I have never been more scared...

I cannot believe that the Prime Minister, the most powerful person in our country has said:

Dave no longer wants us sticking together

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. This Government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach."


I'm sorry Dave, but this approach is more likely to make people turn to extremism. Tolerance is one of those British values that we should be most proud.  Just a few days back in the job though, without Liberals holding his hand he is already back to preaching the politics of fear and using this to control the population how he sees fit.  We demonise Russia, China et al for the way that they try and control their citizens, yet somehow our Prime Minister thinks it's perfectly acceptable to do it here.  For the second time on this blog I'm going to quote Frank Turner.

"Cause a man who'd trade his liberty for a safe and dreamless sleep

Doesn't deserve the both of them and neither shall he keep"

At least they can't legally do some of the things that have been mentioned as the it is against peoples right to a private life as dictated by the Human Rights legislation that we have in place... oh... next blog for that I think.

I felt like I was in mourning...

So, one week on and it still hurts.  Five years ago I posted a lot to Facebook campaigning and lost at least one friend in the process.  This year I didn't do that, I just had one eve of election day post, then one after voting.  As such, despite pounding the streets delivering leaflets I feel that I didn't give enough.  Honestly, I don't think I was expecting us to lose in Bath, I thought the council might slip (despite their excellent record, 100% of promises kept and no council tax rises) but not the seat as well.  Therefore I feel that I've at least slightly let the party down (not that I think I could have made the difference with a massive 3,883 majority now in the Tories favour) but still, I don't want to ever feel like this again, let alone because of politics, therefore I am determined that for the next 5 years I will do whatever I can to spread the positive message of Liberalism and of the great work that Liberal Democrats did in power and I'm sure will still do even as 8 people in opposition.

Here is my post on Facebook last Friday:

Genuinely devastated.
Feel for the hard working MPs who did great work as ministers and have lost their jobs, particularly gutted for:
• Lynne Featherstone, who spent the last Parliament pushing through equal marriage and promoting equal rights in the UK and throughout the world.
• Steve Webb, who's reforms as pension minister have been praised by pretty much everyone.
• Vince Cable, first senior politician to vocally stand up against Murdoch (even if he didn't mean to do it in public), prevented Tory culls on workers rights and removed exclusivity from zero hours contracts.
• Jo Swinson, who pushed through shared parental leave, childcare for 3 - 4 year olds and did so much work against the unrealistic photoshopped images that appear in the media. (I was hoping she'd be the next leader of the party)
• Stephen Gilbert, because I really liked the guy.

Only rays of light, Tim Farron holding on, as next party leader (it's going to happen), hopefully he can make his Left Liberal voice heard. Ed Balls losing (that would have made any Labour government much more tolerable for me).

I wonder how many people in Lib/Con marginals that voted Labour or Green are happy with their new Tory MP? It may not be right but we have a broken voting system and the rhetoric of the last five years seems to have reduced tactical voting, which in my opinion was a major reason why the Tories hadn't won a majority since 1992. I reckon in 2 - 3 years time lots of people will realise what a good job the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs did over the last 5 years.

In the cold light of day, I still think a majority Conservative government is possibly the worst of the potential outcomes for the country (though perhaps Tory/UKIP coalition could have been worse), but there are some reasons to be positive about the party's prospects in 5 years time.  Firstly, a Tory government straight after the coalition will help show exactly what the Liberal influence was in that coalition.  Already, one week on we are seeing the Tories talk about doing all of the things that Nick and his team obviously prevented over the last five years - this I think may turn a few heads back into our favour.  Secondly is of course the massive surge in membership over the past week.  At first I thought maybe it might just be members we lost returning, but it seems that only 12% of those fit this bill, instead I'm hoping that it's people who are as pissed off and determined as me to make sure that over the next 5 years we are heard.

One thing I hate about politics is...

...Scheming/infighting/plots.  Years of watching Tony Blair's government it seemed that people were only there for their own advantage - trying to get themselves to a higher position and not for the good of their country or even their party.  You only needed to look at Gordon Brown to see him eyeing up the job that he really wanted.

As much as I hate the confrontational nature of the different parties - always fighting and rarely working together, opposing for oppositions sake to seem populist/trying to paint everything that the opposition does in a bad light, I find this even uglier when it comes from within a party.  

Now I'm not saying that Lord Oakeshott shouldn't have commissioned a poll at all, but doing so in constituencies without the knowledge of their MPs, then sitting on the results and releasing them at the time that could be deemed most damaging to the leader just screams at putting his own interests ahead of his parties.

Apparently that poll cost in the region of £20,000.  I'm also definitely not saying what Lord Oakeshott should be spending his money on (I'm sure he's been very generous where the party is concerned), but I bet there are a few former counsellors/MEPs that could have put that money to use benefiting the party.  Personally I'm gutted to see Graham Watson no longer an MEP.  

I am of the opinion that only positive campaigning can win back support towards our party, positive messages being put out about what we have manage to achieve, even as the junior partner in the coalition and what we want to achieve from 2015:

• Income tax threshold increased to £10,000 (basically changing the way people think about income tax for the low paid).
• Restoring the Earnings link with Pensions.
• Introducing the Pupil Premium (£1,300 per eligible pupil in primary schools and £935 per eligible pupil in secondary schools in 2014-15)
• Ended Child Detention.
• Equal Marriage.

We should be screaming these and everything else from the roof tops!

