Wednesday, 16 February 2011


It's huge. A massive problem facing todays society. But do we as a nation have a distinct lack of jobs or is it just that some people cannot be bothered to go out and earn a living? Well I believe it to be a combination of both. No doubt the education system has failed a number of people and therefore they are left in a state where employment seems a difficult and unachievable prospect. In these instances we need to be helping people, providing jobs and attempting to get people into work through a social development scheme or something similar.

However we as a society also have people who simply see unemployment benefit as a way out of working. Those who sit around playing video games and in essence not even bothering to consider employment simply because the benefits of being unemployed are greater than that of a low paid job. It is important to remember that while not only receiving unemployment benefit these people are also gaining from other implications which kick in when one enrolls or undertakes a term of unemployment, including have there council tax paid etc.

I've been criticised and sent comments in the past whereby people accuse me of hating the poor, however this is not what the Tories are about. They tax the rich at almost the same rate as labour, leaving many middle class families with crippling taxes and to an extent earning a lot but getting back very little. I truly believe that many (not all I must say) of their policies are progressive and in order to fully see the extent to which they benefit the poor critics need to read deeper and actually see the way in which they operate. What I mean by this is not just believing the media and for once looking into a policy and actually noticing its progressive nature, ,maybe not entirely agreeing with it but accepting it as a reality.

Enough. Rant over. I guess only time will tell how the unemployment rate develops but I believe more than six months are necessary in order to see the full extent to which the Tories cuts will affect society...

Sunday, 13 February 2011

The bandwagon of oppurtunism...

Barely a day goes by anymore without my ears hurting, probably from the incessant whingeing and complaining about the Tory implemented cuts. It’s crazy. In fact it’s far worse than that, its typical British labour derived idiocy. I’d just like to get one thing clear before I go off on one of my aptly described “rants”. My political views sway much further to the right than most people my age, however I do agree with a few more liberal policies and indeed I might go as far to say that labour have the occasional good idea or two…

The fact is we now as a country are in debt to the tune of over 1 trillion pounds (an amount unimaginable to most of us), how we got to this point is another matter. Labour deny all responsibility “Do you accept that before the crisis happened, actually Labour was spending too much?” “No I don’t.” (Ed Milliband’s response to a question on the Andrew Marr show). Obviously I do not blame Labour whole heartedly for the entirety of the deficit yet they are in sincere need of a leader who can justifiably accept a portion of the responsibility. No doubt Labour supporters put the deficit down to the financial crisis (and rightly so) however there naivety in thinking this was the sole cause is what irritates me. A combination of public service overspending and trying to inject the public sector with ridiculous and pointless services is what contributed to the deficit on a long term basis. Take for example EMA (educational maintenance allowance) which is in principal an excellent scheme, it’s just a shame Labour decided to give it to everyone under a certain income boundary without considering its implications. Just the other day I heard a friend complaining about the fact it’s been scrapped, at which point I asked what he spent it on “oh I use it to pay for my Iphone contract”. His response shocked me yet it is one I have heard from a number of similar receivers. Therefore cutting this and instead channelling the money into other schemes (which is currently under investigation) is the way forward. In essence what I am trying to say is that people need to embrace the cuts and put a little faith in a government which has been left with a very sorry state of public finances. Then when they do proceed to scrap widely abused schemes they need the support of the people and not some unorganised rabble complaining that they can no longer afford to pay their “phone contract” let alone live comfortably…

Just a little note, before anyone comes back with an opposition argument maybe just have a look at what Ed Milliband has come up with to combat the deficit, and then maybe you’ll realised why he’s just jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism and once again providing an opposition without any such policy to match.

Sunday, 9 January 2011

Do Labour not quite comprehend the mess they’ve left behind through their public overspending and immense naivety throughout the economic boom?

I was browsing the internet earlier today, looking for some political provocation for thought and a little stimulation for my next blog post when I came across this:

An article on non other than the so called “oppositions website” although, being a fair person I enjoy reading what those that have somewhat more left wing political views have to say for themselves.

The article seriously angered me for various reasons. Firstly it seems that Labour are trying to state that the current economic situation is not their fault, which in my eyes is not a particularly realistic claim. After all if anyone is to bear the brunt of the blame it has to be Gordon Brown with his huge public spending increase right?

It is important at this stage to look at the economic crisis as a whole, indeed it occurred on a global scale and I am certainly not saying that Labour are responsible for the entirety of the situation, because, certain events would have undoubtedly happened regardless of the decisions Labour made. However it was the way in which they reacted to the situation that caused the most harm.

But for people to criticise Cameron and Osborne for making cuts and trying to install a sense of some security within our economic system is unacceptable. Of course nothing is going to happen immediately and it will take years for our economy to recover from such a insurmountable deficit, but the media and especially the labour party need to give the Tories chance to at least try and implement changes. Unfortunately cuts are necessary and nobody is supposed to like or relish in such changes but they are for the benefit of our long term economic growth and recovery.

