An argument for Grammar Schools

An argument for Grammar Schools

Currently in the UK four private schools and one college send more students to Oxbridge than 2000 state schools.  The Government is aware of the social mobility problem but for years has struggled to find a solution to it.  New Labour tried to open up universities to a greater number of poorer students and had reasonable success in this, however this is only half the job.  Many Schools fail to give their students the grades to access University leading to many potentially talented individuals getting no opportunity to climb the social ladder.

This is where the Grammar School comes into the picture.  Grammar schools in the UK are oversubscribed parents send their children miles away to get to one and the question is why?  The answer is simple if your child can make the grade a Grammar school offers them a world of opportunity that the local comprehensive may not.  The problem is there are only around 164 state funded fully selective Grammar Schools in the UK meaning the majority of children don’t have access to one.  The argument for expanding the Grammar school system in the UK is a simple one, social mobility.  Nothing has more impact on social mobility than a quality education, everyone who reads this will be aware of a school near them in which hardly any students will get GCSE’s and no parent wants to send their child to these schools, but many have to due to financial reasons.  Currently in the UK if your local school is poor your child will get their opportunities restricted unless the parent is rich enough to pay for a private education.  However, by increasing the numbers of Grammar schools children have the opportunity to go to a good school even if their parents are not wealthy.  Grammar schools end the postcode lottery that exists with comprehensive schools, some comprehensives are very good schools, my secondary school was very good however many fail their pupils.  Comprehensive schools in middle class areas tend to be better than those in working class areas, there is one huge reason I can see for this.  Culture, in middle class areas children are expected to do well both by their family and the school this expectation reduces disruption in classrooms and puts pressure on children to achieve.  In working class areas, there is usually less expectation by the school, there are also other social problems in these areas such as family break down and poverty which can seriously hamper a child’s progress at school.  Grammar schools like private schools and good comprehensives expect their students to do well they enforce the idea that if you work hard you can do anything you want, it is this expectation combined with the best teachers and brightest pupils that make it easier for Grammar school pupils to succeed at school. 

If Grammar schools were to ever return in force, the problems with the old system would need to be ironed out.  Although I think Grammar schools are excellent for social mobility, the old system did have some major flaws, mainly the underfunding of all other schools and selective testing at such a young age.  Grammar Schools should not take funding away from other schools as most of the population will still go to a comprehensive and they cannot be forgotten about.  This means that Grammar schools should only get the same funding as comprehensives and students at local comprehensives should still be able to sit the same exams as those at the Grammar school to prevent a restriction in opportunities.  As for the selective testing at 11, I think you should still have the selection tests at 11, but also at 12, 13 and 14 so there is the opportunity to get into a grammar school for those who develop later.  Of course Grammar schools will not fix the UK’s education system by themselves, they are a way of allowing everyone who is capable enough to have a high quality academic education.  It is important to also allow everyone choice which is why free schools could potentially be a fantastic addition to the UK, but we also need to look at improving opportunities for those who don’t go down the academic route as they are also an essential part of the economy and are currently being let down by our current vocational courses. If countries such as Germany can run a selective schooling system but also support vocational trades why can’t the UK?

Ed Miliband the Thatcher of the left?

Ed Miliband the Thatcher of the left?

Margaret Thatcher, an idol of the right and a devil to those on the left.  Whether you loved or hated the Iron Lady you have to admit she dramatically altered the political, economic and social landscapes of the UK.  And if Ed Miliband is serious about his proposed economic policies and his plans to cut the cost of living if he wins in 2015 he could be potentially as revolutionary as Thatcher.  Ed Miliband is obviously totally different politically to Thatcher my comparisons between Miliband and the UK’s only female PM end at the fact he could be a shock to the UK.

Critics have already lined up to land blows against Ed for his proposed banking cap and his energy price freeze, and yes these critics have a point and I agree with them, however this does not mean Ed’s policies don’t appeal to voters.  It also does not mean his economic policies are incorrect, this current Conservative government’s economic policy was derided as poor last year by many leading economists right up until it started showing results and then it was good again.  The same goes for Thatcher’s economic policies, the point is most revolutionary economic policies are incorrect up until the moment they are correct.

Although I find Labour’s economic policies crazy in an economic sense, politically they are rather clever.  They show that Labour cares about the cost of living and is willing to do something drastic to combat it.  It also taps into public hatred of banks and most importantly that banks have not suffered enough for causing the financial crisis, Labour could have just came out and bashed the banks which would not be politically very clever.  Instead they have said the banks are too big, powerful and corrupt and to solve this we are going to make the market more competitive so the customers get a better deal.  Whether this will work in an economic sense is debatable, (I don’t think it will) however politically it’s savvy.  It attacks and enemy in the form of the big banks, but has a positive message in a better deal for British business and the British people.

