By George, I think he did it!

Only last week, we were discussing how the government appeared to be stalling. Too much rhetoric, not enough action. In times like this, when so much is obviously fixable and the hardships being suffered provide need for immediate solutions, I for one, want to see the government making practical, sensible decisions. Ok, so its the government and it don't always work that way, but the stalemate has been broken.

By George, I think he did it!

Political sympathies aside, today's heavily leaked budget, was practical and necessary. There are probably elements where it could have been even more brave but it did what necessary. The opening statements set the tone, the subsequent details confirmed the intentions.

So much of the critical rhetoric now is focusing on the 45p tax but that to me is unjustified political opposition. The pain was shared by the top and middle earners with much needed concessions for the low income earners. Good to see the obvious loop-holes surrounding stamp duty being closed out - they really are after those "static assets"!

I only hope that this is the beginning of a trend that sees a shrinking government, a growing vibrant private sector with public sector wages finally seeing some reality being brought into line with the private sector.

The tragedy of Hester's pay at RBS

These are sad times when ill informed mass hysteria overrules reason and rationale.

 Crony capitalism has become the latest buzz word in a list that includes WMDs and moral hazard. And so let’s behead all bankers for they are the epitome of evil.

RBS is a basket case. It failed under the previous leadership of Sir Fred Goodwin and now it is state owned. For the state and UK tax payers to benefit from this situation, the bank has to recover. Stephen Hester was brought in to do this job. He is not the cause of this wreck. He is hopefully its saviour.

Tax payers own 82% of RBS market cap. If RBS stock price recovers, the state stands to benefit. Steven Hester’s job hence, is to increase the bank’s share price from its current depressed value.

 What better way to incentivise him than to pay him in the same stock that the taxpayer owns so his interests are perfectly aligned with ours. Isn’t this the precise proposal that has been touted as the solution to end short term profit seeking behaviour from bankers?

Well then why the media driven outcry over his bonus compensation? Yes, he got a bonus in a year that RBS lost money. But he hasn’t been paid out in cash from a depleting source. He’s been paid in the same currency that the government owns. If he wants to increase his private wealth he will work to maximise the stock price and in doing so, will benefit the tax payer.

 Over the public outcry he has now turned down this stock compensation. That means he has no upside from driving value for the tax payer any more. He was paid his base salary for the year so now why should he bother working harder? There is no personal upside for him. £1.2mn for a base salary might sound a lot to the common man but for the top bankers, as we hope Hester is, it’s relatively meagre. The reality is that globally finance pays inflated salaries. For one bank, or one country to singularly pressure its financial sector to cut wages, means that that bank or country will no longer be able to attract the best talent. If Hester is as good as we all hope he is, then he is now severely underpaid and not motivated to work in our benefit.

The problem we face today is that the media has received the backing of the public in beating up bankers and in brandishing the government as accepting hand outs from this sector. There is no longer a reasonable discussion about what is fair and what is outrageous. In the Hester case, the government cannot stand up for him because they will be labelled as succumbing to “crony capitalism” and Labour will jump at the chance to push this opinion.

I wish we could see more reasoned judgment from the media and perhaps the private sector itself but unfortunately the audience does not want to listen. There is a cry for blood and that is all that they seek.

Ed Balls and Labour - wise choice to keep silent

I follow Ed Balls on Twitter just to understand what it is that Labour is trying to say these days. I found something to help me out today in his article in the Daily Mirror titled “Why won't Tories take the blame for economic crisis?”

The allegations of the title alone are laughable. As a reminder the symptoms of the crises were first noticed in 2007 when Gordon Brown was in power. Let’s not forget the role Ed played in influencing policy while his best pal was running the nation.

But mudslinging aside, let’s looks at what Ed has written about here objectively.  I find a rather large number of ludicrous claims but more than that, for a senior statesman such as Ed Balls, I’m sorry to note the underhanded tactics he’s employing in his one sided attack on the coalition government. The tone of this article is not to educate the population and explain reasonable differences between the Government’s policies that have been enacted and what Labour would have done if it were in power. Instead, the article appears to want to sway the less informed reader with brash assertions about what Labour would have done better. That’s it. Nothing about what exactly Labour would have done instead. Here is a nugget to cherish: Of course, after the biggest global financial crisis in a century, fixing the economy and getting the deficit down was never going to be easy for any country or any government. It would have meant difficult decisions on tax, spending and pay if Labour had won the election.

