion of protest that erupted in December 2010. The catalyst, however, was the shocking self immolation, on the 17th of December, of a Tunisian street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi. The wave of chaotic protest that followed, would result in Ben Ali fleeing to Saudi Arabia, on the 14th January 2011, leaving his post of 23 years and Tunisia in a 'state of national emergency'.
The exit saw the subsequent, rapid formation of a caretaker coalition government, with the promise of elections within 60days.
However, anger and unrest remained, as the coalition government contained members of President Ali's party, the Constitutional
As a result, on the 27th of January, the Prime Minister removed all former RCD ministers, other than himself from the government.
Events were already revolutionary; but things got even better...
Now, the cue for that wonderful and spontaneous occurrence, which has so often shaped the history of the world; the domino effect.
Almost as soon as the media had returned from one country, it was straight onto the next.
This time to Egypt; where protests began on the 25th of January...
If this was top trumps, Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak would win, as he resigned on the 11th of February, following a ridiculous thirty years in power. The protests, largest in Cairo and Alexandria, resulted due to long-term anger at governmental corruption, police oppression, minimum wages, inflation and state of emergency laws. Protesters fought for the resignation of Hosni Mubarak and for democratic reforms to the political system.
At its peak, over 1million protesters scoured the streets of Egypt, at least 365 deaths were reported and the capital city of Cairo was at one point described as being a 'war zone'.
...This wasn't just a bunch of students, with painted faces, waving defaced, mildly amusing posters of Nick Clegg.
Initially Mubarak attempted to cling to power through the use of Egypt's Security Forces, by instigating a curfew and by blocking off forms of communication, such as the Internet and mobile phone networks. But eventually, after days of tantalising 'Will he? Won't he?' moments, Mubarak finally dissolved government, appointed Omar Suleiman as Vice-President and asked the chief of Egypt's air force, Ahmed Shafik to from a new government. Defeat was finally acknowledged when, on the 11th of February, Omar Suleiman announced Mubarak would step down as President and power was to be handed over to the Supreme Council of the Junta, headed by Mohamed Hussein Tantawi. For me, this appears to be a slightly worrying situation as military rule can often spell trouble but Tantawi pledged elections would follow in 6months time.
So as Egypt and Tunisia, breathe a sigh of relief, for now...
Libya holds its breath as street protests begin to explode...
WATCH THIS SPACE.
P.S. Happy New Year!
Apologies for the lack of posts recently...
But not future promises made!
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
Embracing the Cold: Vince Cable goes Nuclear.
So he's not too old to give up the dancing, but clearly old enough to go senile...
Oh that tragic day, where within just a few minutes, Vince, metaphorically speaking managed to turn the gun on himself.
In the ramble he revealed state secrets, launched war on the Tories, Murdoch and a dozen other senior political figures - all of this he managed to lace together with aggresive, nuclear terminology.
This has to be the perfect media candy.
"I don't expect you to quote this outside" he said.
Oh Vince, if only you knew... If only you knew...
On this one, if I'm frank, I'm with Vince;
We're all at war with Murdoch a little bit.
But when you are the official who has been trusted with the quasi-judicial role on the situation; as Vince found out, it's maybe best not to voice such negative views against the matter so openly.
To clear things up, what is the Murdoch controversy?
In June 2010, News Corporation announced their intention to fully takeover BSkyB and it was believed the deal, devoid of difficultly, would go ahead, with only the price agreement posing a problem.
In many ways, BSkyB was already unofficially tagged as being part of the Murdoch empire, despite News Corporation only physically owning 39% of the shares. Furthermore, Murdoch himself had set up Sky in 1990, when he merged it with British Satellite Broadcasting.
Therefore, in June, the takeover didn't seem too radical.
But then maybe it was just kept quiet...
However, by September a campaign had begun to arise, in the press and parliament. A campaign which continues to this day.
This latest takeover would result in an even tighter, suffocating grip on the media, bringing with it considerable political influence. This would place disturbing power within the hands of the one individual; Rupert Murdoch. An idea naturally repelled by all those in favour of democracy. Additionally, there are concerns on the effect of plurality; choice for consumers within the market.
Ofcom must decide by 31st December whether to refer the bid to the Competition Commission. But with Vince Cable clearly not being the neutral judge needed, the final decision on whether the blocking goes ahead or not, will now rest with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, as will all future decisions of this nature.
One humiliated, demoted Vince Cable... Two undercover telegraph reporters... And a ramble of loaded languge...The perfect gripping news story to plague the tabloids for a couple of weeks...
"I have a nuclear option; it's like fighting a war. They know I have nuclear weapons, but I don't have any conventional weapons. If they push me too far then I can walk out and bring the government down and they know that. So it is a question of how you use that intelligently without getting involved in a war that destroys all of us. That is quite a difficult position to be in and I am picking my fights. Some of which you may have seen."
Oh that tragic day, where within just a few minutes, Vince, metaphorically speaking managed to turn the gun on himself.
In the ramble he revealed state secrets, launched war on the Tories, Murdoch and a dozen other senior political figures - all of this he managed to lace together with aggresive, nuclear terminology.
This has to be the perfect media candy.
"I don't expect you to quote this outside" he said.
Oh Vince, if only you knew... If only you knew...
"I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win".Amongst the revelations, the most devestating seems to be the attack on Rupert Murdoch.
On this one, if I'm frank, I'm with Vince;
We're all at war with Murdoch a little bit.
But when you are the official who has been trusted with the quasi-judicial role on the situation; as Vince found out, it's maybe best not to voice such negative views against the matter so openly.
To clear things up, what is the Murdoch controversy?
In June 2010, News Corporation announced their intention to fully takeover BSkyB and it was believed the deal, devoid of difficultly, would go ahead, with only the price agreement posing a problem.
In many ways, BSkyB was already unofficially tagged as being part of the Murdoch empire, despite News Corporation only physically owning 39% of the shares. Furthermore, Murdoch himself had set up Sky in 1990, when he merged it with British Satellite Broadcasting.
Therefore, in June, the takeover didn't seem too radical.
But then maybe it was just kept quiet...
However, by September a campaign had begun to arise, in the press and parliament. A campaign which continues to this day.
This latest takeover would result in an even tighter, suffocating grip on the media, bringing with it considerable political influence. This would place disturbing power within the hands of the one individual; Rupert Murdoch. An idea naturally repelled by all those in favour of democracy. Additionally, there are concerns on the effect of plurality; choice for consumers within the market.