I mean its not like the labour party would be doing a better job if they were in power at such a time…

Thursday, 30 December 2010

Is it fair to raise university tuition fees? And if so why?

It's an issue which has been the cause of deep political uprising and unrest among many in recent demonstrations and parliamentary confrontations. A rather significant level of damage has been caused and protestors in their thousands appeared to give strong and valuable views on the matter. However the question, simply put, is can the actions of the government be justified with regards to such a matter?

Well in my opinion yes they can, or at least to the greater extent. The government recently introduced legislation that states "all children or adolescents under the age of 18 must be in full time education", whether this be college, school or even an apprenticeship, education is still therefore a compulsory right until one reaches the age of 18. Well you may be wondering quite exactly what this has to do with the raising of tuition fees? For the most part the action taken by the government to ensure young people stay in education until they reach the age of 18, simply suggests that they are keener and in greater need of academic success. After all the main reason we are provided with any education in the first place is merely so we can go on to pay tax as a senior working member of society, right?

Now with reference to universities and the raising of there annual fees comes a number of arguments both for and against. For starters, you could argue that in raising the cost of fees, the quality of education provided by the given establishments will also follow an upwards trend. Obviously Oxbridge and the like, will still have no reason to fight for their students, however other universities, especially those that rank averagely are certainly going to have to up their game in order to attract a full complement of fee paying students. After all if the lever of teaching is poor, students will not bother wasting £9000 a year, and simply look elsewhere instead. Although this is not overtly guaranteed, it is more than likely that instead of students alone competing for places, it will also be the universities themselves competing for students. Not only does this ensure universities increase the standard of their teaching it is also likely to have the subsequent effect of pulling education standards up across the board. Therefore theoretically increasing the quality on average of degrees achieved by students ( I.e from a 2:1 to a 1st).
Another crucial argument lies in the fact that the fees have been increased so significantly. Beforehand average fees were around £3500 a year for most universities however how can the government justify such a dramatic increase? Well to begin with, look at the cost of private sector education which currently ranges from around £10000 a year for base rate fee paying schools to up to £30,000 for the higher class establishments. This is all very fair as in my opinion private sector education is a brightened alternative for those among us that can afford it. The question being why such an uproar at universities charging more? The fact that the maximum cap on fees now sits almost 10% below that of the most affordable private schools is only a testament to the work undertaken by the government. In essence before the rise was introduced everyday taxpayers were funding universities and providing the majority of the money used to run and maintain them. Quite frankly the taxpayer does not pay to run private schools, so why should we pay to fund universities?

The important thing to remember here is that university is an option, not a right or a definite. Nobody is forced to go to university, unfortunately nowadays many who do not attend university are frowned upon, especially amongst the middle classes. In my opinion this should not be the case, many people feel an obligation to go to university simply because their friends are doing so. Subsequently many take somewhat ridiculous and pointless degrees just for the sake of it ( golf course management etc). Less than thirty years ago universities used to be a place where those who had achieved well academically in society could go and study an academic subject ( something testing and respectable). Thankfully with the increase of fees now undertaken, many people will now be discouraged from attending university and enrolling in a pointless, unnecessary degrees which have little or no significant place in society. This may sound slightly harsh but I truly believe the increase in fees will cause those wishing to attend to consider further both the course they take and it's potential for success in later life. As well as making the student think, it will no doubt provide universities with a more willing cohort of students; those that implicitly chose university and weren't just made to feel like they should go.

An argument has been put forward by many protestors that the increase in fees hits the poorest to the greatest extent. In fact this couldn't be further from the truth. The conservative party are branded for being harsh and sometimes unfair on the poorer i'n society, quite the opposite i'n fact. The poor will suffer very little as a result of the increase, merely due to the extensive bursary and funding programmes i'n place for this who can't afford to attend.
However teenagers with middle income parents, who do not wish to fund their children through university will be worst hit. There is little to no support in terms of direct finance for such a candidate. Although i'n order to compensate for this lack of support the government has introduced a very clever lending scheme ( which is open to all) this allows candidates to borrow money to pay their fees and is only repayable upon earning over £22500 a year ( increased from a prior £15,000 per annum). From my perspective this scheme on behalf of the government is very fair and motivates candidates to get a job as soon as possible after leaving university. Hence benefiting society through not only having more skilled or academic workers but also lowering the national unemployment rate.

With all these factors taken into consideration, why should we be so opposed to the increase? I believe we should embrace the changes and be thankful all universities still cost less than base rate fee paying schools. Not only this, but the level of education is also likely to increase hence marking the way for a better and more competently educated Britain.
Yes we are going to have to pay more for such a privilege, however in economic times such as these we should take that more as a given than a shock. Nevertheless there will always be those who oppose the policy, and I respect you for doing so, but in my opinion I have fully justified why the government has the right and essentially the need to raise university tuition costs.