But Labour it seems has a 5 point plan:

 That’s why Labour has set out a five-point plan for jobs – including a temporary cut in VAT to help our struggling high streets and give an average £450 boost for a couple with children, tax breaks for small firms taking on extra workers and a tax on bankers’ bonuses to fund 100,000 jobs for young people.

 If the country is already in deficit, and the current Government inherited this deficit from the previous (Labour) government, where do the Eds hope to raise cash to fund the 5 point plan from?

The much debated Welfare Reform Bill is aiming to reclaim benefits from the undeserving to the deserving. That’s the boost to families, to single parent families, disabled and those out of work who are looking for work. See my previous post for more on this.

Cutting VAT from 20% down to 17.5% might sound great but the lowest income group on which VAT has the biggest impact, will not really see the gain. As we know certain basic items are either already exempt from VAT or are charged a lower VAT rate (5%) instead of 20%. Hence cutting VAT as Ed suggests will have a very limited impact but it sure sounds good, don’t it?!

Food and drink for human consumption is, in general, zero-rated as are all supplies of unprocessed foodstuffs such as:

• raw meat and fish;
• vegetables and fruit;
• cereals, nuts and pulses; and
• culinary herbs

As a general principle, you can zero-rate a product sold for use as an ingredient in home cooking or baking. Other items that are either exempt from VAT or are charged the lower 5% of VAT include:

• Smoking cessation products - nicotine patches and gum
• Talking books and vision aids for blind people
• Equipment for blind or partially sighted people
• Mobility aids for the elderly
• Health services provided by registered doctors, dentists, opticians, pharmacists and other health professionals
• Care or medical treatment provided by a qualifying institution like a hospital, hospice or nursing home
• Education, vocational training, research and other connected services provided by an eligible body like a school, college or university
• Electricity, Gas etc for domestic use is charged the lower rate of 5%
• Children’s clothes are either exempt or charged at the lower rate of 5%
• Insurance is exempt

What will benefit from a cut in VAT is alcohol, cakes, frozen foods which are charged the full rate.

 So next, let’s consider the boost to small businesses that Ed would like to see employ more people. He also says that “it’s only exports to other countries that stopped our economy going into recession last year”.

 Now I’m confused – all these businesses hiring people, what will they do? I thought they might produce to export to economies where there is consumption demand but Ed implies that’s quite frivolous. Maybe he thinks they will sell to the domestic consumer alone which will pull us out of a deficit.  But tell me Ed, what’s wrong with exports driving the economy? Isn’t that what Germany’s much admired robust economy is based on? If not exports, what would you have liked the economy’s growth to have been based on? Oh wait, I know, it must be the financial services!

 “We’ve all heard the excuses. First they blamed the snow. Then they blamed the Royal Wedding. Now they’re blaming the eurozone”

 Here we lay the last, low punch. Bravo. But hold on, what if Labour does take over from this “mess”. Uh oh, it might be tough to deliver all this big talk so Ed includes a caveat:

But I have to be honest with Mirror readers. If the Tories plough on regardless, the next Labour government will inherit a really difficult situation. Of course we would be making different choices now. And we will make tough but different choices in the future. But after five years with Cameron and Osborne at the helm we don’t know how bad the economy will be.

That’s why Ed Milliband and I have said Labour cannot make any promises now – more than three years before the next election – to reverse spending cuts or tax rises.

We will have to see where we are in 2015 because, unlike Nick Clegg, we won’t make promises we can’t keep. We’ll have a big job to sort out the deficit, clear up Osborne’s economic mess and deliver social justice in tougher times

So there we have it. That’s why Labour and the Eds are not providing us with any reasonable plans on what they would have done in power. Silly, it’s because the Tories are making SUCH a mess that who knows what situation Labour will end up facing. Of course they shouldn’t say anything now. Much more sensible.

Thanks Eddie,  that clears up a lot.

Welfare Reform bill - Key policy proposals worth knowing about

Some of the key policy proposals are listed below. The full white paper can be accessed here

·         radically simplify the system to make work pay and combat worklessness and poverty

·         The Government is committed to ensuring that no-one loses as a direct result of these reforms. We have ensured that no-one will experience a reduction in the benefit they receive as a result of the introduction of Universal Credit

·         If the amount of Universal Credit a person is entitled to is less than the amount they were getting under the old system, an additional amount will be paid to ensure that they will be no worse off in cash terms.

