"It was certainly the Big Society out in force!" That's how I described today's march against the proposed new stadium and 'sports village' for Wycombe to Steve Baker the local MP. You can read his own account here:
The Big Society is often described as one of the more difficult of David Cameron's manifesto promises to describe. What and who are the Big Society? Commentators in the left wing press will never understand the concept because it is something they are scared of. The Big Society is nothing more or less than allowing us all to decide our own destiny, to remove state control and to decentralise power back to the people. That's to say the destruction of everything the left hold sacred; or to put it another way, the abolition of the nanny state which ballooned under Labour.
With respect to the stadium proposal, people have been critical of Steve's stance of non-interference. He has set out his argument in the Press on numerous occasions, but in short his argument is that it is for society as a whole to decide whether it wants something or not. It is not for Government to interfere and thus his stance has been to stand back and let the people decide.
Those who were at today's parade were members of the Big Society. And they said No.
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Friday, 1 October 2010
Community Stadium - Unnecessary, Unpopular and Expensive
Earlier this week and to no-one's surprise Booker Air Park was confirmed as the preferred site of both Wycombe Wanderers and London Wasps. Wycombe District Council, the third party in the proposed Community Stadium, are currently conducting a public consultation over the shortlisted three sites. The announcement came swiftly on the revelation by the Bucks Free Press published of the results of a financial report into the proposed stadium that suggested total costs could extend beyond £88 Million, with a substantial funding shortfall identified. Under the terms of the partnership with the Council, the two sports clubs are between them responsible for generating half of this total figure. The Council will generate the rest of the funding through public sector investment opportunities.
At a time when the Conservative-led Coalition Government is (rightly) promoting an aggressive programme of cuts to reduce the national deficit left by the previous Labour government, it is scarcely believable that a Conservative Council could dedicate so much public money to a scheme such as this. The consultancy process is clearly showing that there is significant local opposition to the proposal, which is seen as little more than an attempt to see the Clubs' owner Steve Hayes 'feather his nest' through investment in the ancillary aspects of the Community Stadium - principally the 200 bed hotel which is proposed as part of the plan.
Constituents rightly ask why public funding should be used to support a largely private sector initiative. They point to the fact that Wycombe Wanderers Football Club has an average attendance of ~5,000 and their place in League 2. They note that attendances at London Wasps are also falling with the club only managing a miserable attendance of 8,006 to a recent high profile encounter with Leicester, the biggest RFU Club in the country. Constituents are therefore entitled to ask whether it is necessary to build a 20,000 seater stadium in Wycombe, largely at public expense, when the attendances of neither club warrant such a large capacity. Friends at SMBU have composed an Open Letter to Steve Hayes asking him to outline the benefits to Wycombe Wanderers Football Club on both this and other matters, and we await a reply with interest.
In the current financial climate, this is a fight the Council doesn't need. Councils have already been told that council taxes will be frozen, meaning that there will be no additional income to support any new projects. While Wycombe District Council is rightly introducing cuts elsewhere, the dogged support for this White Elephant of a Stadium belies the overall strategy to reduce the demand on the public purse. Laudable initiatives are having to be cancelled up and down the country because the nation cannot afford it. In this background it is inconceivable that this initiative should be pushed ahead with when it is unnecessary (neither club can justify the need for such a large capacity), unpopular (as shown at the public consultation events across the district, in letters, press and on websites) and expensive (£88M and rising).
This is one cut that will be popular!
At a time when the Conservative-led Coalition Government is (rightly) promoting an aggressive programme of cuts to reduce the national deficit left by the previous Labour government, it is scarcely believable that a Conservative Council could dedicate so much public money to a scheme such as this. The consultancy process is clearly showing that there is significant local opposition to the proposal, which is seen as little more than an attempt to see the Clubs' owner Steve Hayes 'feather his nest' through investment in the ancillary aspects of the Community Stadium - principally the 200 bed hotel which is proposed as part of the plan.