Yes people find us untrustworthy after the tuition fees debacle but we should be pointing out our positive influence still - that even part time students don't now have to pay fees up front, that effectively they'll be paying off their maintenance loans first  - which are larger than they would be if there were no fees, meaning students themselves are better off unless they become successful in which case they are making a larger contribution than previously to their education that made them successful.  (I am not saying that this is the exact policy I would have, but it's better than when my parents had to pay over £1,000 up front each year in order for me to attend University!) 

We should be shouting out what a future parliament including the Liberal Democrats would mean for people in this country, not shouting at each other.  If we don't have a message of what we believe in and what we hope to achieve from 2015 why would people vote for us?  Ed Miliband may be putting forward a lot of barely thought through populist nonsense, but at least he is trying to carve an identity for his party.  

The Liberal Democrats are a democratic party, we win together, we lose together, this in fighting is doing nobody any favours and making us look as bad, if not worse than the rest when what we've always campaigned on is being different. 

Sophie's legacy

In a perfect world we wouldn't need "hate crime" legislation, if a crime is committed then people should be punished for the crime almost irrespective of motive or who they victim is, otherwise wouldn't you be treating people differently under the law?  'Hate crimes' are usually of a violent nature, but surely most violent crimes derive from some form of hatred for the victim and some underlying prejudice against that person and hence be considered a hate crime?  This labelling could also be self fulfilling, when attributed too commonly it could lead to groups feeling persecuted even if there isn't an underlying bias against them.

However, we don't live in a perfect world.  The argument is that a 'hate crime' causes greater personal and social harm.  By attacking a person for who they are (rather than say using something that they've done as a motive) you are effectively attacking their identity and if such crimes become common place it can really lead to a feeling of disempowerment by that group.  Often, just the recognition that crimes towards a group are caused by underlying prejudices is the first step to showing that the group are being discriminated against.

If I were legislators I wouldn't be putting boundaries on what can or can't be described as a 'hate crime', as long as the motive was just some underlying prejudice there then the legislation should apply.  However boundaries have been put in place, in the UK these are membership (or assumed membership of):

• A religious group,
• A racial group, or:
• Sexual orientation,
• Disability.

Sophie (R.I.P)

There is a reason I am writing this blog now, Greater Manchester Police have started recording attacks on 'subcultures' as hate crimes.  I can't put into words how happy I am to see this.  I briefly alluded to this in my HMV post, this is the one area where I have been the victim of discrimination and in fact, one area where I have received abuse for nothing other than the way I look/dress etc.  

For those of you who are unaware this has probably stemmed as a result of campaigning by the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. This is a charity that was set up after Sophie Lancaster and her boyfriend Robert Maltby were attacked whilst walking through a park in 2007 because they were wearing goth clothing.  Unfortunately Sophie ended up in a coma from which she never woke up, basically she was kicked to death because she looked different.

This issue isn't something that gets much attention at all, but it is very real, below are a few of the instances I've personally experienced:

• When I was 16/17, walking home from college with a friend who had green hair (we were both probably dressed as moshers - baggy jeans and a band hoodie, that was our usual dress for college) a car slowed, wound down it's windows and threw an empty bottle in our direction whilst shouting abuse. 
• When I was 17 I'd been on a night out with a few friends, 2 of us got the bus back together (same person as above actually) and as we got off the bus 2 other guys started following us and ended up chasing us, I seem to remember he took a punch before we got away (he was always the unlucky one).  I can't say that this was just due to how we looked but it felt that way.
• When I was 18/19 and walking home from a night out (so the early hours of the morning) I was followed for about a mile by three guys about my own age (who stayed about 20 - 30 yards behind me) who kept shouting different derogatory comments about me being a goth.  (I was wearing a long leather coat and had long hair).  I assume they were trying to draw me into confrontation or just intimidate me.
• When I was 19 I was sat on a bus with a friend who also had long hair and the 3 guys behind us kept pulling on his hair (I think they knew him), talking about how they were going to shave it off and were being generally intimidating, fortunately though they got off before us and not at the same time.

I know these aren't the worst examples of discrimination/intimidation in the world but they are the ones that spring to mind that I personally experienced.  In general in school and college, once I started dressing differently (wearing band hoodies etc) I lost count of the number of times people used to use it as a basis for derogatory terms.  (The style wasn't common amongst people in my area, there were very few of us). Some were much more vocal than others, and I did escape the worst of it but a few of my friends were quite badly bullied because of it.

Without a change in legislation all the force can do is record this as an element of the crime, but I think it is a huge starting point.  Hopefully this will help to illustrate that it is something that exists and by acknowledging it it will make a difference, make people feel safer and be the starting point into making it socially unacceptable.

One day maybe we will live in a world where people treat others with respect irrespective of how they look or what they believe in.  I can't see this ever happening but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and shouldn't celebrate each improvement.  Hopefully Sophie's family's awesome work will have a lasting legacy.

Thoughts on 10p tax rate (I like) and mansion taxes (I don't)...

Okay, so Labour's announcement regarding some actual policies that I posted about earlier has made me want to analyse the actual policies, irrespective of party involvement (given half of the announcement was stealing a Lib Dem policy that I'm not overly sold on).  Anyway, here are my comments about each:

10p Tax Rate

The potential reintroduction of this depends on what your objectives are for a tax system.  If you are looking for a simple system that as many people as possible can understand then adding another band makes for added complications.  If you are looking to make it as progressive as possible then adding a lower band above the level of the personal allowance makes the system more progressive.

In a mutually exclusive case, increasing the personal allowance or introducing a new lower tax band, the former benefits lower earners more than the latter.  However, if you do both at the same time or if they are just being compared to sticking with the status quo then each change would be progressive.  This is one criticism that is being thrown at it, that it doesn't benefit people as much as a personal allowance increase would, however my personal opinion is that it doesn't go far enough.  My ideal tax system would have 10p, 20p, 30p, 40p and 50p rates.  