·         people will no longer have to take a risk in moving from one system to another. For those in employment, Universal Credit will be calculated and delivered electronically, automatically adjusting credit payments according to monthly income reported through an upgraded version of the Pay As You Earn tax system (on which HM Revenue & Customs will be consulting shortly). The system will be simpler and will respond more quickly to changes in earnings so that people will not face the same complexities as they do now, particularly at the end of a tax year. As a result people will be much clearer about their entitlements and the beneficial effects of increasing their earnings by taking on more hours or doing some overtime.

·         People will have one system to contact rather than having to repeat information to three separate bodies, so strengthening the connection between financial and labour market support.

·         By allowing recipients to benefit financially from doing small amounts of irregular work Universal Credit will reduce the incentive for people to commit fraud by failing to declare work.

·         capping household benefit payments so that families do not receive more in welfare than median after-tax earnings for working households

·         Single taper would apply to earnings net of tax and National Insurance meaning that the highest Marginal Deduction Rate for low-earning workers would be reduced from around 96 per cent to 65 per cent for those earning below the personal tax threshold and to around 76 per cent for basic rate taxpayers.

·         The aim would be to allocate some of the current support to those working fewer than 16 hours, so that all types of work are rewarded.

·         it will now be financially rewarding for a lone parent to work 15 hours per week, or 17 hours per week (both of which would not have been financially rewarded under the existing system which only recognised 16 hours per week); and should more hours be available, the extra earnings will no longer face a Marginal Deduction Rate of 96 per cent. Under the current system a lone parent working 16 hours at the National Minimum Wage would only increase their take home pay by £5 a week if they increased their hours to 25 hours. Under Universal Credit the same lone parent would increase their take home pay by £17.

·         we are considering an option of allowing those pensioners who choose to extend their working lives to claim Universal Credit, rather than Pension Credit, so that they can take advantage of the tailored in-work arrangements. We would welcome views on this approach.

·         Financial support will remain unconditional for people who we do not expect to be able to work or prepare for work. None of the changes set out in this White Paper change that basic principle.

·         Disability Living Allowance - We intend to retain its role, outside the Universal Credit, as a non-means-tested cash benefit. It will continue to be paid to people in and out of work. We plan to consult shortly on our proposals, which will complement the support provided to disabled people by Universal Credit.

Welfare Reform Bill and why it is must be passed

The proposed reforms to the Welfare system are drastic. The intention is to address the dependency culture, weed out the frauds and hence create savings to assist the deserving. I think we all generally support this aim. The opposition amongst British opinion appears to be based on the negative impact these changes might have on some deserving recipients. The reality is that this division and opposition to the reforms are being based on ideology rather than facts.

 The Tories have a poor reputation when it comes to caring for society. Meryl Streep’s effort hasn’t cured the hangover some Britons still carry from the Thatcher era. But we need to put ideology aside and not turn this into a character assault against the Tories.

 The government’s drive for reform is coming from a necessity for change. A policy that affects so many people that form a heterogeneous group will unavoidably lead to small group that looses out. These will be the exceptional circumstances. We need to figure out a way of addressing their situation – that remains outstanding but it’s not being ignored.

 

We can argue about the policy details and how to improve it based on facts. What I am losing patience with is opposition that is based on painting the reforms to be the evil Tories’ scheme to squash helpless citizens and attributes them to mal intent.

 Yes, the policy could be improved – there is always room for improvement. So voice your opinion and contribute to the feedback that the government is seeking in its consultation period that runs to 30 April 2012. What we can do is try to highlight the exceptional cases so that policy may further be tweaked to address their case.  Click here.

 There will be individual cases who are thought to “lose out”. Their situation should not be used as a reason to block this reform but instead should be used to shape it.

 I do think where the government falls short is in communication. Especially when radical changes are being proposed, clarity of communication, explaining why and how is critical. The coalition has not done a good job of this. But again, let’s not hold that as an example of vindictive intentions.

 The case studies considered by the government show that their research has tried to be comprehensive. Where housing benefit may be reduced, other measures are boosted to support people who rightfully need it.

 There are a number of points about the reforms that I strongly believe are undeniably positive. They will make assessment, collection and receipt easier by not having to chase multiple forms and paperwork.