Constituents rightly ask why public funding should be used to support a largely private sector initiative. They point to the fact that Wycombe Wanderers Football Club has an average attendance of ~5,000 and their place in League 2. They note that attendances at London Wasps are also falling with the club only managing a miserable attendance of 8,006 to a recent high profile encounter with Leicester, the biggest RFU Club in the country. Constituents are therefore entitled to ask whether it is necessary to build a 20,000 seater stadium in Wycombe, largely at public expense, when the attendances of neither club warrant such a large capacity. Friends at SMBU have composed an Open Letter to Steve Hayes asking him to outline the benefits to Wycombe Wanderers Football Club on both this and other matters, and we await a reply with interest.
In the current financial climate, this is a fight the Council doesn't need. Councils have already been told that council taxes will be frozen, meaning that there will be no additional income to support any new projects. While Wycombe District Council is rightly introducing cuts elsewhere, the dogged support for this White Elephant of a Stadium belies the overall strategy to reduce the demand on the public purse. Laudable initiatives are having to be cancelled up and down the country because the nation cannot afford it. In this background it is inconceivable that this initiative should be pushed ahead with when it is unnecessary (neither club can justify the need for such a large capacity), unpopular (as shown at the public consultation events across the district, in letters, press and on websites) and expensive (£88M and rising).
This is one cut that will be popular!
Tuesday, 3 August 2010
The BBC for the Twenty-First Century
Earlier this week the Adam Smith Institute published their paper entitled "Global Player or Subsidy Junkie: Decision Time for the BBC". In it, they describe the current model for broadcast regulation as 'exhausted' and argue for the abolition of the current licence fee to be replaced by a voluntary subscription.
I have been debating with a fellow blogger the merits of the BBC and the existing funding mechanism. As I argued, the BBC seems to have morphed massively beyond its original remit and now resembles a commercial broadcaster, albeit with none of the challenges of competition for advertising revenue. It is difficult to see the public service benefit of the increasing number of gameshows, reality TV shows, or the increasingly ubiquitous Eastenders. Or as the Adam Smith report puts it, "the BBC is, in reality, a subsidised entertainment firm with some non-commercial obligations."
This is undoubtedly harsh. There are some genuinely excellent programmes produced by the BBC. They have a good record of producing costume dramas, sitcoms, and nature programmes in particular. They also produce leading documentaries - of which Nick Robinson's Five Days that Changed Britain broadcast last week is the most recent example - while they also have a clear public service remit to broadcast live the debates in the House of Commons on BBC Parliament.
Some of these programmes simply would not be produced were it not for a public service remit. Nevertheless, I am increasingly convinced that some, perhaps many of the BBC's drama and mass entertainment productions would be better off being produced in a commercial setting. Great they may be, but the BBC is not the only broadcaster that could produce such programmes. The BBC's entertainment remit is a holdover from the times when the broadcaster was the only show in town. There is simply no need for a publicly funded broadcaster to be making such programmes in the multi-channel, multi-media environment of the twenty-first century. It represents an anachronism.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the BBC must be split between commercial activities and a public service remit. The public service remit must be much smaller than it is now and cover those activities which would not be possible in a commercial environment such as e.g. BBC Parliament, aspects of Radio 4 and BBC News and Weather among others. It could also cover programmes which have a clear educational benefit and contribute to society as a whole, but again which would be cost prohibitive in a commercial context. Such programming would include wildlife documentaries, adaptations of important works of fiction - costume dramas etc. (although this is of course a fine line to tread). It would not, however, cover commercial programmes such as sitcoms, soaps, and much of the coverage on BBC Radio, all of which can and are already produced in a commercial environment.
If the BBC wishes to continue with some form of public subsidy such as the licence fee, albeit at a much reduced rate, then it must rationalise its activities into commercial and public service activities. If people want to continue to watch commercial programming then they can subscribe to them. The BBC's public service remit must be restricted to programming that only a public service broadcaster can offer. In many instances, this is already what the BBC does best. It has just been buried.
I have been debating with a fellow blogger the merits of the BBC and the existing funding mechanism. As I argued, the BBC seems to have morphed massively beyond its original remit and now resembles a commercial broadcaster, albeit with none of the challenges of competition for advertising revenue. It is difficult to see the public service benefit of the increasing number of gameshows, reality TV shows, or the increasingly ubiquitous Eastenders. Or as the Adam Smith report puts it, "the BBC is, in reality, a subsidised entertainment firm with some non-commercial obligations."