The thing with tax simplification is that tax bands don't really add too much additional complications, especially when most people are earning through the PAYE system.  The complications come in with all of the exemptions and special cases - it is there that governments should be looking to simplify the system, not with the rates.  In addition, they should scrap the other confusing complication - National Insurance contributions, rolling them into the income tax rates.  It is crazy that the basic rate "20%" tax payer effectively pays 32% tax whilst the higher rate "40%" tax payer effectively pays 42%, the money just goes into the same pot anyway.  I know not everyone or every transaction that is taxed includes NIC's, however this could be adjusted.  

The key of course is to make sure that nobody is paying more tax than they can afford to pay, whilst those who earn the most contribute the most.  

It was Gordon Brown who, in 2007, scrapped the 10p tax to help pay for the reduction in the basic rate from 22p to 20p per pound from April 2008.  This was regressive at the time and rightly he faced a backlash, however he corrected it in September 2008 for the 2008/09 tax year meaning that nobody actually lost out from this change.   This change did therefore simplify the system, but as discussed it probably wasn't the area that needed simplifying.  If this comes in, as long as it's not at the expense of increasing the personal allowance, then I'll be for it, if it doesn't correspond with a raise in the personal allowance as suggested by the Lib Dems, well it's a poorer alternative.

Mansion Tax

I've said a few times now that I'm yet to be convinced about a mansion tax.  I can see the potential desirability of a wealth tax, there is even worse equality with wealth than income in the country and it is desirable to strive for less inequality but I am not sure that this is a one size fits all, or even a good solution.  I have reasons...

Firstly, there is the practical aspect, how often will properties be reassessed?  The current Council Tax bandings are totally out of date where as this will be much more specific than that so much harder to keep up to date (Council Tax doesn't claim to be an exact science, this is an exact calculation).  Granted the complexity of implementation shouldn't be the major consideration but it should be taken into account.  Prices fluctuate, and you know any assessment will be open to debate and appeal - which will probably be lost.  Also, if a house is worth £2.1m without the tax, simply adding a tax to it will reduce it's value.  Also, every single house in the country will need to be revalued and this will have to happen regularly!

Secondly, and for me more importantly, houses are very illiquid assets.  There are many people who buy a house and expect to live it all of their lives.  Now I know we are talking about really high value houses so one assumes that the owners were well off enough to buy it, but that doesn't mean that they'll necessarily have the disposable cash/income to cover an increase in their annual tax bill just because their house's value has risen in such a way.  I've heard a lot of comments saying that if they don't have the cash then they could downsize, but how is that fair?  Forcing someone to leave the home that they purchased is hardly what I'd call a fairer tax.

I think the main reason I struggle with it is that it is effectively a double tax.  Basically any tax such as this is saying, we don't think we taxed you enough when you earned your money, so we are coming back for another crack at it.  I also don't like the way that the discussion is framed, it always seems to imply that those who live in expensive houses don't deserve to be there, they lucked into it and didn't work hard to get there. 

My final criticism is though that it only looks at one asset a person (or persons) owns.  If you want to target the wealthiest in society how does this help?  A rich person could own 10 houses all worth around £1.9million each and avoid the tax all together, where as if this was all tied up on one £19m property they'd be paying an annual tax of £170,000.  I feel that it penalises a person for a particular lifestyle choice/the way that they chose to use money that they had previously had left over from their income after already paying tax, for me the discussion in favour of this always seems to sound like it stems from jealousy.

I am fully aware that I am in the minority of my party (and probably now the Labour party) here when I say this, but the arguments for it just haven't sold me - after all, personally I'd replace council tax with a small local income tax and multiple property taxes, maybe in time though I'll come round to the idea.

So Labour finally have a policy...

I had a laugh to myself yesterday when on my Twitter feed someone had sent a tweet that mentioned that Ed Miliband has a "policy chief" - surely this must have been the easiest job in the world for the past 2 years?  (Incidentally, on further investigation the tweet was referring to Jon Cruddas, an MP, so one would assume he had other responsibilities). Yet amazingly today, Labour have announced a policy! Huzzah!  Now after all of this time to think I'm sure it's a very unique and revolutionary policy, so what is it?  Ah yes - fairer taxes... 

Well, I guess we should be happy that they too believe in Fair taxes, maybe they have a different definition of fair, or come up with a new system that they feel is fairer, lets analyse.  From the announcement this is in two parts:

1. A Mansion Tax

Now this sounds new, it's not like it's been in the news recently: here (August 2012), here (September 2012), here (November 2012), and here (February 2013).  It's not like this is a commonly acknowledge policy of another major party - that was even in a manifesto 3 years ago.

Page 14 Lib Dem Manifesto 2010.

Now personally, I'm not sold on 'Mansion taxes' (that's for another post some other time however), it would depend on how and when they are paid, but at least Labour are suggesting something unique [/sarcasm].

2. Introduction of 10p Tax Rate

Now I admit, it takes a big man to say he was wrong, at least Ed is just had to say the last guy was wrong, well, and himself as after Labour scrapped the 10p tax rate in 2008 to introduce a flat 20p tax he said:

"When you make a big set of changes in the tax system, some people do lose out. That is a matter of regret. Of course it is. But overall these changes make the tax system fairer."

This is a unique policy but is it necessarily the fairest option on the table?  Contrast this with the Liberal Democrats policy of increasing the Personal Allowance so that nobody on a standard set of hours on minimum wage would pay a penny in Income Tax you get two sets of results, both of which result in the lowest earners paying less tax.  