·         The Government also announced the inclusion of an additional bedroom within the size criteria used to assess Housing Benefit claims in the private rented sector where a disabled person or someone with a long term health condition has a proven need for overnight care and this is provided by a non-resident carer(s)

·         When Universal Credit starts and people do more work, they will lose about 65 pence of every pound they earn after tax. This means that we (government) will let people keep some of their benefit before they start to lose money from their benefit because of their wages. We call this the taper.

·         There are many others that I will post in a separate blog

The bottom line is that there are very many reasons for reform and that the proposals go a long way in addressing these. It is not a final policy and the government is keeping an open door to invite feedback during the consultation period. Let’s acknowledge that what is trying to be achieved here is very brave – while many previous governments have recognised the need for reform, the controversy surrounding such a sensitive issue has prevented action. Here is a government being brave, and risking its popularity to make necessary changes. Speak up to shape policy but blocking it will continue injustice.

 

Here are some facts on the current situation and the full length white paper can be read here

 

·         working-age welfare budget has increased by 45 per cent in real terms over the last decade – while the deserving population demographics have obviously not deteriorated by the same proportion, or even close

·         5 million people are on out-of-work benefits in the UK, and 1.4 million of them have been receiving out-of-work benefits for nine out of the last ten years. Not only that, but we now have one of the highest rates of workless households in Europe, with 1.9 million children living in homes where no-one has a job ­– Where possible, people have to be incentivised to work. The proposed single taper will benefit people who work any amount of time and will increase as more hours are worked. Under the old system only 16 hours per week was recognised, any time below or above this was not credited

·         contributions from the public resulted in over 1,600 responses via post, email and through the online consultation site ­– all the voices in opposition who wish to block the reforms should be instead contributing to this consultation.

·         In 2009, 2.3 million contacts to the Department for Work and Pensions were driven by people contacting the wrong agency and 1.4 million by people contacting the wrong office. 3 This complexity prevents people taking up benefits to which they are entitled. For example, in 2008/09 only between 38 and 51 per cent of those in work and entitled to Housing Benefit actually claimed. The Government spends a further £3.5 billion each year on administration.  -  A key focus of the reforms and Universal Credits is to simplify the whole system. One contact point, less paperwork, fewer government departments involved, eliminate duplication of resources, easier transition in and out of work and monitoring of benefits. Hopefully more of the deserving recipients will now apply and savings from wastage can be directed to the rightful beneficiaries.

·         Spending on working-age Housing Benefit has increased by more than 25 per cent to £14.2 billion -  once again, the population demographics have not shown the same proportional change to match the increased spend hence there is significant wastage.

I wanna live like Common People...and claim £26k in benefits

The attraction of a music festival is perhaps bewildering. Sure, the atmosphere of watching a live band perform in front of a huge crowd is fantastic. But for this pleasure, we each pay a not insignificant amount of money spending a few days in unhygienic conditions amongst other germ carriers, sleeping in discomfort and having to queue 20mins for the privilege to pee in a contagious plastic box.

This is notwithstanding that I have succumbed to the allure.

Why?

Because there is a certain charm in living like common people. At some level, that image of a carefree and somehow happy existence, where every day brings a new adventure and doesn’t start with an alarm that shrieks at Silly A.M., is irresistible. The festival on a sunny day resembles a happy hippy camp free of routine and restrictions and responsibility. Can you pee standing up? Great. Pick a bush.

The allure of being poor and living a rock bottom existence with nothing to lose is a glass full of optimism. Nowhere but up. High risk, high reward. Nothing to lose so let’s risk it all. After all, only fools and horses work.

Compared to the hooky antics of Del Boy and Rodney, Britain today presents a rather sad story. The brothers lived a hand to mouth existence that survived only on their creativity to identify goods (sometimes faulty and/or illegal) that could be bought cheap and sold less cheap. They were poor but proud. They certainly gave nothing to the government - they evaded VAT and income tax. How much would they have contributed any way? But critically, they expected nothing either. Their self supported lifestyle was a boot strap model of entrepreneurship where failure was acceptable. They had courage and they were not lazy.

Last week, flicking channels mindlessly got me to stop at a Channel 4 documentary interviewing a 30-something girl who lived on benefits. They were helping her find a job to get her off benefits. Surely going to work every morning, contributing and having a purpose in life is good for any one’s self esteem?

No. This one didn’t want to do this, that or the other. Most things were boring so why should she? She wasn’t destitute. Our taxes were paying for her to stay at home. She eventually thought working in a care home might be nice and comfy. But she didn’t like cleaning up after old people and the kitchen was a bit dull. She went home instead.