This is undoubtedly harsh. There are some genuinely excellent programmes produced by the BBC. They have a good record of producing costume dramas, sitcoms, and nature programmes in particular. They also produce leading documentaries - of which Nick Robinson's Five Days that Changed Britain broadcast last week is the most recent example - while they also have a clear public service remit to broadcast live the debates in the House of Commons on BBC Parliament.
Some of these programmes simply would not be produced were it not for a public service remit. Nevertheless, I am increasingly convinced that some, perhaps many of the BBC's drama and mass entertainment productions would be better off being produced in a commercial setting. Great they may be, but the BBC is not the only broadcaster that could produce such programmes. The BBC's entertainment remit is a holdover from the times when the broadcaster was the only show in town. There is simply no need for a publicly funded broadcaster to be making such programmes in the multi-channel, multi-media environment of the twenty-first century. It represents an anachronism.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the BBC must be split between commercial activities and a public service remit. The public service remit must be much smaller than it is now and cover those activities which would not be possible in a commercial environment such as e.g. BBC Parliament, aspects of Radio 4 and BBC News and Weather among others. It could also cover programmes which have a clear educational benefit and contribute to society as a whole, but again which would be cost prohibitive in a commercial context. Such programming would include wildlife documentaries, adaptations of important works of fiction - costume dramas etc. (although this is of course a fine line to tread). It would not, however, cover commercial programmes such as sitcoms, soaps, and much of the coverage on BBC Radio, all of which can and are already produced in a commercial environment.
If the BBC wishes to continue with some form of public subsidy such as the licence fee, albeit at a much reduced rate, then it must rationalise its activities into commercial and public service activities. If people want to continue to watch commercial programming then they can subscribe to them. The BBC's public service remit must be restricted to programming that only a public service broadcaster can offer. In many instances, this is already what the BBC does best. It has just been buried.
Monday, 2 August 2010
Graduate Tax - the NUS Fightback
I note that the NUS have released today their response to what they are calling "a whole host of distortions" regarding a proposed Graduate Tax. They have set out to debunk 'six myths' on this subject. Let's look at them!
1. Most graduates would pay much more than they do now
The NUS argue that it is only those who really benefit who will pay more. Earners in the bottom two 'quintiles' would pay under or about half the current amount, while those in the middle quintile will repay approximately the same. Meanwhile, under their proposal there would be a 25 year upper limit under which the tax is payable as well as a cap on the maximum amount to be repaid to ensure 'fairness'.
I guess that 2/5 does not amount to 'most' so assuming the NUS figures are correct the myth is not substantiated. Neverthless it is hard to see what is fair about a tax that bears no relation whatsoever to actual costs and sets out, by the NUS's own admission, to ensure higher earners contribute considerably more. It is nothing more than an extra tax on income. This is apparently 'progressive'!
2. The money would go to the state
To avoid money going into the Treasury, the NUS solution would be to set up a Trust (is that a Quango by another name?) to collect the money and to be controlled by the HE Sector. This would be legally independent of Government and accountable to Parliament.
This reverses the current governmental trend to simplify for example the current benefits system and instead introduce direct reductions in taxation at source. The NUS would wish to countenance a new tax collecting unit, presumably with powers over non-collection etc., and with all the associated administrative costs. Does anyone remember the furore over the Child Support Agency? I thought the country had learned its lesson - leave tax collection to those proficient in it!
3. Don’t we already have a form of graduate tax?
The NUS argue that "rebranding” the flawed system won’t fool anyone. Instead, they reiterate Vince Cable's argument that "it can’t be fair that a teacher or care worker or research scientist is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon or City analyst whose graduate premium is so much bigger".
This is a dangerous avenue to go down. The NUS seem to wish to simultaneously charge higher income earners more under this scheme while ignoring the real costs of higher education. Let's take Vince's top commercial lawyer as an example. Currently his fees are set at precisely the same amount as for all other subjects, albeit that a Law degree, as with many degrees in e.g. the arts & humanities is relatively inexpensive to deliver - being primarily lecture driven with none of the high laboratory costs associated with science-based courses. However, if a graduate tax is brought in Vince's lawyer may reasonably ask why he is being charged more for a degree that is relatively cheap to deliver. By contrast, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) subjects are extremely expensive. Vince's lawyer may start to argue that a link should be made between the cost of the subject he has studied and the amount of tax he is expected to pay in return. He will also point out that he already pays a higher rate of tax through income tax.