The comparison is hard to make as they haven't specified the end limit to the tax band (as it would depend on how much the mansion tax would raise) but what is clear is that those who earn between the current personal allowance threshold and the Liberal Democrat proposed threshold would be worse off as they would be paying an additional 10p per pound tax on their income earned in this band.


It's good to see Labour are finally getting some policies together, at least this way it can be pointed out that they offer no real new ideas of substance to contrast with their own politically motivated attacks on every single measure the coalition proposes.  As long as they can come up with a catchy label for it they will attack it (for instance "Bedroom Tax" sounds a lot worse than "Reduction in benefits that are deemed excessive to the persons needs").  

So yes, anyway, if you fancy supporting fairer taxes you can always sign up here, as you've been able to since the Liberal Democrats launched the site 3 months ago... a cynic would say that perhaps they only thought of the ideas after the Liberal Democrat's action day regarding this on Saturday.


-- Edit --

I've just seen the Lib Dem Voice article on the subject which has the nice graph to illustrate point 2:

Brace yourself, I'm going to praise a Labour legacy...

I don't do this often, I'm going to praise a Labour legacy...

Today, there is going to be an historic vote in the House of Commons, which I'm certain will lead to an end to discrimination in marriage laws on the grounds of sexuality.  I am more than confident that this will pass and which will be a great achievement for equality campaigners everywhere. 

I've blogged previously about how ridiculous I think that there's even a debate about it.  It's worth remembering that same sex couples basically have the same legal rights under civil partnerships as they will under full marriage so why is there all the fuss about them being able to say that they are the same as everyone else?  For most of the opponents it's just one of those cases (which happens a lot more than you'd think, you do it, everyone does it), just because they don't see it as a problem, they don't realise how other people are negatively effected by it.  The best analogy I've read for this is the guy leaving the toilet seat up - he's perfectly happy with it like that so why isn't everyone else (thank you www.cracked.com - who said comedy websites can't add to serious debate).  They don't realise that they were the ones with power and that they are suppressing the rights of other people.


Opponents often state that marriage is about raising a family, children, fostering the next generation etc, but then why have I never heard the word "children" mentioned in the vows I've heard in any of the ceremonies I've been to?  Also what if the hetro couple can't have/don't want children?  Tell you what I do remember hearing a lot about, love. I genuinely feel sorry for people who think that their own marriage will be less special because a gay couple have also been able to call their union a marriage, straight marriage will still be special as will same sex marriage - they will be equally special!  The continuing separation of different forms of union helps fuel discrimination, still indicating that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people are somehow still not the same.  Breaking down this separation will help reinforce the great progression that has been achieved.

Anyway, as I do so often I've digressed. I wanted to praise Labour.  They obviously could have introduced this in their 13 years in Government, which would have been nice, they didn't go this far but they did help frame the debate.  If it wasn't for the changes that they did make: 

• Abolished Section 28, 
• Made the age of consent 16 - equalising it with heterosexual sex,
• Repealed the ban on homosexuals serving in the military, 
• Outlawed discrimination in the workplace and in the provision of goods and services, 
• Made it possible for people in same sex relationships to adopt,
• The creation of civil partnerships,

then I don't think we'd be having this vote now, and so confident of it passing (if it doesn't I'll look foolish!) This is one area where they were liberal, and helped to stop discrimination which is allowing us to push for full equality - sometimes you need to take baby steps to reach your destination rather than risk a huge jump only to fall short of the ultimate aim.  I think Labour did a lot wrong in their 13 years, but in all of those aspects I think they can be proud.

Thoughts on the PCC elections

I don't think we should be having PCC elections, mainly because the public is in no way informed enough as to whom the best candidate for the role is, nor do enough of them care.  I read today they they are predicting a turnout of around 15%, I reckon it'll actually be higher than this, but in no way high enough for that person to truly have a mandate.

I think my main problem with it though, is that I feel the police is becoming politicised.  I feel that the police force should be independent from politics whilst remaining accountable.  Having a person linked with a party in a major position could result in decisions that are better politically than actually.  My personal preference given that there were to be elections was for each candidate to be independent. 

Obviously that isn't the case.  I was pleased to find out that there would be an independent person on my ballot paper.  So unlike many people I'm trying to do my best to find out as much as I can about the candidates, despite my disagreement with the system I still think it's important that I do cast an informed vote and not just due to party allegiances.  Unfortunately, I've not received any information through the post and only 2 of my 4 candidates appear to be on Twitter.  The My PCC site is a good tool, but I was disappointed by the level of detail most candidates went into, even on their own website.  Basically I felt like they were all saying they wanted to:

1. Cut Crime
2. Listen
3. Give value for money.

I thought the Labour and Tory candidates were particularly guilty of this, just wishy washy no brainer statements that nobody could argue with and didn't say anything different.  I was hopeful with the independent until I read her points 4 and 5 on her aims:

• I will respond vigorously to your concerns about *****.
• Your worries about *****, will be a specific focus.

Now, listening to the public is a good thing.  However stating that the public's worries will given specific focus is not always the best policy in practice.  The main reason for this is that the candidate doesn't state whether the public should be concerned or worried about these things.  My main hope for an independent candidate would be that they wouldn't focus on party political issues and instead focus on points that really matter.  However as even these independent candidates have to persuade the public to elect them and keep them elected and in doing so this may result in pandering to the public's potentially unfounded fears.

I starred out the two items that she was focusing on because for my point these are irrelevant.  Police Commissioners should be focusing on cutting the crimes the DO happen, not what people are worried/concerned MIGHT happen as I reckon people tend to focus on crimes that if they happened would have the greatest impact on them personally, irrespective of the odds of them happening.