Welfare is the second highest category of expenditure within the UK’s public spend at 17%. Health and Pensions top the table at 18% each. It’s no surprise that the government is trying to reform each of them. We can argue about the way they are going about it, poor communication, misguided changes, but it is undeniable that changes need to be made.

The minimum wage for an able bodied worker above the age of 21 years is £5.93. An 8 hour, 9-5 job, 5 days a week leads to an annual gross of £12,334.40.

The government today is proposing to limit universal benefits (housing, living, child, etc) to £26,000 p.a. equivalent to an hourly wage of £12.50

While the private sector average annual salary is £21,000.

And the public sector average is just under £26,000 (and notably, higher than the private sector).

Today the Opposition and various sympathisers are raising cry that the proposed Welfare bill with the cap at £26,000 and various other restrictions that limit unemployment benefits, etc, will make many people homeless through not being able to afford their current urban residence.

Reality is that, while there are many who deservedly receive benefits due to disability, age, etc., there is tremendous wastage due to the structural incentive created by the state to not work. Individuals are self selecting the optimal outcome for themselves by choosing to not work. The type of individuals falling into this category are such as described in this BBC report

Minimum wage has to more than double in this situation for individuals to be incentivised to work. Working for less than £12.50, is the sub optimal choice and these individuals are making the smart decision by choosing not to.

Now I don’t expect that the Welfare State is going to reach a stage any time soon, where this inefficiency is entirely corrected, but as the government is trying to do today, we can attempt to make some improvement. In the meantime what the rest of us dumb taxpayers can do is fight the hard fight to encourage common people to make the bad decision and get a job.

The Oxbridge race row (apparently they don't like Black people)

I'm a brown woman who went to Cambridge. In my second year at Queens' college the JCR Committee (Junior Combination Room, ungrad reps) announced a special competition.

What is the sum of the number of letters in the last names of all the Sri Lankans in Queens'?


Why? Coz there were a darn too many of them and on average, they had 15 letters in each of their last names. Now, that was just 7 years ago.

Unless Queens' had a preference for Brown over Black or had a disproportionately large number of the Cam Lankans (which is didn't), I think that is a fairly good example of how prevalent all of us ethnics were around the University. I left uni with 6 good black friends and I wasn't even out looking for any of them! Desperately trying to get away from the masses of Indians, frankly, I was stretched to find adequate white company.

Does Oxford have a materially different representation? Cameron, I fear, did mess this one over. His reference to the sole black student admitted by Oxford in 2009 appeared to be missing the word "caribbean". Perhaps that should make it a more reasonable statistic however from my experience at Cam, which had a scholarship arrangement with Trinidad, there were a bus load more around. Why not ask the Oxford African society of their perspective? Does Oxford actually have a restrictive policy?

Well, given that applicants are selected at the individual college level rather than through some omnipotent University level admissions committee, this is unlikely. Getting 30+ colleges at either Ox or Cam to agree to anything is pretty challenging. To execute a unilateral, anti-black acceptance campaign seems preposterous.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was an element of self selection through which fewer black candidates applied to Oxford, even in comparison to Cambridge. It could be anything - arts reputation over a science orientation, etc. In my experience, the black students in Cambridge were Africans rather than Black Brits. There is an important difference. Black Africans who apply abroad, as any foreign student, are doing so from a very different platform to local students. Applying to a foreign university for them means a greater educational focus, scholarship or wealth. In being a local applicant, Black Brits don't need to compete at the same level and I think in many cases that is reality.

What this points to, once again, is a need for reform in the British education system so a comprehensive educated student can develop aspirations and the aptitude to attend university. Where Oxford and Cam perhaps fall short, is in how far they go in encouraging students to apply to them, beyond the top independent school presentations. But then, I don't really blame them. They have finite resources and targets and need to maximise their marketing potential. I don't expect them to replace their day at Eton with a day at Chatham High but perhaps on the back of this attack (another one!) they should consider changing their image. Moreover, projecting a more informed image of themselves where potential students of all backgrounds realise that they will have familiar company and that the door is open for all colours.

If the government wants to see more Black faces at Oxford, the government needs to provide a better system that delivers more worthy black candidates to Oxford. This black row is a lazy argument. 

