"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.

"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?

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:

"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.

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.

Pretty Good for a Tory...

As one conference closes, another opens...

David Cameron strode into the Conservative Conference in his usual, striking, arrogant confidence; the pure arrogance, when you can almost see "born to rule" self inscribed across his forehead...

This was of course his first appearance at Conference as Prime Minister but little did he know that several days later he would be facing the fury of his own supporters...

By Wednesday, he would be mauled by his own party;
Time to feel the aggressive wrath of the rich, stay-at-home mothers...

It would appear the slashing of child benefits to those within the top 15% of families on highest income (a.k.a the filthy rich) has caused quite a fuss...
I wonder why?
Oh yes, because half of the Tories are the filthy rich, whilst the other 50% at least like to think they are...

For once, the Tory plans protect the poor over the rich; a rare and unusual occurance.
My advice is; make the most of it.
I had to read the article in the Guardian twice, for the concept of such an occasion to actually sink in...
It has to be said Osborne; pretty good for a Tory.
But for the Tories, the policy has provoked controversy and division...

The slashing of child benefits, in this way, will successfully raise £1bn towards George Osborne's plans to cut Britain's £149bn deficit within the five year lifespan of the coalition.

But by Wednesday, as Mr. Cameron left what should have been a celebratory rally, he had been effectively hung, drawn and quartered by his own party members and his reputation for being 'cool under fire' had been ruined...

Personally, as a Lib Dem and so supporting fairness, I completely support the cuts to those families where one parent earns over £44,000 - why should rich mothers be paid to stay at home whilst the social services struggle to cater for those who are mentally ill or disabled? Why should they be paid to lounge around when Britain has one of the largest deficits in Europe, that needs to be cut?

What a shame...
Some filthy rich Tory family won't be able to afford the brand new BMW they've always wanted...
Ever heard of a Peugeot?

So these cuts...
For once, excluding all other policies and values; I could almost be a Tory, and be proud to be a Tory...

...And believe me; that's saying something.