Maybe I'm just being cynical, I'm sure all candidates in all regions are qualified for the jobs and those who are appointed will do their best, I just personally don't feel that a popularity contest - or a Political Party popularity contest (given the lack of exposure each candidate has had - at least in my region) is the best way to be selecting people for such important jobs.

Jon Stewart rips into Fox!

I normally can't stand American current affairs news coverage, but the following clip I think is outstanding:

"All in it together"... As long as it's in first class...

Twitter is a marvellous website and often allows you to see news happening first hand.  Well I say news, sometimes it's only newsworthy because of the person involved:

Obviously George Osborne still believes we are all in it together, just as long as he doesn't have to sit with the rest of us.  I hope that £160 came from his own pocket!

Gove Levels, the way forward or a step back?

So I've finally caught up on what I missed from having a week away (turns out it takes over two weeks to catch up - conference season probably hindered that even though I'm not there) and the main story I wanted to comment on is that of the Gove-Levels, where GCSE's are to be replaced by an 'English Baccalaureate Certificate'.  

Education is always, like healthcare, going to be a touchy subject.  It's hard to change it without a backlash, even if your changes are good people will always be sceptical   This is probably harder still when it seems that your solution is to jump into a Delorean and drag the countries kids with you.

I tried to go into reading about it with an open mind, but the more I read the less I liked.  

One potentially good reform is that of only having a single examination board.  When I was doing GCSE's I was confused by the 3 different boards that we used for different subjects.  It seemed very much like a race to the bottom where we'd just gone for the ones which appeared to give the best chance of higher grades.  Without having to compete for schools a singular board shouldn't feel the need to continually lower their standards as so many have been accused of doing in the past.  I would have the exam board working closely with Universities as they are a key stakeholder in the examination system and need to trust the outcomes.  

I've tried looking for other aspects for things that might be positive, however I just don't see them:

• Reducing coursework and modules puts everything into an all or nothing exam, with added pressure and luck.  In this situation it is all about how you do on one day and that is basically supposed to assess what you have learned over your whole life of schooling.  What if you're ill?  What if you have hay fever? What if you're a 15 year old girl and it's your time of the month... What if you've got all three?  Is that really going to be a fair assessment of your ability?  This is also as far as possible detached from real life, where most jobs have constant deadlines and work goals which is reflected by coursework.  Also, this leads to a greater opportunity for a student to coast throughout the year and just put a big effort into a cramming session at the end of the year.  Modules and constant assessment require students to apply themselves all year round.
  
• Grading on a curve - limiting the highest grade (Grade 1) to 10% of the entrants makes it impossible to compare standards year on year.  If the difficulty level is set correctly and consistently then improving teaching standards will not see an improvement in results and will hamper later students as they'd need to be brighter than previously to obtain the same grade as before.
  
• If the one exam is to genuinely be one exam for all then I struggle to see how it would genuinely stretch the brightest and simultaneously not leave many behind.  There has been a lot of talk about "returning to a two tier system", well that's what GCSE's were, except in Maths where there were THREE tiers. This was to give each student the best chance of achieving their goal, as with the lower papers you could still achieve a Grade C, which is seen by many as the minimum good grade to have achieved, whilst reducing the chance of failing, which was possible by taking the higher paper.  I know that I was always left frustrated in classrooms when I hadn't been segregated by ability (I don't want to sound cocky or arrogant but I won my school's Maths prize at the end of Year 11 and was in the top set for everything, even English where I didn't feel confident).  I found my higher level GCSE Maths papers too easy as they were (I finished the non-calculator paper in about 40 minutes, it was a 2 hour exam), if I'd had to take the same paper as those in the lower tier it would have frankly been a waste of my time answering the easier question - or it would completely turn some other students off when they look at questions that they genuinely aren't able to do.
  
• There's no reason that they can't just adjust GCSE's to act the way that they want, if Michael Gove's qualifications really will be more rigorous then great, but why can't GCSE's just be adapted to match the desired difficulty and challenging aspects.  Is there any actual indication that this wont just turn into an even bigger memory test?

I think the key is, what do we want our education to be for, what is the main goal.  Is it to teach our children to pass exams, to prepare them for life at work, give them life skills or to provide them with a good, well rounded education, even if they end up using very few of these skills.  Perhaps I would be more enthused if Mr Gove stopped focusing on the way we obtain results and more about the quality of them.  If the curriculum is good and the method of assessment allows students to apply what they have learned (not just what they have memorised), where the teachers teach rather than coach students to pass exams and the children come out of school with skills that will set them up for later life, then surely this is all that matters.  I fail to see how preparing for one make or break exam would allow all students to achieve what they are capable of.  

Excellent interview with Amanda Feilding in the New Statesman

Amanda Feilding: "Tobacco kills 100,000 a year - cannabis a handful throughout history"

I'm really pleased to see another article/post that makes perfect sense when it comes to the illogical policies that are in place world wide when it comes to illicit drugs.  I know it's always easy to talk up people who agree with you but I really think she makes a lot of sense:

"What is your stance on legalisation?

[Drug laws] are often at variance with human rights: it is not clear why a person’s enjoyment of a recreational drug, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else, should be a criminal offence. The war on drugs is a war on drug users – because users are criminalised and must operate in the underworld, they are exposed to drugs of unknown purity and contaminated injecting equipment, and access to treatment is much more difficult.

How could the laws be fixed?