Immigrants!... send them back to where they came from

Sure, admittedly, I have been drinking from the Cameron fountain since my own mini U-turn following  his appointment but unashamedly, I do applaud DC for his Hampshire speech. Our noble PM had the guts to go where not many other dare to walk and when they do, they don't strut as he did but rather sheepishly hop, skip and jump the ugly truth. Now rhetoric and policy are entirely different matters of course, but so far the rhetoric sounds good.

In summary, what DC said is that immigrants undoubtedly have contributed a tremendous amount to Britain in numerous ways but we need to be selective about who we let in and through which channels. Students, refugees, skilled labour, entrepreneurs and the wealthy are all mentioned.

As a first generation Indian immigrant I think it is incredibly important to consider the integrationissue and not be sheepish about expecting immigrants to localise and adapt. It starts with speaking English and goes as far as preventing forced marriages. It's essentially the perfect diet about the quality but not quantity of calories since the British waistline is bursting.

The coolest thing about this speech (yes, the coolade sugar is setting in now) was how he kept it real and spared no sensitivity from being poked at. Ultimately we know the Brits would rather live on the dole than work for minimum wage doing something considered to be beneath them (Enter the POLES)... DC nailed it. He tied it back beautifully to why Britain needs to get her lazy tusch off the benefits couch and get productive. Only then will this dependency on cheap labour will recede and note that they haven't stolen any jobs yet. Policy however has to play the tough role of being able to discern between contributing and detracting immigrants.

I'm Indian and I don't want to live in Southall because of all the other smelly Indians who've turned it into the less attractive parts of Delhi. And no, don't tell me the food is amazing, coz it ain't. And it definitely isn't worth the lack of hygiene. Street food in India is safer by comparison... (ok, maybe I exaggerate).

My family celebrates every Indian festival and makes as much noise as the family running the cash'n'carry in Wembley. But there is nothing in my culture that prevents me from blending in to the British landscape while still being Indian.  Now the Opposition of course attacks mindlessly. So for clarity, the new policy released till now does not prevent foreign students from applying to British universities any more than before so the LSE need not fret. Foreign students with job offers post graduation will not be deported.

The crackdown is on excessive baggage for the state; precisely the noncontributing aliens we all complain about. There will be no dependent visas allowed for undergrads, only for postgrads from now. Only approved education institutions will be allowed to sponsor students for visas so every education provider needs to get authorised for the purpose of cracking down on bogus agents who pose as colleges and traffic people over under the guide of students. The prerequisite standard for English has also been raised.

Bravo! This was a very cool speech indeed.

I commend it for its relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness and guts. Let's see if the policy now sustains this trend...

_____

Read DC's speech transcript here 
Student visa policy outlined here

What’s wrong with the Alternative Vote proposal – Vote No, that’s N-O.

Everything.
Dear supporters of AV, let us first clarify that this is not a referendum on ‘Is the current voting system imperfect?’ – It is specifically about gauging the supposed virtues of the alternative vote.

Today we have the first past the post system (“FPTP”). One member from each constituency is elected on the basis of a majority vote. Voters only select one name from amongst the list of the candidates.

Issue here is that this only reflects the views of some, albeit the biggest group, of voters and ignores the other votes, which are “wasted”. It then becomes a question of strategy whereby we as voters simply chose to manipulate the two leading candidates of our constituency to avoid supporting the party we are against rather than “wasting” our vote on the party of our choice which happens to be a laggard. And so the Lib Dems are banished to insignificance with no hope of authority…

But then came the unlikely coalition with the Tories and so here we are discussing the AV to give the plucky little party a chance…

Note: This is not about better representation of the electorate. This is about diluting the gap between the party(s) that gets voted in the one that doesn’t (ever).

In AV, (a) each of us will rate, say 5, candidates for our constituency in an order of preference from 1-5.

(b) Round 1, involves counting the 1 rating received by each candidate. If this leads to a clear majority, the candidate is elected

(c) Otherwise, round 2 takes place, where the bottom candidate is eliminated and his votes are proportionally allocated to the candidates and their 2 Ratings are counted (1 rating being entirely ignored now). If this new count results in a clear leader, he/she is elected

My head hurts from thinking through this process but I’m sure it’s all going to be really simple and transparent.

(d) Otherwise round 3 happens, and so on.