The potential consequence of such policies on the UK economy would be colossal and as I have mentioned already I believe negative, but at least Labour has filled its policy void and is trying to solve the problems of voter.  However, the Conservatives have also finally got going on the cost of living crisis saying they will raise minimum wage, a very appealing prospect for a large section of voters.  It looks like 2015 is about to offer up a really exciting race to number 10, Labour are offering some quite revolutionary policies while the Conservatives are using more conventional economic policy to solve the UK’s problems.  Although I believe Labour ‘s policies would adversely affect the UK economy  the dividing lines between the main parties are the clearest they have been for years, and I think a Labour win could change Britain as much as a Conservative win did in 1979. 

A rise in interest rates could be disastrous for homeowners

A rise in interest rates could be disastrous for homeowners

With interest rates set to rise once unemployment reaches 7% homeowners will be looking at their bank balances and finding ways to economise there lifestyles.  It has been mentioned in the news for years now that a rise in our record low 0.5% interest rates could be devastating for some families who are already struggling to pay their mortgage.  Your average household on a tracker mortgage currently pays £805 a month for their house, even a small 2% rise in interest rates could increase their monthly payments by £182.  The rise in interest rates is expected to lead to one in five home owners to increase work hours or make substantial cut backs on their household spending and in some cases people will lose their home.  These statistics relate to a 2% rise in interest rates, a greater rise could have an even more devastating impact on the homeowners.

A rise in interest rates will only add to an already high cost of living in the UK.  The Bank of England argues that by time the rise in interest rates comes the UK economy will be in a period of recovery and stronger economic growth.  This means people jobs will be more stable, and above inflation pay rises will once again be the norm.  However none of this is certain, and many in the public sector will not receive above inflation pay rises , and because the interest rate rise will be triggered by unemployment figures those on zero hour contracts and in part time work will be counted as employed.  So although a rise may not hurt as many as one in five homeowners, even if the economy will be well into its recovery a large group of working and lower middle class people will find themselves in a very tough financial situation when interest rates rise.

Since the Bank of England was given independence under Gordon Brown, interest rates are now out of the government’s control.  Although the Chancellor may advise the governor of the Bank of England, he cannot force him to alter interest rates.  However, the Chancellor needs to say something, although a proposed rise in minimum wage and tax cuts will cushion the blow of interest rate rises it won’t be enough to stop households suffering from a rise in their mortgage payments.  It is inevitable that interest rates will rise eventually, but a better test than unemployment rates is needed to stop them having an adverse effect on the aspirational classes.  The people who will be worst hit by a rise in interest rates are the hard working people who David Cameron constantly says his government supports.  Currently this issue is not one that is being seriously debated, mainly because a rise in interest rates is unlikely to happen before the next election.  However, the Chancellor and Prime Minister need a plan to either delay interest rate rises until people are in a better position to deal with them, or at least come up with a set of policies designed to reduce the rises impact on home owners.  It is worth noting that many people will also benefit from a rise in interest rates, it will encourage the banks to lend more to businesses, which may well lead to more jobs being created.  Also savers will enjoy a rise in interest rates, however if David Cameron is serious when he says he supports hard working people and he is trying to do something about the cost of living, he needs to ensure that a rise in interest rates does not happen before the economy is ready for it. 

  

Boris cannot lead the Conservatives

Boris cannot lead the Conservatives

As a Conservative the issue of who should be the next leader of the Conservative party means a lot to me, I want the Conservatives to win a majority in 2015 or at least be the largest party in a hung parliament.  If they are not then David Cameron will step aside a new man will get the job and even if David Cameron does return to No 10 there is no guarantee he will be PM by 2020.  Anybody who has read a newspaper in the past year knows that one of the front-runners for the Conservative leadership is Boris Johnson.  Boris Johnson cannot be allowed to lead the Conservative party and if he does we may as well hand the keys to No 10 to whoever happens to be leading Labour.

Boris Johnson looked like a strong contender for the leadership only last year but now I believe he is now dropping behind, with candidates such as Michael Gove look like a much stronger prospect.  Several things have happened in the last year that have weakened Boris as a candidate and made him look like a potentially disastrous leader.  Firstly a documentary about Boris Johnson was released which highlighted all the bad things about Boris, followed up by the disastrous Eddie Mair interview about the same documentary (in case you missed the interview here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj686CmGGSA).  Party leaders need to be squeaky clean, yes occasionally they can make a mistake at some point in their career, but Boris Johnson’s list of political crimes is very long.  You have his affairs which are a no no, for a politician, then you have his misquote in the Times which got him fired this makes him look untrustworthy, there is the incident where he provided information to allow someone to be beaten up, and he comes across as a bit of an oaf.