A first vital step would be to decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal use so long as no other crime is committed, as has happened in Portugal and the Czech Republic. A more radical policy, ruled out under the current UN conventions, would be to create a strictly regulated, legal and taxed market in a drug. The obvious starting point would be cannabis."

I have wrote about this subject often, I wish I could do so as well and coherently as she does (although I guess it is her job!) I hope she is very successful in persuading people and helping them to see her point of view.

Rape isn't rape if the rapist is a popular famous person or a Hero...

One thing I was certain of, until recently was that rape is bad - and everyone thinks this.  It would appear that I must have been mistaken.  It seems that actually if two different women accuse you of rape it's fine not to face those charges, well it's fine at least if you are internationally famous for being a good person - highlighting problems other people have faced and showing the world the corruption of governments.  How could I have got it so wrong?

Before I say anything else, I've got to add that I love the work that WikiLeaks does, corruption should be brought into the open and transparency is always something that should be strived for - as long as it's disclosure does not endanger lives (when it's non-disclosure does not).  All Governments should be held into account for their actions so it is great that there is an organisation out there promoting that.

However, doing good work does not give you free reign to break the law.  I'm not presuming guilt here, that is for a court of law to decide (so any crime I mention is alleged) but skipping bail is not exactly the best way to convince of innocence.  People point to the fact that he hasn't actually been charged, but as David Allen Green excellently points out he is wanted in Sweden for arrest.  Anyone who has time should definitely read his post in the New Statesmen, it excellently debunks many myths that are currently floating around regarding the case, as actually:

1. The allegations would still be classified as rape in the UK.
2. It would actually be harder for him to be extradited from Sweden than the UK (as that would require both countries approval).
3. It's not legally possible for Sweden to give a guarantee about any future extradition.
4. Assange is wanted for arrest so there is no reason for the Swedes to just question him in London.
5. Ecuador does not have particularly free press, and they have a history of extraditing people (particularly recently a blogger) to a country where they could face the death penalty.

. 
Yet it has been on excellent posts like this that I've seen some of the strangest comments.  The worst of which though have come in other formats from prominent people:

"Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this... 'Woman A' invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know," 

"I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them."

This quote comes from the podcast made by ever controversial MP George Galloway.  'Woman A' of course refers to the case where she claims to have had consensual protected sex with Assange, fallen asleep and then later woke to find him attempting sex without a condom nor her consent.  Apparently Mr Galloway and many others believe that a person only needs to have consent for one act to then subsequently perform more when they aren't even conscious... maybe not everyone needs to be asked each time, but one would have thought that they should at least be able in a position to remove consent before the action takes place.  For once I was genuinely pleased reading the Metro's letters section as the readers took him to task - particularly the Anonymous girl who'd had a similar awful experience, my heart goes out to her.   With people making the sort of comments Mr Galloway is making it's no wonder George Potter is considering himself a feminist (an excellent post).

It seems to me that people are trying to make Julian Assage out to be a martyr for his cause, at the moment he isn't, he's just someone who doesn't want to get arrested for rape and attempted rape.  If he gets extradited to the US and put on trial for supposed crimes that WikiLeaks have done I'll be protesting with the rest but until then he should stop using his website as a shield for his own alleged personal misdemeanors.  The real martyr for WikiLeaks is of course Bradley Manning, but people don't seem anywhere near as concerned about him as they should be, nor are they as concerned as they should be about the women involved.  They are nobodies, so why should they have rights - Julian Assange is famous and good, he can't possibly have raped them, why should he face these charges?  Is it me, or are the people supporting Mr Assange becoming what they would usually claim to hate?

The leaders debates keep coming back to haunt...

The media seem to love running stories when Nick Clegg had to go back on what he said at the leaders debate because of compromising within a coalition.  I wonder why David Cameron isn't getting as much heat for what he said, even though his reneging is all down to his own party:

For the record, I don't think what was proposed was ideal, but it was a damn sight better than what we currently have.  To my mind failing to reform the Lords is the single biggest failure of the Coalition to date - something all leaders agreed should happen in the leaders debate and the three parties all had in their manifesto, but unable to provide a compromise.  Basically it is times like this that I hate politics.

I know I'm a little behind the times talking about the Lord's, but I didn't really have time to write about it previously and that's why the post is so short!

Fighting a losing battle...

Two days ago I wrote a post about the fact that students erroneously think that they can't afford to go to University and they believe that fees need to be paid up front.  Basically we aren't getting the message across that they wont pay a penny until they graduate, and even then they are still not paying fees until they've effectively paid back the maintenance loan that they were given.  In other words, realistically most students wont start paying fees at all until probably 10+ years after they graduate and even then it'll only be if they can afford it.  I was really disappointed to find buried in the Metro today:

A whole article that does nothing but scare people into thinking that University is unaffordable.  Yes there are costs for students such as accommodation and then boozing etc that they mention but the article is written in a way just to scare.  In fact the more I read it the angrier I get.  It's set up to sound like the fees are payable whilst the student is at university (they aren't), take that away and their headline calculation falls to £27k - the full breakdown of which isn't there, the costs quoted come to roughly £19.5k.  They then make no reference to the fact that students are entitled to a maintenance loan (up to £5.5k a year) effectively from the government - which (as I cannot reiterate enough) they pay back under the same system as their fees.  

Yes there is a gap between the loan and the remaining costs, but nothing a part time job couldn't fix - parents definitely don't need to find £53k that the article implies.  Or alternatively they could stay at home and study at a close by University, even then they are entitled to a loan of up to £4,375 and wouldn't incur anywhere near this cost, or not spend the £4k on alcohol that's quoted.  