Ofcom must decide by 31st December whether to refer the bid to the Competition Commission. But with Vince Cable clearly not being the neutral judge needed, the final decision on whether the blocking goes ahead or not, will now rest with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, as will all future decisions of this nature.
One humiliated, demoted Vince Cable... Two undercover telegraph reporters... And a ramble of loaded languge...The perfect gripping news story to plague the tabloids for a couple of weeks...
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
The Official Liberal Announcement: KEEP CALM and CARRY ON ?
You'd have to be a hermit of the St.Ossian scale not to have heard about the turmoil of tuition fees...
And now it is the eve of the vote. The spotlight is on.
So, what should the Liberal Democrats do?
1. The Vote Yes Campaign:
So, Clegg and Cable are frantically urging Lib Dem rebels to 'walk through the fire' and support the proposal. And it has been announced, by Clegg himself that all 17 Lib Dem Ministers will vote for the proposals. Obviously, one should do this if he/she believes the proposals will indeed create a 'significantly fairer and more progressive new system', and disregards U-Turning on a key manifesto promise as being a betrayal.
2. Abstain?
Splits weaken parties and sometimes destroy them.
Support for the Liberal Democrats is being undermined, as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.
This is the argument that, the real damage to the party comes not from adjusting our course as a result of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place. Both abstaining and deferring the vote do just that.
Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP (North West) describes how...
There is also the fact that abstaining, in this situation, is essentially the nice way of voting for the proposals. ven if all the Lib Dems abstained, the Tory majority would pull the vote through. Abstaining here is pointless and as proven above, signifies weakness to the Lib Dem image.
3. Rejection
They say no-one likes rejection but for once this seems to be untrue.
There was another protest in Lancaster today.
A majority of the public seem to be in uproar. And seeing as politicians are meant to reflect the views of the public, surely this is the sensible option?
Personally I believe, agreeing to the Browne Report, increasing tuition fees, not only by a bit but a ludicrous amount, is one compromise too far. The Browne Report does shine in the fact that it holds specific policies aiming to protect and encourage the poor to attend Universities but this conflicts with the huge increase in tuition fees, meaning now, even those of the middle class will struggle to pay off their debts.
Disillusioned Lib Dem supporters already feel betrayed by the government's involvement with the Tories and the increase in tuition fees does little to encourage disillusioned Lib Dems that the party is still a seperate, independent force within the coalition. Not simply, the majority makers.
Currently, it would appear around 20 Lib Dem MPs intend to vote against the proposals. This isn't good enough.
Here, twenty isn't plenty.
Tomorrow spells complete humiliation.
And now it is the eve of the vote. The spotlight is on.
So, what should the Liberal Democrats do?
1. The Vote Yes Campaign:
So, Clegg and Cable are frantically urging Lib Dem rebels to 'walk through the fire' and support the proposal. And it has been announced, by Clegg himself that all 17 Lib Dem Ministers will vote for the proposals. Obviously, one should do this if he/she believes the proposals will indeed create a 'significantly fairer and more progressive new system', and disregards U-Turning on a key manifesto promise as being a betrayal.
2. Abstain?
Splits weaken parties and sometimes destroy them.
Support for the Liberal Democrats is being undermined, as the impression grows stronger that on the issue of tuition fees we are not only divided but clueless.
This is the argument that, the real damage to the party comes not from adjusting our course as a result of changed conditions, nor from rebellion by backbenchers on grounds of individual conscience, but from the impression we are now giving of being all over the place. Both abstaining and deferring the vote do just that.
Chris Davies, Liberal Democrat MEP (North West) describes how...
"In short, we are creating the impression not just of being weak, but of being a joke. I would rather us have a reputation for being tough (but fair) bastards than for being indecisive."So, this argument looks to the fact that, if Liberal Democrats want to limit the damage done, there should be only two options for them to consider. Either they vote for the recommendations, or they vote against on grounds of individual conscience.
There is also the fact that abstaining, in this situation, is essentially the nice way of voting for the proposals. ven if all the Lib Dems abstained, the Tory majority would pull the vote through. Abstaining here is pointless and as proven above, signifies weakness to the Lib Dem image.
3. Rejection
They say no-one likes rejection but for once this seems to be untrue.
There was another protest in Lancaster today.
A majority of the public seem to be in uproar. And seeing as politicians are meant to reflect the views of the public, surely this is the sensible option?
Personally I believe, agreeing to the Browne Report, increasing tuition fees, not only by a bit but a ludicrous amount, is one compromise too far. The Browne Report does shine in the fact that it holds specific policies aiming to protect and encourage the poor to attend Universities but this conflicts with the huge increase in tuition fees, meaning now, even those of the middle class will struggle to pay off their debts.
Disillusioned Lib Dem supporters already feel betrayed by the government's involvement with the Tories and the increase in tuition fees does little to encourage disillusioned Lib Dems that the party is still a seperate, independent force within the coalition. Not simply, the majority makers.
Currently, it would appear around 20 Lib Dem MPs intend to vote against the proposals. This isn't good enough.
Here, twenty isn't plenty.
Tomorrow spells complete humiliation.
Saturday, 4 December 2010
"Just because you don't take an interest in politics, it doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
At least, Pericles believed so in 430B.C and I believe so now.
And finally, it would appear that the general public are realising the reality of this statement.
It has been rather amusing to see the ignorance of individuals come crashing down, for them to suddenly be plunged into panic, thrown into the frenzy of numerous protests and, God help them, become politically active...
Pericles must be laughing in his grave...
Although, sadly, it would appear at my school this enlightenment is limited, self centered and poorly informed.
Will I lose my EMA?
How will the rise in tuition fees affect me?
Obviously, it is natural to care more about the issues that will affect oneself, as that is the selfish instinct of human nature although some interest is better than none.
However, perhaps if people had a broader political knowledge in the first place they would understand the situation better and perhaps we would not even be in the current situation.
I.e. My parents vote Conservative is not a valid reason for supporting the Conservatives alone.
So, what about Tuition Fees...?
As a Liberal Democrat, I find the proposed changes simply inexcusable.
The Browne Report has many positive points, but these are obscured by the suffocating black mark of the rise in tuition fees - and rightly so. It is humiliating to be a Lib Dem at the moment.
"Say no to tuition fees."
That aim, has now become a distant dream of the Liberal memory, as much as Asquith and the grip of ‘Cleggmania’ during the General Election have become.