The NUS cannot expect graduates to sign up to additional taxes on this basis. In the worst case scenario Vince's lawyer will simply choose to leave the country when he has completed his studies leading to a UK brain drain.
4. It would starve universities of the money they need now because the returns come in down the line
The NUS suggest that their Trust will have the power to issue bonds for investors to purchase, thus meeting the immediate funding gap.
This Trust seems to be getting a lot of powers, doesn't it! And, remember, it is independent of Government! In fairness, though, remove the NUS's quango from the occasion and it's not such a bad solution. Governments traditionally raise money by issuing bonds. Of course, the difficulty is finding investors willing to buy the bonds in the first place!
5. This is a huge threat to university autonomy who should receive the fees or contributions from their own graduates
The NUS says that it is 'dangerous' and 'disingenuous' to conflate academic freedom and autonomy with the contribution system. "NUS wants to see a system where research is properly funded and excellence recognised, but that won’t be delivered through a market in prestige where the rich institutions get richer and vice versa."
I'm afraid I simply don't get this argument. What is so dangerous and/or disingenuous about linking a graduate's contribution to the University (s)he attended? I'm afraid this smacks to me of shameless anti-elitism whereby Oxbridge and other Russell Group Universities are vilified simply because they are successful. At the same time of course, the NUS see no irony in stating that they wish to see research excellence 'recognised'.
Presumably the NUS wish to artificially limit the amount of money that they will allow the top Institutions to accumulate from the Graduate Tax, and that any such allowance will have no bearing on the actual costs of delivering an education to students at such Institutions? Attacking such universities simply for the 'crime' of being successful will only lead to those Institutions withdrawing from the current model and setting themselves up as private universities with fees to match. I doubt that is in anyone's best interests.
6. A pure market in fees will make Universities more efficient and drive down prices
The NUS argue that there is no evidence at all that the “market” improves quality or that there is any link between the quality of teaching and the price paid.
This is arguable, but I am surprised that this is being introduced into a debate about graduate tax? I am firmly of the view that entry to University (and to the type of University) should be dependent upon academic excellence, rather than the ability to pay. Variable fees may come in, and is something I would be opposed to, but this is a separate issue to the one specifically of opposition to graduate tax to which the NUS are responding. It seems an attempt to muddy the waters.
UPDATE 3 August:
As might have been predicted, a blog has appeared on the Telegraph website from Neil O'Brien, the Director of Policy Exchange, which opens the discussion on variable fees. In his blog, he argues for a middle way between a graduate tax and variable fees in an attempt to restore a "proper market in higher education". The blog is also notable for pointing out that four of the five current Labour leader candidates are also now backing a form of graduate tax, but that is by the by.
As I suggested in my original post I am uncomfortable with the view of an entirely market driven form of Higher Education, with a market driven approach to fees. I was lucky enough to attend a top UK University when fees were as yet over the horizon. I went on to complete a Masters and a PhD at the same Institution. I completed my studies in theology, what might be termed in a market-driven approach a largely 'unnecessary' subject. Completing a PhD has not really enhanced my employability, but that was never my intention of reading for my thesis. It may sound old fashioned, but I studied for the sake of the studies themselves.
Accordingly, I am uncomfortable with any approach that thinks purely in terms of the 'graduate premium', and draws the line at a first degree, rather than allows the progression to higher studies in the discipline. I am also as I stated uncomfortable with the higher fees such top Universities as my own could command. The ability to attend a top University should be based on excellence alone, not on the ability to pay a premium. It is elitist, but not in financial terms. I hope that some of these views will be reflected in the Browne review.
1. Most graduates would pay much more than they do now
The NUS argue that it is only those who really benefit who will pay more. Earners in the bottom two 'quintiles' would pay under or about half the current amount, while those in the middle quintile will repay approximately the same. Meanwhile, under their proposal there would be a 25 year upper limit under which the tax is payable as well as a cap on the maximum amount to be repaid to ensure 'fairness'.