If a teenager really wants to go to University then there is no financial reason why they couldn't go to a University.  I don't believe every teenager should be aiming for University, too many I feel are pressured to go when it's not in their (or the economy's/society's) best interest, however none should be scared off for financial reasons.

Political point-scoring is not worth damaging a whole generation of youngsters...

(You would only end up paying the fees
if you were made of money!)

Throughout the Tuition Fees debate it was a constant worry that the rhetoric being used would convince students that they couldn't afford to go to University, they would see that fees were going up and assume that this meant they would need a lot of money in order to be able to get a place.  All of this (of course) is simply not true, not a single penny is paid in fees (unlike when I attended after Labour first introduced tuition fees) until after graduation, then it is paid back on an income contingent loan - students only paying back a proportion of their income after they start earning £21,000 (and then it's only on the additional earnings above this amount).  When you consider that they also receive a maintenance loan in cash whilst they are at University, they effectively have to repay this before they've paid any fees whatsoever, many many years after they finish.  It is therefore really worrying that:

"Half of students think tuition fees must be paid up front" 

(London Evening Standard)

As far as getting the message across, this would indicate that we have failed.  Argue all you like about whether the Lib Dems should have agreed the increase given their pledges or the relative fairness of the contribution that the student should make to the cost of university but this system is actually more progressive (as those who pay most will be the highest earners after graduation and there is no requirement to ever pay it off if you don't earn enough.  Not only this but students are better off for it when they need it most as because of the higher fees they also get higher grants and maintenance allowances than could be afforded if they were never to contribute to their fees.  In other words they receive more money from the government (based on parents income) than their counterparts in Scotland whilst they are studying, to help them - they are just expected to contribute more back once they earn enough.  All that keeping fees at £3k really does is benefit the future bankers of tomorrow - but obviously Labour and the NUS doesn't want to spin that message - we need to start getting our message across.  

"Learning from the past" by continuing to make the same mistakes...

Nicotine, a socially acceptable drug.

Ken Clarke yesterday commented on the the UK "Plainly Losing the War With Drugs".  I've written and spoken about this topic more times than I can remember but for me the reason we are 'losing' the war is that politicians and the media are fighting the wrong war!  Instead of being in a war against drugs we should be fighting the harm that drugs cause.  I feel another rant starting...

Far too often people speaking on the topic talk about minimising drug use, but this isn't where most of the harm occurs.  If all of the casual users stopped tomorrow would you see a fall in crime or drug related health problems in people?  I doubt it, the people with habits will continue to use because they need to.  As long as their drug use is seen as a criminal problem and not a health problem it is much less likely that they will seek the help that they need.

A few things that Mr Clarke said I find quite interesting:

"My purely personal view is I'd be worried about losing the deterrent effect of criminalisation on youngsters who start experimenting. The really key thing is to work out what can get fewer young people to start experimenting with drugs...

"One thing that does put them off is they could get into trouble with the police if they do it. Once you tell them they won't get into trouble, I've always felt that more of them would experiment."

In my experience, it being a crime doesn't stop young people experimenting.  Just looking around the people I personally have known over the years, plenty have tried at least cannabis, yet very few were what I would define as drug users.  It being a crime didn't stop David Cameron himself trying cannabis, even with his political aspirations - although he apparently 'didn't inhale'.  (Even back then just wanting to seem to fit in).  It also apparently didn't stop: 

• Jacqui Smith
• Bill Clinton
• Yvette Cooper
• Norman Lamont
• Matthew Taylor (Former Lib Dem Treasury Spokesman)
• Tom Spencer (Tory MEP)

That's just all that I read in one article.  These aren't ignorant people, unaware of the risks involved, both criminally or health wise, and they all turned out fine (well except for perhaps Tom Spencer when it was a case did have an impact on his political career with it being a smuggling issue).  Whereas had they been criminally convicted at the time of the incident then it would have tarred their futures and they probably wouldn't be where they are today (in some cases perhaps that'd be a good thing?).  

Young people in particular will always experiment, they will always push against their boundaries to learn from themselves.  Just because an authority figure says that something is bad doesn't mean that they will believe them, especially when they see the hypocrisy surrounding it.  In fact, I'm sure plenty of young people try them because an authority figure tells them that they can't!  

This statement also has the working assumption that all drugs are bad, despite it being pointed out on numerous occasions that only a handful of drugs are actually more dangerous than cigarettes or alcohol.

More from Mr Clarke:

"We've engaged in a war against drugs for 30 years. We're plainly losing it. We have not achieved very much progress.  The same problems come round and round but I do not despair. We keep trying every method we can to get on top of one of the worst social problems in the country and the single biggest cause of crime."

This is what keeping supply on the black market achieves.

Firstly, if drugs we legalised, how much of that crime would fall away?  Just what proportion of the cause of crime that he's talking about is in relation to the cultivating, supplying/distribution and possessing of the drug.  Yes, where drug dependency forces users into crime to fund their habit this is a problem - but are these people more likely to be able to break from their criminal behaviour if their habit is illegal?  I can only see that happening once they are in jail (and since 7 percent of heroin addicts try it for the first time in jail* even then they may not break from the cycle).  How much of the violence that drugs creates due to rivals vying for the same distribution channels, trying to get their share of the high profit margins from operating in the black market?  How much of these high profit margins would still be there if a legal (and taxed) market still existed?

Secondly, why is it a social problem?  Is it because addicts are shoved into the margins of society, hidden away rather than helped?  Does criminalising these people help them out of the shadows of force them into there in the first place?  