The appalling U-Turn on tuition fees was the final push, the acceptance of my status as not a Lib Dem but a disillusioned Lib Dem; I still hold the belief that the 2010 manifesto was, on the whole, an innovative, progressive masterpiece yet I am struggling to support, defend and agree with the recent actions of the party within coalition. I always knew there would be compromises but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Admittedly, scrapping tuition fees altogether within the current economic climate was perhaps rather too idealistic.
However, a promise was made and if the promise cannot be kept, the Lib Dems should certainly feel obliged to prevent the complete opposite from occurring.
Abolishing the cap on tuition fees was just that – the opposite.
Thankfully, that aspect of the Browne report has been altered, nevertheless current plans aim to implement a basic threshold cap of £6000 and an absolute limit of £9000 per annum.
The result will be a crippling 30-year debt trap for graduates, a decline in the numbers attending Universities and in a typically loathsome Tory-type fashion; the favouring of the rich over the poor.
The new basic threshold of £6,000 is almost double the current fee of £3,290 that students pay each year, that's £17,210 per year or £51,630 over three years. The maximum government loan is likely to be £43,500 and the interest rate would be inflation plus 2.2%...
This will be a shattering blow to the 'knowledge economy' which will fuel England's economic future. A devastating blow to the Liberal Democrats. And a humiliating betrayal by Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers, in particular Business Secretary, Vince Cable who helped write the proposals.
Students nationwide have embraced their revolutionary spirit, indeed even here, within the sleepy town of Lancaster.
However, even if all the Lib Dems abstain, the small Tory majority will ensure the bill will be passed.
The only hope is that, as Tim Farron has promised, other Lib Dem MPs will join Farron, see sense and outright reject the proposal; perhaps, damaging the coalition but more importantly protecting the generations of the future.
Sadly, this seems highly unlikely.
Will EMA be scrapped?
Yes and No.
You see, if you only listen to the deafening drone of the media then you will believe that yes, EMA is being completely scrapped and thousands of helpless teenagers are going to be plunged into an all consuming writhing pit of poverty.
BUT, if you read the official Comprehensive Spending Review Green Paper, it says this:
Instead, the enhanced learner support fund will be introduced...
Instead, the government hopes the new scheme will be more efficient. To achieve this schools and colleges will administer the funds. They know the young person on a personal level and so are better placed, compared to the distant force of government. It will also enable the school more power to remove the funds should a pupil misbehave or lack attendance.
What exactly the enhanced learner support funds will mean on an individual level remains a grey area as schools, pupils and parents remain in waiting for more details from the coalition government.
Receiving £30 of EMA a week myself, I have personally greatly benefited from the allowance as it funds travel, clothing and equipment for school. I am therefore concerned as to what the new scheme will bring, for instance it is not clear as to whether it will take the form of a frequent payment (e.g. weekly or monthly) or whether it will rather be one-off contributions towards school trips e.t.c. or whether I will even qualify for the new scheme.
However, I will admit that in the absence of EMA, it is highly likely that I would have continued in education, although perhaps not as comfortably.
Therefore I can see the sense in introducing a more efficient scheme as a result of the change in the country's financial situation; cuts have to be made somewhere and I would far rather lose that £30 a week to enable the government to continue paying someone who is terminally disabled through benefits.
I guess the point of this post was to prove that politics shapes everything, now more than ever.
You cannot afford to ignore it.
And finally, it would appear that the general public are realising the reality of this statement.
"What's the point in politics, it's boring, pointless and doesn't affect me."
It has been rather amusing to see the ignorance of individuals come crashing down, for them to suddenly be plunged into panic, thrown into the frenzy of numerous protests and, God help them, become politically active...
Pericles must be laughing in his grave...
Although, sadly, it would appear at my school this enlightenment is limited, self centered and poorly informed.
Will I lose my EMA?
How will the rise in tuition fees affect me?
Obviously, it is natural to care more about the issues that will affect oneself, as that is the selfish instinct of human nature although some interest is better than none.
However, perhaps if people had a broader political knowledge in the first place they would understand the situation better and perhaps we would not even be in the current situation.
I.e. My parents vote Conservative is not a valid reason for supporting the Conservatives alone.
So, what about Tuition Fees...?
As a Liberal Democrat, I find the proposed changes simply inexcusable.
The Browne Report has many positive points, but these are obscured by the suffocating black mark of the rise in tuition fees - and rightly so. It is humiliating to be a Lib Dem at the moment.
"Say no to tuition fees."
That aim, has now become a distant dream of the Liberal memory, as much as Asquith and the grip of ‘Cleggmania’ during the General Election have become.
The appalling U-Turn on tuition fees was the final push, the acceptance of my status as not a Lib Dem but a disillusioned Lib Dem; I still hold the belief that the 2010 manifesto was, on the whole, an innovative, progressive masterpiece yet I am struggling to support, defend and agree with the recent actions of the party within coalition. I always knew there would be compromises but a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Admittedly, scrapping tuition fees altogether within the current economic climate was perhaps rather too idealistic.
However, a promise was made and if the promise cannot be kept, the Lib Dems should certainly feel obliged to prevent the complete opposite from occurring.
Abolishing the cap on tuition fees was just that – the opposite.
Thankfully, that aspect of the Browne report has been altered, nevertheless current plans aim to implement a basic threshold cap of £6000 and an absolute limit of £9000 per annum.
This is both outrageously insane, insanely outrageous and outrageously high.
The result will be a crippling 30-year debt trap for graduates, a decline in the numbers attending Universities and in a typically loathsome Tory-type fashion; the favouring of the rich over the poor.
The new basic threshold of £6,000 is almost double the current fee of £3,290 that students pay each year, that's £17,210 per year or £51,630 over three years. The maximum government loan is likely to be £43,500 and the interest rate would be inflation plus 2.2%...
Any graduate earning over £21,000 a year would be losing 45p for every £1 they earn, how is this fair?
Students nationwide have embraced their revolutionary spirit, indeed even here, within the sleepy town of Lancaster.
However, even if all the Lib Dems abstain, the small Tory majority will ensure the bill will be passed.
The only hope is that, as Tim Farron has promised, other Lib Dem MPs will join Farron, see sense and outright reject the proposal; perhaps, damaging the coalition but more importantly protecting the generations of the future.
Sadly, this seems highly unlikely.
Will EMA be scrapped?
Yes and No.