I guess that 2/5 does not amount to 'most' so assuming the NUS figures are correct the myth is not substantiated. Neverthless it is hard to see what is fair about a tax that bears no relation whatsoever to actual costs and sets out, by the NUS's own admission, to ensure higher earners contribute considerably more. It is nothing more than an extra tax on income. This is apparently 'progressive'!
2. The money would go to the state
To avoid money going into the Treasury, the NUS solution would be to set up a Trust (is that a Quango by another name?) to collect the money and to be controlled by the HE Sector. This would be legally independent of Government and accountable to Parliament.
This reverses the current governmental trend to simplify for example the current benefits system and instead introduce direct reductions in taxation at source. The NUS would wish to countenance a new tax collecting unit, presumably with powers over non-collection etc., and with all the associated administrative costs. Does anyone remember the furore over the Child Support Agency? I thought the country had learned its lesson - leave tax collection to those proficient in it!
3. Don’t we already have a form of graduate tax?
The NUS argue that "rebranding” the flawed system won’t fool anyone. Instead, they reiterate Vince Cable's argument that "it can’t be fair that a teacher or care worker or research scientist is expected to pay the same graduate contribution as a top commercial lawyer or surgeon or City analyst whose graduate premium is so much bigger".
This is a dangerous avenue to go down. The NUS seem to wish to simultaneously charge higher income earners more under this scheme while ignoring the real costs of higher education. Let's take Vince's top commercial lawyer as an example. Currently his fees are set at precisely the same amount as for all other subjects, albeit that a Law degree, as with many degrees in e.g. the arts & humanities is relatively inexpensive to deliver - being primarily lecture driven with none of the high laboratory costs associated with science-based courses. However, if a graduate tax is brought in Vince's lawyer may reasonably ask why he is being charged more for a degree that is relatively cheap to deliver. By contrast, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) subjects are extremely expensive. Vince's lawyer may start to argue that a link should be made between the cost of the subject he has studied and the amount of tax he is expected to pay in return. He will also point out that he already pays a higher rate of tax through income tax.
The NUS cannot expect graduates to sign up to additional taxes on this basis. In the worst case scenario Vince's lawyer will simply choose to leave the country when he has completed his studies leading to a UK brain drain.
4. It would starve universities of the money they need now because the returns come in down the line
The NUS suggest that their Trust will have the power to issue bonds for investors to purchase, thus meeting the immediate funding gap.
This Trust seems to be getting a lot of powers, doesn't it! And, remember, it is independent of Government! In fairness, though, remove the NUS's quango from the occasion and it's not such a bad solution. Governments traditionally raise money by issuing bonds. Of course, the difficulty is finding investors willing to buy the bonds in the first place!
5. This is a huge threat to university autonomy who should receive the fees or contributions from their own graduates
The NUS says that it is 'dangerous' and 'disingenuous' to conflate academic freedom and autonomy with the contribution system. "NUS wants to see a system where research is properly funded and excellence recognised, but that won’t be delivered through a market in prestige where the rich institutions get richer and vice versa."
I'm afraid I simply don't get this argument. What is so dangerous and/or disingenuous about linking a graduate's contribution to the University (s)he attended? I'm afraid this smacks to me of shameless anti-elitism whereby Oxbridge and other Russell Group Universities are vilified simply because they are successful. At the same time of course, the NUS see no irony in stating that they wish to see research excellence 'recognised'.
Presumably the NUS wish to artificially limit the amount of money that they will allow the top Institutions to accumulate from the Graduate Tax, and that any such allowance will have no bearing on the actual costs of delivering an education to students at such Institutions? Attacking such universities simply for the 'crime' of being successful will only lead to those Institutions withdrawing from the current model and setting themselves up as private universities with fees to match. I doubt that is in anyone's best interests.
6. A pure market in fees will make Universities more efficient and drive down prices
The NUS argue that there is no evidence at all that the “market” improves quality or that there is any link between the quality of teaching and the price paid.
This is arguable, but I am surprised that this is being introduced into a debate about graduate tax? I am firmly of the view that entry to University (and to the type of University) should be dependent upon academic excellence, rather than the ability to pay. Variable fees may come in, and is something I would be opposed to, but this is a separate issue to the one specifically of opposition to graduate tax to which the NUS are responding. It seems an attempt to muddy the waters.