The conclusion of this arithmetic puzzle means that unless (a) is achieved, the result is an aggregation of everyone’s view without actually representing any single one of us. If (a) was to happen it would result in the same outcome as the current FPTP as Rating 1 would be allocated by each of us to the candidate who we are inclined to vote for. Instead we now get through potentially multiple rounds, a result that leaves everyone of us thinking “who ever voted for that guy?” when in fact, no one really did. Yes, very democratic indeed.

When it comes to politicians we tend to either strongly support one side or we pick the lesser of two evils. That one vote is all that counts. If I can barely manage to pick one candidate who I think deserves my support, thinking about 4 others and then their relative merits is meaningless.

The outcome of the AV, was Britain to foolishly adopt it, would mean that our 1 rated candidate would represent our view of who we support but when it comes to rating the others, how many of us are either well informed enough to do so or could be bothered to do anything more than randomly allocate numbers?

This proposed system effectively equates the 1 Rating with 2, 3, 4 or 5 (hence ignoring it in round 2 of the election process) and in the event that a clear candidate does not emerge in round 1 (which the lib dems want) the subsequent rounds will be unrepresentative of voters’ sentiments.

I don’t deny that the current system isn’t infallible, but please do not think that AV is the answer.

A brief look at around got me to consider the Scottish and Welsh system. Consider this as the alternative (to the alternative)…

As per the current FPTP system, we each vote for 1 candidate – the one we actually support. In addition, to avoid wastage of votes, a second “top up allocation” is also nominated to capture a broader view of the electorate’s sentiment.

But of course, the Lib Dems don’t want this! As the third party of recent British Politics, they need the AV to pick up straggling votes accumulated through round 2 or 3 or 4 or beyond.

The referendum is not about fairer representation so don’t vote yes. If you want your voice heard, vote No and campaign for a better system, not the AV system.

Oops...I did it again - sex offenders and cons

Hello. I am a 17 yr old boy. When I was 11, I raped a 6 yr old boy and was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Now, that track record is killing my social life and I can't travel abroad to play for my rugby league so, is there any way we could all forget about this little boo-boo and move on? Ta.

Sex offenders - old and young, repeat offenders all need to pay for their offence and repent. An adult sex offender displays clear intent through planning and committing to a carrying out a violating act that continues for not insignificant length of time. This along with perhaps an unbalanced psyche warrants a permanent trail to protect the community that he or she lives amongst. Why should their human rights be given any consideration after committing such an offence?

Recently debate has emerged on allowing sex offenders the ability to apply to repeal their inclusion on the sex offenders register. What is supporting their case? Their basic human right apparently. At the moment sex offenders have to register with the police before travelling abroad or over 3 days. Scotland allows for a review of individual cases following a length of time over which there is no repeat offence noted. England has the good sense to strengthen the terms by requiring offenders to register before travelling abroad for any length of time.

Why in God's name are we as a nation wasting air, TV and print space to even consider improving their access to a social life?

If sex offenders find their lives restrictive - it's for a darn good reason! If they have a problem with it - too bad! They should have considered the downside before the crime.

Along with the sex offenders, some rather forgiving backbenchers have campaigned for prisoners to be able to vote. Ok. So you have bad judgement and/or are mentally disturbed that's why you are locked up but it's not all bad coz surely you can make the optimal, rational decision for chosing the leader of the nation. Either elections are unimportant these days or the rehabilitation processes just got super effective.

Why, why, why are we wasting time adn thought on trying to provide rights to people who entirely disregarded others?

In some cases, fine, I understand there might be opportunity for a second chance. In few rare situations such as perhaps the 11 yr old, one can argue, acted without fully understanding the consequences and gravity of his actions. Such a situation requires intense scrutiny into his upbringing to identify and eliminate the social cause of his behavior. Should he be allowed to travel with his rugby team? Maybe, may not - can his shrink guarantee he isn't just a more lethal version of his 11 yr old self? Was it nature or nurture that cause his action? If its the former, can he be reformed? If it's the latter, is he reformed?

If it can't be guaranteed, is it worth the risk?

For reoffenders, surely  no one can be idiotic enough to suggest they deserve a third chance?

I find it amusing how the country and the western world held bankers responsible for the crunch and never wish for them to return to the hay-day of big bonus payouts again. Never, ever, ever...even though the big bad banks took a big hit in one year and some are still hurting.

BUT, rapists and criminals - they get a normal life and skip around scott free like it all never happened. Seriously Supreme Court, get some perspective.