You see, if you only listen to the deafening drone of the media then you will believe that yes, EMA is being completely scrapped and thousands of helpless teenagers are going to be plunged into an all consuming writhing pit of poverty.
BUT, if you read the official Comprehensive Spending Review Green Paper, it says this:
"The Spending Review will replace EMA with a locally managed discretionary fund to target support, which will focus the support currently provided by EMA on the most disadvantaged children."Replacement is not the same as complete destruction.
Instead, the enhanced learner support fund will be introduced...
"Decisions about which young people should receive financial support from the Discretionary Learner Support Fund will be made by schools, colleges and training organisations, who are in a better position than Government to determine the needs of individual students. They will target support to those young people who most need it to continue in learning.£26 million has been invested in 2010-11 in a discretionary learner support fund. With the ending of the EMA, this fund will be increased. We anticipate that in 2014-15 this enhanced fund will be three times greater than current funds."Evidence and recent research suggests that around 90% of current recipients of EMA would have stayed on at school after the age of 16 even if they did not receive EMA, therefore this system is not affordable in the current economic climate.
Instead, the government hopes the new scheme will be more efficient. To achieve this schools and colleges will administer the funds. They know the young person on a personal level and so are better placed, compared to the distant force of government. It will also enable the school more power to remove the funds should a pupil misbehave or lack attendance.
What exactly the enhanced learner support funds will mean on an individual level remains a grey area as schools, pupils and parents remain in waiting for more details from the coalition government.
Receiving £30 of EMA a week myself, I have personally greatly benefited from the allowance as it funds travel, clothing and equipment for school. I am therefore concerned as to what the new scheme will bring, for instance it is not clear as to whether it will take the form of a frequent payment (e.g. weekly or monthly) or whether it will rather be one-off contributions towards school trips e.t.c. or whether I will even qualify for the new scheme.
However, I will admit that in the absence of EMA, it is highly likely that I would have continued in education, although perhaps not as comfortably.
Therefore I can see the sense in introducing a more efficient scheme as a result of the change in the country's financial situation; cuts have to be made somewhere and I would far rather lose that £30 a week to enable the government to continue paying someone who is terminally disabled through benefits.
I guess the point of this post was to prove that politics shapes everything, now more than ever.
You cannot afford to ignore it.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Banished at the Border: Retreating from Human Rights
The Political Hot Potato; The Treatment of Asylum Seekers.
Well, George Osborne may potentially have caused the unemployment of 490,000 people...
But at least you're not Sylvia...
"Sylvia first arrived at the Refugee Council aged 19, she was extremely distressed and confused. She had been living in a refugee camp in Burundi for many years after her entire family was killed in the civil war. The refugee camp was raided and Sylvia was detained, where she was repeatedly raped and tortured. As a result of her trauma, she suffered from vomiting, back pains, severe headaches and difficulty sleeping."
If you could give just £2 a month, you could...
Don't worry, I'm not here to scrounge for money but rather to ask for your time and thought...
I attended a Lecture at Lancaster University led by Linda Briskman on the violation of human rights through asylum policies and government action against asylum seekers.
This lecture could not have been more well placed for two reasons...
Firstly, the recent tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga, an asylum seeker who lost his life under the weight of three security guards on a BA Flight 77 to Angola.
"They are going to kill me..." He screamed.
Fellow passengers refused to intervene, preferring to blank the situation, most likely through the blissful world of 'Shrek' or some other this-is-great-I-don't-have-to-think-at-all movie...
Secondly, because of the Spending Review.
I think it is important to remember that although we may be in the midst of Osborne's economic crackdown, we are not running away from the horrors of war, having lost all our family within conflict. Flitting endlessly from country to country in search of asylum...
You are not one of the 353 asylum seekers who perished en route as their boat SIEV X sunk on 19th October 2001, or indeed are you one of the 77 asylum seekers dead as a result of harsh governmental asylum policies. These are just two shocking examples out of many. Of course, asylum is a worldwide issue but within this post I aim to focus mainly on Australia and the UK...
The first event was an Australian embarrassment and disaster.
In the early afternoon of October 19, 2001, the boat’s passengers, fleeing mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, perished in international waters between Indonesia and Australia. They were travelling in a hopelessly overcrowded refugee boat, which sank while trying to reach Christmas Island.
The area was under heavy surveillance by the Australian air force and navy yet they failed to actively search for the sinking vessel, to rescue the asylum seekers aboard. As a result, 353 people died including 150 children, it was grotesquely described how "children floated on the water like petals..."
The distinct lack of action was undoubtedly a disgrace. Yet violations of human rights similar to the tragedy of SIEV X are being committed on a day to day basis in many different forms...
Asylum is a human right - this should not be forgotten.
Australian asylum policies include:
1. Indefinite Long Term Detention. Australia has 11 different detention centres, the most notorious of which is Christmas Island, whose isolated and private situation ensures asylum seekers remain as far out from the public eye as possible. Asylum Seekers are often kept in poor conditions and treated badly.
2. Temporary Protection Visas. One of the controversial problems with these is that they ban family unions between asylum seekers, causing the separation of brother and sister; children and mother.
3.Excision Legislation.
4.Offshore Processing.
5. Bribing of Indonesia. To run detention centre's on the Australian Government's behalf, to keep asylum seekers away from Australia itself.
6.Penalties for People Movers.
7.Charging for detention costs for those granted visas. Those refugees granted a visa are often forced to pay their own captivity money, often these bills are of large amounts, leaving them in high debt to the government.
As in the UK, asylum seekers also have to pass a Citizenship Test, asking seekers questions on Australian cricket that a majority of Australian citizens would not know themselves...
In 2008, Liam Byrne the previous UK Immigration Minister proudly boasted; "We're now removing an immigration offender every 8 minutes but our target is to move more and faster." Here is a classic example of the negative attitude we, like Australia, also hold. Indeed, deportation has increased from 30,000 cases in 1997 and 60,000 cases in 2007 - but is this something to be proud of?
Would you experience a feeling of pride knowing that you had been responsible for sending Sylvia back to a land wrought with civil war and where she might be hunted down and killed? Does it make you feel proud to be part of a nation who has killed 77 asylum seekers in the last year, either indirectly through suicide or directly through not providing health care when needed?
Linda Briskman identified 5 main strategies governments use to try and justify their violation of the asylum right to the public. Obviously, many of these strategies are not made obvious but rather are underlying processes, she specifically linked Australia to all 5:
1.Criminalisation and Dehumanisation. Asylum seekers are made to be seen as criminals, whereas in fact, to apply for asylum is a recognised human right. They are dehumanised whether though being assigned a number, or the neglect of their life stories. The public are made to forget many of them are fleeing from conflict or death threats as a result of political situations.