UPDATE 3 August:
As might have been predicted, a blog has appeared on the Telegraph website from Neil O'Brien, the Director of Policy Exchange, which opens the discussion on variable fees. In his blog, he argues for a middle way between a graduate tax and variable fees in an attempt to restore a "proper market in higher education". The blog is also notable for pointing out that four of the five current Labour leader candidates are also now backing a form of graduate tax, but that is by the by.
As I suggested in my original post I am uncomfortable with the view of an entirely market driven form of Higher Education, with a market driven approach to fees. I was lucky enough to attend a top UK University when fees were as yet over the horizon. I went on to complete a Masters and a PhD at the same Institution. I completed my studies in theology, what might be termed in a market-driven approach a largely 'unnecessary' subject. Completing a PhD has not really enhanced my employability, but that was never my intention of reading for my thesis. It may sound old fashioned, but I studied for the sake of the studies themselves.
Accordingly, I am uncomfortable with any approach that thinks purely in terms of the 'graduate premium', and draws the line at a first degree, rather than allows the progression to higher studies in the discipline. I am also as I stated uncomfortable with the higher fees such top Universities as my own could command. The ability to attend a top University should be based on excellence alone, not on the ability to pay a premium. It is elitist, but not in financial terms. I hope that some of these views will be reflected in the Browne review.
Friday, 30 July 2010
AV: The most worthless votes...
I'm happy that David Cameron has stated that during the Referendum on the Alternative Vote next May, he will campaign on behalf of the existing First Past The Post electoral system. I am, though, disappointed that such a referendum on this issue was necessary to cement the coalition.
I firmly believe that an electoral process must be as understandable as possible to the electorate delivering a clear, decisive result that is immediately understood by all. FPTP is a fairer system for what I would term 'conviction constituents', i.e. those who have a clear political view. As a Conservative, I don't want an alternative vote. I want to vote for my Party. I have one vote. Why should someone else who has already voted for their preferred candidate be allowed to vote again because their candidate came last and was eliminated?
As Lord Alexander commented in the 1998 Jenkins Report (in his Note of Reservation opposing this aspect of the Report):
I firmly believe that an electoral process must be as understandable as possible to the electorate delivering a clear, decisive result that is immediately understood by all. FPTP is a fairer system for what I would term 'conviction constituents', i.e. those who have a clear political view. As a Conservative, I don't want an alternative vote. I want to vote for my Party. I have one vote. Why should someone else who has already voted for their preferred candidate be allowed to vote again because their candidate came last and was eliminated?
As Lord Alexander commented in the 1998 Jenkins Report (in his Note of Reservation opposing this aspect of the Report):
AV comes into play only when a candidate fails to secure a majority of first preference votes. It does not, however, then take account of the second preferences of all voters, but only of those who have supported the least successful candidates. So it ignores the second preferences of the voters who supported the two candidates with the highest first preference votes, but allows the voters for the third or even weaker candidates to have their second votes counted so as to determine the result.
I find this approach wholly illogical. Why should the second preferences of those voters who favoured the two stronger candidates on the first vote be totally ignored and only those who support the lower placed and less popular candidates get a second bite of the cherry?Winston Churchill himself dismissed the AV system as "the most worthless votes of the most worthless candidates" and further stated that the blind chance represented in the system would lower respect for Parliament. Given the lack of respect with which the last Parliament was treated, can we afford to further damage our Parliamentary system by adopting the Alternative Vote?
Tuesday, 27 July 2010
Electoral Reform: Getting the priorities right
Cast your mind back to election night. At 2200 BST as the polls closed the main topic of news was not the exit poll (which on reflection was pretty much spot on). Rather, it was reports from up and down the country, including Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg's own constituency, of voters locked out of polling stations unable to make a difference.
Initially, it seemed that voters had simply left it too late to cast their vote, but as the stories continued to emerge it became clear that many such disenfranchised voters had queued for over an hour, or had been forced to go home by long queues earlier in the evening only to try and come back and vote nearer the close of the polls. Worse, we saw stories of polling stations forced to close early because they had run out of ballot papers, while anecdotal reports again cast doubts on the validity of the postal voting mechanism.