Finally, Mr Clarke says that they keep trying every method, however the only methods that they are trying relate to prohibition and never evidence based policy.  If we are to ever reduce the harm that drugs can do to people's lives, to communities then I feel that we really need to look, as a minimum at evidence based legislation, with decriminalisation and then legalisation being the better steps.  

Professor David Nutt (who I often reference when talking about this) has written another excellent blog post after recently giving evidence to the parliamentary select committee.  He makes many excellent points, but I in particular agree with one of his opening comments:

"I strongly believe that we should focus on public health approaches to the drug problem, and decriminalise the possession of drugs for personal use, for the following simple reason;- If users are addicted then they are ill, and criminal sanctions are an inappropriate way to deal with an illness. If they are not addicted then criminalisation will almost always lead to greater harms to the user than the effects of the drug."

Overall my personal opinion is best summed up as:

The sooner we let our drugs policy develop beyond "Drugs are bad - because the media says so" the better

(Shamelessly stolen from @mynameisedd on twitter)

---

*Link is on the Sun's report on the same story here. (I don't like to blindly link people to News International).

In defence of Jimmy Carr...

I know I'm behind the times but I've only just watched last week's 8 out of 10 Cats...

If you go to someone for advice and they look at your situation and ask you if you want to pay less tax, what would you do?  Okay, yeah, that's all the defence I have as it is a massive error in judgement - particularly as he has spent the last few years really laying in to bankers and Government austerity.  


At the start of my accountancy career I worked in tax for over 2 years and I'd see it all the time, people just wouldn't have a clue about their own situation.  In those days most of my companies clients came through referrals from a company who had promised to reduce the tax bill of contractors by effectively making them self employed, the problem was they had just heard the bottom line figure they had been promised by a sales person and not taken in what they had signed up to.  


These people weren't exactly the same as Jimmy, they were taking advantage of government incentives for the self employed (or were supposed to) to save a little bit on their tax bill as opposed to just paying 1%, so I doubt he was as naive as some of the people that I came across.  At the same time his situation is apparently legal, so I defy anyone reading this to say that they intentionally pay more tax than they legally have to.


I personally don't blame Jimmy, or any of the other celebrities/people who have been operating in this way, from taking advantage of the "loophole", I blame the people who allow this sort of arrangement to be in place to begin with.  You can't just blame the Tories for this, even if many of them have benefited (I believe George Osborne is due to pay a lot less in inheritance tax in the future because of his trust fund's 15% stake in Osborne & Little), you have to also blame Labour, who in 13 years didn't close down all of these schemes, and the Tories that came before them, and Labour before that...  People will always find a way to minimise tax, it's the Government's job to make sure that everyone pays their fair share and to not allow these schemes to exist.  

Bad reporting and "research" can do more harm than good...

I've had quite a busy end of May/start of June so haven't had a chance to blog, or even keep up with most news stories (being out of the country/at a festival tends to cut you off).  However one story that caught my eye (well I couldn't miss it on the one day I bought a paper) "Young cannabis users 'do not realise the huge danger to their health'".  It particularly claims that smoking cannabis is 20 times worse than smoking cigarettes.

Now I welcome any attempt to improve the health of people and to educate people (particularly younger people) to the dangers of drug use - as I've often said, I would combat drug abuse through education rather than prohibition, however all this is doing is perpetuating a popular drug myth that has even been debunked on Wikipedia.  In fact most of the damage that is done comes from the fact it is commonly mixed with tobacco.  

I was pleased to see when I returned home a rebuttal in my inbox from the excellent Professor David Nutt:

"The BLF’s lack of care with the evidence, and the media’s lack of care in fact-checking, could have the opposite effect from their good intentions. Public confidence in science as a means of getting to the truth can only be harmed when the BBC reports “experts” mistakenly declaring that what 88% of us apparently think about cannabis is wrong. What’s more, if the BLF’s misguided information is believed, people could actually be put at greater risk of lung cancer, for example by cutting down on the cannabis in their joints and padding them out with more tobacco, or by making parents relatively more relaxed about finding out that their teenagers smoking cigarettes every day than finding out that they smoke the occasional joint."

That paragraph I think picks up on one of the most important aspects.  I've known plenty of people (the amount of festivals I go to it's hard not to be exposed to it) who smoke the occasional joint - not even that, it's more of a social thing where they might have a couple of tokes.  Yes people can get addicted to it and some people do abuse it but very few of the people I know who smoke cannabis would be classed as regular users whereas 100% of my cigarette smoking friends are addicts.

I'd recommend that everyone reads Professor Nutt's piece, he's not some liberal who wants to end prohibition like me, he is just an expert who was fired by the former Labour Government for pointing out that their drugs policy didn't make sense, alcohol and tobacco being much worse for people than numerous restricted drugs.

A Labour MP talking sense...

If there's one thing I hate about politics it's political opportunism.  When a person campaigns, sets it out as their policy or just has it as a known opinion but then votes against it or makes a speech with the opposite message when the time comes just because it could be to their political advantage.  I was pleased to see on the Guardian's letter page yesterday a comment from a Labour MP:

"The idea that Labour MPs should connive with Tory opponents of House of Lords reform to block the bill is absurd (Report, 10 May). Labour has campaigned for reform for over 100 years and we should now seize the day to make it a reality. If instead Labour is tempted by short-termism to "give Clegg another bloody nose" it would represent the triumph of petty politics over radical principle."

Malcolm Wicks MP

Labour, Croydon North

This is an excellent sentiment - voting as to your opinion, much better than opposing everything for the sake of it.  I hope Ed Miliband listens, our political system is too important to just be voting to try and make your opponent look bad and 'create a buzz'.  What we need is a constructive opposition rather than one who take any chance they get to be destructive.