2. Resources and Disease. Having neglected the real-life stories, governments try to suggest that Asylum seekers are only seeking the country to take advantage of the high standards of living, fair enough, a minority do attempt to do this but on the whole, most are fleeing serious danger. Secondly, disease is exploited and the idea that Asylum seekers are filthy and contaminated. This is even exploited to to the extent that in some detention centres, visitors must wash their hands after leaving the company of Asylum seekers.
3. Out of Zone Belonging. Here, governments exploit the 'stranger danger' idea. Basically, they subliminally promote racism towards outsiders. This is strongest in Australia, where its secluded location successfully parallels this idea.
4. Depiction as Terrorists. This idea is strong in Australia, which is ironic especially as Australia has not yet received a major terrorist attack as both America and the UK have.
5. The Demonisation of Islam. Muslims are treated with suspicion and doubt and upon entering society are expected to become like us, casting aside their religion and traditions.
The 5 above, seem rather ironic when we think of how governments aim to reduce racism.
However, behind the scenes there is clearly a different story with countries simply aiming to take in as few Asylum seekers as possible, seeing them as an unwelcome burden.
As well as being a Scholar, Linda Briskman has also been a successful human rights activist and campaigner and so she ended the talk by suggesting her 'remedy' to help resolve the situation...
1.International Law. An International Law should be passed to help guarantee the protection of Asylum seekers, even those who are waiting to be deported again.
2. Emphasize Human instead of Border Security. Instead of just being about facts and figures, the real life stories of the Asylum Seekers need to be brought into the public view, so they are aware of the people who are being turned away.
3. Open Borders? In an ideological situation, this would be the solution. Linda favoured the view as she claimed only a small percentage of the world's population are on the move at once, personally I do not approve of this idea and she recognised that it would pose some problems and isn't a very popular solution.
4. Expenditure. If Politicians have failed to be convinced through being brought to awareness of the tragic human costs of their decisions, then perhaps the economic cost should be exploited?
5. Growth in Social Movements. Social movements should form coalitions and put pressure on the government, naturally Amnesty was mentioned as the key human rights group.
Asylum Seeking remains one of those areas where negative attitudes as a result of ignorance prevails.
As a responsible, democratic country, we should be more open to those in need. I accept that we cannot take everyone - we simply don't have the resources. But even those who will have to be deported should be better cared for whilst it is important the negative stereotypes are eliminated so those who are free to stay can lead the simple, ordinary life that they yearn.
"After initially refusing Sylvia's asylum application, the Home Office eventually recognised her as a refugee. The Refugee Council found Sylvia a place on an English and Computer Course and organised a work placement for her so that she could gain office experience. Sylvia hopes one day to manage her own business..."
This is the type of care we should strive to achieve.
Remember - Asylum is a Human Right.
Well, George Osborne may potentially have caused the unemployment of 490,000 people...
But at least you're not Sylvia...
"Sylvia first arrived at the Refugee Council aged 19, she was extremely distressed and confused. She had been living in a refugee camp in Burundi for many years after her entire family was killed in the civil war. The refugee camp was raided and Sylvia was detained, where she was repeatedly raped and tortured. As a result of her trauma, she suffered from vomiting, back pains, severe headaches and difficulty sleeping."
Don't worry, I'm not here to scrounge for money but rather to ask for your time and thought...
I attended a Lecture at Lancaster University led by Linda Briskman on the violation of human rights through asylum policies and government action against asylum seekers.
This lecture could not have been more well placed for two reasons...
Firstly, the recent tragic death of Jimmy Mubenga, an asylum seeker who lost his life under the weight of three security guards on a BA Flight 77 to Angola.
"They are going to kill me..." He screamed.
Fellow passengers refused to intervene, preferring to blank the situation, most likely through the blissful world of 'Shrek' or some other this-is-great-I-don't-have-to-think-at-all movie...
Secondly, because of the Spending Review.
I think it is important to remember that although we may be in the midst of Osborne's economic crackdown, we are not running away from the horrors of war, having lost all our family within conflict. Flitting endlessly from country to country in search of asylum...
You are not one of the 353 asylum seekers who perished en route as their boat SIEV X sunk on 19th October 2001, or indeed are you one of the 77 asylum seekers dead as a result of harsh governmental asylum policies. These are just two shocking examples out of many. Of course, asylum is a worldwide issue but within this post I aim to focus mainly on Australia and the UK...
The first event was an Australian embarrassment and disaster.
In the early afternoon of October 19, 2001, the boat’s passengers, fleeing mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, perished in international waters between Indonesia and Australia. They were travelling in a hopelessly overcrowded refugee boat, which sank while trying to reach Christmas Island.
The area was under heavy surveillance by the Australian air force and navy yet they failed to actively search for the sinking vessel, to rescue the asylum seekers aboard. As a result, 353 people died including 150 children, it was grotesquely described how "children floated on the water like petals..."
The distinct lack of action was undoubtedly a disgrace. Yet violations of human rights similar to the tragedy of SIEV X are being committed on a day to day basis in many different forms...
Asylum is a human right - this should not be forgotten.
Australian asylum policies include:
1. Indefinite Long Term Detention. Australia has 11 different detention centres, the most notorious of which is Christmas Island, whose isolated and private situation ensures asylum seekers remain as far out from the public eye as possible. Asylum Seekers are often kept in poor conditions and treated badly.
2. Temporary Protection Visas. One of the controversial problems with these is that they ban family unions between asylum seekers, causing the separation of brother and sister; children and mother.
3.Excision Legislation.
4.Offshore Processing.
5. Bribing of Indonesia. To run detention centre's on the Australian Government's behalf, to keep asylum seekers away from Australia itself.
6.Penalties for People Movers.
7.Charging for detention costs for those granted visas. Those refugees granted a visa are often forced to pay their own captivity money, often these bills are of large amounts, leaving them in high debt to the government.
As in the UK, asylum seekers also have to pass a Citizenship Test, asking seekers questions on Australian cricket that a majority of Australian citizens would not know themselves...
In 2008, Liam Byrne the previous UK Immigration Minister proudly boasted; "We're now removing an immigration offender every 8 minutes but our target is to move more and faster." Here is a classic example of the negative attitude we, like Australia, also hold. Indeed, deportation has increased from 30,000 cases in 1997 and 60,000 cases in 2007 - but is this something to be proud of?