Today the Electoral Commission has released their report on the 2010 UK Election. In it they state:
While Nick Clegg is promoting AV - a supposedly fairer means of counting votes which is backed by none of the usual exponents of proportional representation and which even the Prime Minister will campaign against - he ignores the Electoral Commission's wider concerns about the pressures on polling stations. 5 May 2011, the date for his unwanted referendum, is the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and 280 local authorities in England.
Nick needs to get his priorities right!
Initially, it seemed that voters had simply left it too late to cast their vote, but as the stories continued to emerge it became clear that many such disenfranchised voters had queued for over an hour, or had been forced to go home by long queues earlier in the evening only to try and come back and vote nearer the close of the polls. Worse, we saw stories of polling stations forced to close early because they had run out of ballot papers, while anecdotal reports again cast doubts on the validity of the postal voting mechanism.
Today the Electoral Commission has released their report on the 2010 UK Election. In it they state:
Our central message from this report is that the basic building blocks of electoral administration need long-term reform, support and maintenance: it is not enough simply to trust that the machinery of electoral administration will always work well and deliver elections to a consistently high standard; it is not enough simply to trust that those who want to undermine elections will resist the temptation to exploit the system; it is not enough simply to trust that people and systems will be able to adapt and cope with change without proper time to prepare.In the report, the Commission determine that just over 1200 people were affected at 27 polling stations in 16 constituencies. Meanwhile, the report also highlights inadequate staffing of polling stations, errors in printing polling cards and ballot papers, and errors in counting votes. All in all, more than a little embarrassing given that this was also the first UK election to have observers from organisations across the world. There are pieces of good news of course. The electoral register for the 2010 election increased by 1.3 million to 45.6 million entries while, thanks to the various advertisements to register to vote, the eligible electorate rose by 700,000 in the months leading up to the election. How ironic, then, that given the huge interest generated and the numbers who registered to vote, the mechanisms were in some cases unable to support the interest while in many cases administration was stretched.
While Nick Clegg is promoting AV - a supposedly fairer means of counting votes which is backed by none of the usual exponents of proportional representation and which even the Prime Minister will campaign against - he ignores the Electoral Commission's wider concerns about the pressures on polling stations. 5 May 2011, the date for his unwanted referendum, is the same day as elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and 280 local authorities in England.
Nick needs to get his priorities right!
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
Hauling in Vince Cable
Less than a week after Vince Cable proposed that a Graduate Tax would be a priority, the Coalition Government has drawn back from the idea. A "senior Conservative source" has told the BBC that a 'pure graduate tax' is an unlikely option.
As I argued after the first announcement, the suggestion as outlined amounted to little more than a tax on income, bore no relation to the actual cost of tuition (there was no upper limit on the money to be recouped), and gave no guarantee that the tax revenue raised would be redirected to Universities. I am delighted that the Conservatives are having none of it.
The only reason to pursue a graduate tax seems to be the Liberal Democrat manifesto promise to abolish tuition fees. Now that they are part of a coalition government, however, the reality is beginning to dawn. The country cannot afford to abolish fees; instead the current system whereby students contribute towards the cost of their own education must stay in one form or another. The proposed graduate tax was a weak attempt by our coalition partners to suggest that they had 'met' their manifesto promise. It smacked of inexperience in government.
Let us hope that Lord Browne's report, when it appears in October, will have been rather more thought through than the rushed views of the Business Secretary.
As I argued after the first announcement, the suggestion as outlined amounted to little more than a tax on income, bore no relation to the actual cost of tuition (there was no upper limit on the money to be recouped), and gave no guarantee that the tax revenue raised would be redirected to Universities. I am delighted that the Conservatives are having none of it.
The only reason to pursue a graduate tax seems to be the Liberal Democrat manifesto promise to abolish tuition fees. Now that they are part of a coalition government, however, the reality is beginning to dawn. The country cannot afford to abolish fees; instead the current system whereby students contribute towards the cost of their own education must stay in one form or another. The proposed graduate tax was a weak attempt by our coalition partners to suggest that they had 'met' their manifesto promise. It smacked of inexperience in government.
Let us hope that Lord Browne's report, when it appears in October, will have been rather more thought through than the rushed views of the Business Secretary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)