Now I understand that Boris is not an oaf and is a very intelligent man and becoming the Mayor of London was a huge achievement for any Conservative only topped by being re-elected.  Nevertheless, his mannerisms that make him so popular as London Mayor are the sort of behaviours that a PM would never get away with, also the list of Political crimes he has committed will be used by Labour to make a big stick which they will repeatedly hit Boris with.  As much as I used to support Boris Johnson I believe his past is to toxic for him to be a viable leader he would be a liability come election time and the Conservative Party has better options.  We have Education Secretary Michael Gove, he has shown himself to be a shrewd tactician and a reformer, trying to change our education system without using the classic Tory argument of Grammar schools.  There is William Hague he was a disaster as leader the first time around but he is older now and is a modern day big beast, not only that there are few better debaters in the commons than William Hague, however he has already said he will be retiring from politics soon so maybe he won’t run.  Adam Afriyie has been mentioned in recent months as a potential leader, I have written about him before and I don’t believe it is his time yet.  Although I have changed my mind on one thing he would be better for the party than Boris Johnson, I still think he would lose to the likes of Michael Gove but is a really strong candidate for the leader after next.  He is a self-made man, he is a good speaker, he gives a good interview, and he is great at articulating his views.  These are just a few alternatives to Boris Johnson the Parliamentary Conservative party is full of talent I have not even touched upon David Davis, Jessie Norman, Philip Hammond or Theresa May.  The Conservative party does not need Boris as its next leader and hopefully the party choses one of the many alternatives or we should prepare for a period in opposition. 

Scottish Nationalists need to start living in the real world if they want independence

Scottish Nationalists need to start living in the real world if they want independence

The Scottish independence campaign is this year and currently it looks like the Union will remain intact long after 2014.  There are several reasons why the ‘Yes’ campaign has been lagging behind in the polls ever since the referendum has been announced, firstly there is no real appetite in Scotland for independence.  Although the SNP currently have a majority in the Scottish they did not win that majority due to people wanting independence, they won for other reasons such as Labour’s roll in the financial crash and their relative success as a minority government.  However just because there was no strong call for independence initially does not mean that the SNP can’t win independence for Scotland if they start campaigning based on rational arguments, rather than ignoring facts and playing to peoples sense of nationalism.

One of the key issues in the independence debate is economics, will Scotland have a stronger or weaker economy if it goes independent.  Alex Salmond argues that Scotland will have a stronger economy if it goes independent, its economy will be based around the energy sector with funds coming from North Sea oil and green energy.  There are problems with Alex Salmond’s utopian vision of an independent Scotland’s economy, firstly it is now cheaper to get oil from the USA than from the North Sea this will reduce the lifespan of drilling in the North Sea.  Simple economics says that when oil companies can no longer make a profit from an oil well they move on.  Secondly, Green energy may be the future, but it may not.  It has challengers from nuclear, conventional energy sources such as coal, oil and gas, and looking further into the future nuclear fusion is already being tested in France this technology although far from complete has the potential to kill of all other forms of green energy.  The final problem with Green energy is that it is expensive and requires lots of government subsidies and tax incentives to make companies want to invest in green technology, this is money Scotland may not have if it is independent.  Currently Scotland spends 45% more on its people than it generates in tax, as it is part of the UK this spending is sustainable, if they leave they will have to borrow more money or make spending cuts.

Another huge economic debate surrounding independence is which currency will Scotland use?  Salmond has his heart set on the pound, and entering into a euro style currency sharing agreement with the rest of the UK.  However both the Chancellor and the Shadow Chancellor have both said no such agreement between Scotland and the rest of the UK will occur if Scotland gains independence.  This does not mean Scotland can’t use the pound, although if it does use the pound it will not have control over monetary policy which would undermine the whole point of being an independent country.  To illustrate the fact that the SNP currently don’t live in the real world, Nicola Sturgeon still insists the rest of the UK would sign a currency sharing agreement, she also said that an independent Scotland would have stronger growth than if it remained in the UK.  Although finance experts continue to ridicule the SNP’s economic policy, Ruth Porter head of economics at Policy exchange said “the raft of economically incoherent policies being proposed by Alex Salmond would be disastrous for Scotland.”  An independent Scotland would most likely have to adopt a new currency and this could severely damage the standard of living in Scotland and also as a new nation Scotland will struggle to borrow money at low interest rates.   One final point relates to Scotland joining the EU, recent reports suggest that Spain may oppose Scotland’s membership to the EU fearing that Catalonia may seek independence, this means that Scotland would not be able to adopt the Euro as an alternative to the pound (not that they would currently want to) and they would not have the easy access to European markets that they currently do and this would be hard on Scottish businesses.

To conclude the ‘Yes’ campaign need to start drawing up a serious economic plan for independence because currently if the facts differ from their argument they lie about the facts or ignore them altogether.  Their campaign is currently geared too much towards stirring up Scottish nationalism and without a solid economic plan this campaign will not be successful.  I doubt if Scotland votes no to independence, that the SNP would cease to be a political force in Scotland but it may spell the end of Alex Salmond and show him up for the demagogue he is.