Would you experience a feeling of pride knowing that you had been responsible for sending Sylvia back to a land wrought with civil war and where she might be hunted down and killed? Does it make you feel proud to be part of a nation who has killed 77 asylum seekers in the last year, either indirectly through suicide or directly through not providing health care when needed?
Linda Briskman identified 5 main strategies governments use to try and justify their violation of the asylum right to the public. Obviously, many of these strategies are not made obvious but rather are underlying processes, she specifically linked Australia to all 5:
1.Criminalisation and Dehumanisation. Asylum seekers are made to be seen as criminals, whereas in fact, to apply for asylum is a recognised human right. They are dehumanised whether though being assigned a number, or the neglect of their life stories. The public are made to forget many of them are fleeing from conflict or death threats as a result of political situations.
2. Resources and Disease. Having neglected the real-life stories, governments try to suggest that Asylum seekers are only seeking the country to take advantage of the high standards of living, fair enough, a minority do attempt to do this but on the whole, most are fleeing serious danger. Secondly, disease is exploited and the idea that Asylum seekers are filthy and contaminated. This is even exploited to to the extent that in some detention centres, visitors must wash their hands after leaving the company of Asylum seekers.
3. Out of Zone Belonging. Here, governments exploit the 'stranger danger' idea. Basically, they subliminally promote racism towards outsiders. This is strongest in Australia, where its secluded location successfully parallels this idea.
4. Depiction as Terrorists. This idea is strong in Australia, which is ironic especially as Australia has not yet received a major terrorist attack as both America and the UK have.
5. The Demonisation of Islam. Muslims are treated with suspicion and doubt and upon entering society are expected to become like us, casting aside their religion and traditions.
The 5 above, seem rather ironic when we think of how governments aim to reduce racism.
However, behind the scenes there is clearly a different story with countries simply aiming to take in as few Asylum seekers as possible, seeing them as an unwelcome burden.
As well as being a Scholar, Linda Briskman has also been a successful human rights activist and campaigner and so she ended the talk by suggesting her 'remedy' to help resolve the situation...
1.International Law. An International Law should be passed to help guarantee the protection of Asylum seekers, even those who are waiting to be deported again.
2. Emphasize Human instead of Border Security. Instead of just being about facts and figures, the real life stories of the Asylum Seekers need to be brought into the public view, so they are aware of the people who are being turned away.
3. Open Borders? In an ideological situation, this would be the solution. Linda favoured the view as she claimed only a small percentage of the world's population are on the move at once, personally I do not approve of this idea and she recognised that it would pose some problems and isn't a very popular solution.
4. Expenditure. If Politicians have failed to be convinced through being brought to awareness of the tragic human costs of their decisions, then perhaps the economic cost should be exploited?
5. Growth in Social Movements. Social movements should form coalitions and put pressure on the government, naturally Amnesty was mentioned as the key human rights group.
Asylum Seeking remains one of those areas where negative attitudes as a result of ignorance prevails.
As a responsible, democratic country, we should be more open to those in need. I accept that we cannot take everyone - we simply don't have the resources. But even those who will have to be deported should be better cared for whilst it is important the negative stereotypes are eliminated so those who are free to stay can lead the simple, ordinary life that they yearn.
"After initially refusing Sylvia's asylum application, the Home Office eventually recognised her as a refugee. The Refugee Council found Sylvia a place on an English and Computer Course and organised a work placement for her so that she could gain office experience. Sylvia hopes one day to manage her own business..."
This is the type of care we should strive to achieve.
Remember - Asylum is a Human Right.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
It's controversial. It's complicated. It's sensitive... It's the Spending Review.
"He needed to understand that Daddy might not always be very popular, and that there might be people who don't like Daddy, or the things he has to say. He might even hear it at school, but he's not to worry about it." ~ George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Oh! The terrible pain when a Father has to tell his eight year old son that he is about to make 490,000 public sector workers redundant...
I will admit that because of the three reasons stated in the title above, I was considering trying to attempt to blissfully ignore the announcement of the spending review within my blog. However, I then realised that although it may be easier to ignore the spending review; it would be a political disgrace on my behalf.
I therefore attempt to analyse aspects of the Spending Review; in the words of the Right Honourable Danny Alexander MP "not because it is easy, but because it is right". A phrase he used to defend his involvement in implementing the many cuts contained within the review at the Liberal Democrat Conference.
George Osborne began by reminding us, that as a country, we have the largest structural deficit in Europe at £109bn. Whether you blame Labour or not, this means each year, the country is paying £43bn in debt interest. Each day that is more than £100m spent on servicing our debt; enough to build a Primary School every hour.
To carry on like this would simply be unsustainable.
The predominantly Labour-pro media were always going to exaggerate the apparent 'horrors' of this Spending Review but undoubtedly the loss of 490,000 jobs over 4 years will have a damaging, catastrophic, social and economic impact. However, we have to think about the long term.
Would it really be fair to leave the growing debt, we are responsible for, for future generations to solve?
I am sure the majority would agree that no, it is not. The cuts need to happen. It is the speed and the extent of these cuts which is to be debated.
A 19% average cut (which was considerably lower than the 25% cut expected) will be made across the 4 year length of the budget. He has also sensibly decided to exclude certain departments from the 'brutal' cuts; most noticeably Education, Health and International Development.
The Education Department has been allocated an annual budget of £57.6bn, this is the second largest budget. The Review will see a 3.4% real term fall over 4 years and the abolition of 5 Quangos but direct funding to schools will be protected with budgets rising from £35bn to £39bn.
As a Lib Dem, it was particularly pleasing to see that a Pupil Premium of £2.5bn will be implemented for teaching disadvantaged pupils; a key Lib Dem manifesto pledge. Osborne also announced that 15hrs of free early education and care for 2 year olds, would also be offered to those from poorer households.
Clearly, education on the whole has thrived from this Spending Review.
However, I still fail to understand why we are wasting £1.3bn on the Academies Scheme which simply makes the elite schools the uber elite... But I have ranted sufficiently over this on a previous post...
Health care will also be protected from cuts and has been allocated a budget of £106.4bn - the largest budget of all the departments. The NHS will receive a 1.3% real term rise in funding by 2015 and an extra £2bn will be provided for social care by 2014-2015. A new cancer drug fund will be provided and the budget will rise above inflation each year from £104bn this year to £114bn over the next 4 years.
This year's International Development budget has been set at £7.7bn, this is due to rise to £11.5bn over the next 4 years to meet UN aid commitments. All overseas aid budgets have been protected from cuts except for aid to China and Russia which has been stopped entirely.
However, other departments haven't been so lucky...
The Business, Innovation and Skills department has been allocated a budget of £21.2bn with an annual cut of 7.1%. For me, this is perhaps one of the cuts I find most worrying, partly through personal interest but also in terms of the public interest. The department is key in providing the facilities, skills and research which help boost our economy through employment and education.
However, Osborne has promised that there will be funding for 75,000 adult apprenticeships and thankfully the Science Budget has been frozen; instead of cut as feared.
There is of course The Browne report taking place into reforming tuition fees.
Much of this report I can agree with e.g. making students pay according to their income following University. If you go on to a high income job as a result of University, of course you should contribute more to the cost than someone who received a low income job. The calamity is of course taking the cap off tuition fees. It would be completely unfair to remove the cap as naturally the more prestigious Universities e.g. Oxford or Cambridge will take advantage of their excellent reputation by making students pay higher fees to attend the University meaning students from relatively poorer backgrounds would be disadvantaged.
The Cabinet Office faces a £55m cut in budget.
The Queen will also be practicing her patriotic duty; the Civil List funding will be frozen next year and the total Royal Household Spending will fall by 14% from 2012-2013. This would suggest we really are all in this together! However, she is temporarily taking £1m to fund her Diamond Jubilee - is this really necessary, would a trip to the cinema to celebrate not suffice?
Within my household, the big worry has been the Communities and Local Government Budget.
The Budget has been set at £33.6bn with a fall per annum of 7.1% which may naturally lead to the unemployment of council staff. However, changed rental agreements and the aim to build 150,000 new affordable homes add a brighter tone to this budget.
The Army will lose 7000 jobs.
The RAF and Navy will lose 5000 jobs each.
And the MOD will lose 25,000 civilian staff.
Yet still we seem to be fighting a seemingly 'checkmate' war in Afghanistan which is costing us billions to run each year...
The Defence Department will face cuts of 8% over the next 4 years and has been allocated a budget of £46.1bn. The Harrier Jump Jets and Ark Royal Aircraft are to be axed alongside the planned Nimrod spy planes, whilst the spending decision on Trident is to be delayed until 2016.
In amongst the 'doom and gloom' there is some good news, especially for fellow Lib Dems...
£1bn in funding has been set aside to start a Green Investment Bank; this is a key idea straight from the manifesto of the Lib Dems. Also, within the Energy and Climate Change Department, £200m in funding has been set aside for Wind Power development. However, the 5% annual budget cut means that the Tidal Barrage on the Severn Estuary has been scrapped.
During this year's election, do you remember the vital word?
FRONTLINE SERVICES.
So, we've had the health care and education, now time to look at policing...
The Home Office budget has been set at £10.2bn with a cut of 6% per annum. This has resulted in a 4% cut to the Police Budget however, it has been stressed that these cuts are focused on the bureaucracy rather than front line services - let's hope they are right...
And the criminals?
The plan for a new 1500 place prison to be built has been scrapped and it has been estimated that 3000 fewer prison places are to be expected by 2015.
However, there will be a £1.3bn capital investment in prison estate helping ensure we have a more efficient juridical system with fewer re-offenders.
The Transport Budget is due to fall by 21% over 4 years, which is perhaps amongst the highest cuts in budgets. However, the department will receive £30bn for capital spending, including £500m for Tyne Wear Metro and Tees Valley bus network. The cross rail project is to go ahead in London and £14bn is to be spent on improving railways.
The Treasury has the highest budget cut, aiming to cut its budget by 33% over the next 4 years.
The Banking Levy will be made permanent, £900m will be put towards targeting tax evasion and £1.5bn will be given in compensation to the Equitable Life Policyholders who were hit by near collapse. There will also be a 15% cut in funding for revenue and customs.
The streets today were filled with middle aged grumbles, as it was announced the state pension age would reach 66 by 2020 and that there would be a reform of public pensions to save £1.8bn by 2015, with employees likely to contribute more. However, for the lucky few already there; the Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes and TV licenses for the 75+ will all be kept.
Cuts will be made to child benefits for higher rate tax payers to generate £2.5bn (hooray!) and couples on working tax credits must work 24hrs between them. It was also announced that a further £7bn in welfare savings have been planned, on top of the £11bn already announced.
And finally, a 12 month time limit has been implemented for the one million people on employment and support allowance; find work... or face a benefit cut.
Nick Clegg has described the review as being "thoroughly a coalition product" whilst the IFS have described its as being "more regressive than progressive". Clearly, there is some debate as to the success of the Spending Review. Only one thing can be for sure; only time will tell...
P.S. I would briefly like to apologise that this post is rather factual.
I personally don't feel informed enough to fully understand the impact of the Spending Review and so have refrained from voicing my opinion as much as possible, as I would not want to base it on inadequate or false reason. I would appreciate any comments or debate as to whether the Spending Review has been a success or not and am always willing to listen and analyse other people's viewpoints.
Oh! The terrible pain when a Father has to tell his eight year old son that he is about to make 490,000 public sector workers redundant...
I will admit that because of the three reasons stated in the title above, I was considering trying to attempt to blissfully ignore the announcement of the spending review within my blog. However, I then realised that although it may be easier to ignore the spending review; it would be a political disgrace on my behalf.
I therefore attempt to analyse aspects of the Spending Review; in the words of the Right Honourable Danny Alexander MP "not because it is easy, but because it is right". A phrase he used to defend his involvement in implementing the many cuts contained within the review at the Liberal Democrat Conference.
George Osborne began by reminding us, that as a country, we have the largest structural deficit in Europe at £109bn. Whether you blame Labour or not, this means each year, the country is paying £43bn in debt interest. Each day that is more than £100m spent on servicing our debt; enough to build a Primary School every hour.
To carry on like this would simply be unsustainable.
The predominantly Labour-pro media were always going to exaggerate the apparent 'horrors' of this Spending Review but undoubtedly the loss of 490,000 jobs over 4 years will have a damaging, catastrophic, social and economic impact. However, we have to think about the long term.
Would it really be fair to leave the growing debt, we are responsible for, for future generations to solve?
I am sure the majority would agree that no, it is not. The cuts need to happen. It is the speed and the extent of these cuts which is to be debated.
A 19% average cut (which was considerably lower than the 25% cut expected) will be made across the 4 year length of the budget. He has also sensibly decided to exclude certain departments from the 'brutal' cuts; most noticeably Education, Health and International Development.
The Education Department has been allocated an annual budget of £57.6bn, this is the second largest budget. The Review will see a 3.4% real term fall over 4 years and the abolition of 5 Quangos but direct funding to schools will be protected with budgets rising from £35bn to £39bn.
As a Lib Dem, it was particularly pleasing to see that a Pupil Premium of £2.5bn will be implemented for teaching disadvantaged pupils; a key Lib Dem manifesto pledge. Osborne also announced that 15hrs of free early education and care for 2 year olds, would also be offered to those from poorer households.
Clearly, education on the whole has thrived from this Spending Review.
However, I still fail to understand why we are wasting £1.3bn on the Academies Scheme which simply makes the elite schools the uber elite... But I have ranted sufficiently over this on a previous post...
Health care will also be protected from cuts and has been allocated a budget of £106.4bn - the largest budget of all the departments. The NHS will receive a 1.3% real term rise in funding by 2015 and an extra £2bn will be provided for social care by 2014-2015. A new cancer drug fund will be provided and the budget will rise above inflation each year from £104bn this year to £114bn over the next 4 years.
This year's International Development budget has been set at £7.7bn, this is due to rise to £11.5bn over the next 4 years to meet UN aid commitments. All overseas aid budgets have been protected from cuts except for aid to China and Russia which has been stopped entirely.
However, other departments haven't been so lucky...
The Business, Innovation and Skills department has been allocated a budget of £21.2bn with an annual cut of 7.1%. For me, this is perhaps one of the cuts I find most worrying, partly through personal interest but also in terms of the public interest. The department is key in providing the facilities, skills and research which help boost our economy through employment and education.
However, Osborne has promised that there will be funding for 75,000 adult apprenticeships and thankfully the Science Budget has been frozen; instead of cut as feared.
There is of course The Browne report taking place into reforming tuition fees.
Much of this report I can agree with e.g. making students pay according to their income following University. If you go on to a high income job as a result of University, of course you should contribute more to the cost than someone who received a low income job. The calamity is of course taking the cap off tuition fees. It would be completely unfair to remove the cap as naturally the more prestigious Universities e.g. Oxford or Cambridge will take advantage of their excellent reputation by making students pay higher fees to attend the University meaning students from relatively poorer backgrounds would be disadvantaged.
The Cabinet Office faces a £55m cut in budget.
The Queen will also be practicing her patriotic duty; the Civil List funding will be frozen next year and the total Royal Household Spending will fall by 14% from 2012-2013. This would suggest we really are all in this together! However, she is temporarily taking £1m to fund her Diamond Jubilee - is this really necessary, would a trip to the cinema to celebrate not suffice?
Within my household, the big worry has been the Communities and Local Government Budget.
The Budget has been set at £33.6bn with a fall per annum of 7.1% which may naturally lead to the unemployment of council staff. However, changed rental agreements and the aim to build 150,000 new affordable homes add a brighter tone to this budget.
The Army will lose 7000 jobs.
The RAF and Navy will lose 5000 jobs each.
And the MOD will lose 25,000 civilian staff.
Yet still we seem to be fighting a seemingly 'checkmate' war in Afghanistan which is costing us billions to run each year...
The Defence Department will face cuts of 8% over the next 4 years and has been allocated a budget of £46.1bn. The Harrier Jump Jets and Ark Royal Aircraft are to be axed alongside the planned Nimrod spy planes, whilst the spending decision on Trident is to be delayed until 2016.
In amongst the 'doom and gloom' there is some good news, especially for fellow Lib Dems...
£1bn in funding has been set aside to start a Green Investment Bank; this is a key idea straight from the manifesto of the Lib Dems. Also, within the Energy and Climate Change Department, £200m in funding has been set aside for Wind Power development. However, the 5% annual budget cut means that the Tidal Barrage on the Severn Estuary has been scrapped.
During this year's election, do you remember the vital word?
FRONTLINE SERVICES.
So, we've had the health care and education, now time to look at policing...
The Home Office budget has been set at £10.2bn with a cut of 6% per annum. This has resulted in a 4% cut to the Police Budget however, it has been stressed that these cuts are focused on the bureaucracy rather than front line services - let's hope they are right...
And the criminals?
The plan for a new 1500 place prison to be built has been scrapped and it has been estimated that 3000 fewer prison places are to be expected by 2015.
However, there will be a £1.3bn capital investment in prison estate helping ensure we have a more efficient juridical system with fewer re-offenders.
The Transport Budget is due to fall by 21% over 4 years, which is perhaps amongst the highest cuts in budgets. However, the department will receive £30bn for capital spending, including £500m for Tyne Wear Metro and Tees Valley bus network. The cross rail project is to go ahead in London and £14bn is to be spent on improving railways.
The Treasury has the highest budget cut, aiming to cut its budget by 33% over the next 4 years.
The Banking Levy will be made permanent, £900m will be put towards targeting tax evasion and £1.5bn will be given in compensation to the Equitable Life Policyholders who were hit by near collapse. There will also be a 15% cut in funding for revenue and customs.
The streets today were filled with middle aged grumbles, as it was announced the state pension age would reach 66 by 2020 and that there would be a reform of public pensions to save £1.8bn by 2015, with employees likely to contribute more. However, for the lucky few already there; the Winter fuel allowance, free bus passes and TV licenses for the 75+ will all be kept.
Cuts will be made to child benefits for higher rate tax payers to generate £2.5bn (hooray!) and couples on working tax credits must work 24hrs between them. It was also announced that a further £7bn in welfare savings have been planned, on top of the £11bn already announced.
And finally, a 12 month time limit has been implemented for the one million people on employment and support allowance; find work... or face a benefit cut.
Nick Clegg has described the review as being "thoroughly a coalition product" whilst the IFS have described its as being "more regressive than progressive". Clearly, there is some debate as to the success of the Spending Review. Only one thing can be for sure; only time will tell...
P.S. I would briefly like to apologise that this post is rather factual.
I personally don't feel informed enough to fully understand the impact of the Spending Review and so have refrained from voicing my opinion as much as possible, as I would not want to base it on inadequate or false reason. I would appreciate any comments or debate as to whether the Spending Review has been a success or not and am always willing to listen and analyse other people's viewpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