Human rights are this all encompassing banner that is being exploited by criminals. the government needs to take a stand and shut them up. Who cares how long ago the crime/rape occurred - it happened and there is a victim or victims suffering. Has any one checked if they have been able to return to a normal life? and what about the victims who we don't know about? Offence free 15 years could simply be offenced we don't know about.

I have a simple rule, you don't have rights if you don't respect those of others.

Surely the age old wisdom of tit for tat ought to apply here. If the supreme court can't see the justice in this, the judgement of the Supreme Court is henceforth severely doubted.

No exams, More exams or Less exams?

My skepticism towards the abilities of the coalition government are quickly melting. More recently the thawing has been spurred on by Michael Gove's proposals for education policy.

A. Fees: universities can charge more and students pay it off after exceeding a higher salary threshold post graduation, based on a percentage of their income.
B. School leaving age: raising this to 18 yrs
C. GCSE's: potentially scrapping
D. Core subjects: broadening this to include sciences, language, history or geography to form the English Bac.
E. Teacher requirements: minimum 2.2 at graduation

I'll leave A for another blog but for the record here - I entirely support this.

B: Great!

The consequence of this is that it brings into question the need for GCSEs since this level is no longer the stamp kinds will need for their first job after leaving school at 16. This has then also opened up the way for discussing what we will do in school during all those years between 11+ and A Levels.

Here D becomes relevant because the proposals broaden students' exposure and education. Arguably, without GCSEs, teachers can now have the flexibility to teach around subjects rather than just focus on passing exams. Great! I'm sure most of us enjoyed those lessons most where teachers indulged in their interests with passion that was not exactly, but perhaps loosely, related to the curriculum. Invariably what makes those lessons interesting are the methods teachers adopt when they veered off the beaten path. This creativity is crucial in capturing the imagination of students to attain that all important moment of inspiration that sparks their interest and motivates them. So, all good proposals so far.

For some people, this flexibility necessitates removing GCSEs and ongoing exams running up to A Levels.

First, because GCSEs impose a goal that needs to be met and so in the run up to them, prevents teaching anything off the map or approaching subjects differently to the prescribed method. Hence stifling the creativity of content and method we would love to introduce to schools.

Second, constant examination brings about undue pressure on kids. Late bloomers will feel like failures for not performing well in exams that take place in lower school years and so in losing self esteem they will work to their detriment when it comes to doing the national exams that matter, hence locking themselves into a downward spiral. Hence let's not have unnecessary exams until the time they are actually needed.

Third, in this age of austerity measures, exams are an expense the government could perhaps do without.

I disagree with all of the above.

Let's start with considering what "examinations" entail. This is simply a mode of assessment. This is valuable for the teacher to be able to know whether her class of 20+ kids is keeping up with her. It also means kids work towards absorbing it otherwise it'll be in one ear and out of the other. Just because we are sitting in a classroom and being talked at, doesn't mean we are actually absorbing the subject. That eureka! moment of understanding a subject and how it relates to another, usually happens when you are on your working your way through homework or revising for exams. Exams, tests, coursework, verbal conversations, pop quizzes, etc are very helpful in providing a gauge for teachers and students as to how they are doing and what needs to be addressed. It's a way to keep on track. What we need to discuss, is the form and frequency.

One of my gripes with the education system is how inadequately it prepares students for life beyond school. Life's tough. Shit happens. Failure precedes success. Kids need to toughen up and realise life is not a bed of roses. Alternatively there are those who work in different ways and need to be able to flex their mental muscles in the way that works for them, so the standardised method of testing isn't a fair test for them because in the real world they would (hopefully) gravitate towards work and challenges of their selection. So why not at these formative stages in school?

I'm certainly not prescribing a set 3hr essay writing exam but frequent assessment does provide that essential experience of surviving urgency, setting targets, achievement, planning, focus and coping with stress.

The form of assessment needs to be flexible in keeping with a flexible curriculum and teaching methods. Teachers determining the details of their own curriculum should also determine the most appropriate methods of assessment appropriate to the content and individual student tendency. This flexibility in these formative years running up to A Levels are crucial in exposing students to a broad range of ideas and subjects and consequently helping them identify their areas of interest and strength. The aim being to identify that match between skills and interest.

At the time of A Levels, or even if GCSEs are maintained, kids have the adequate knowledge foundation  and over the years of being assessed, they are able to cope with the pressure of revising for the all important national exams. The reality is that it is easy to get out of the practice of revising and preparing, but very difficult to get back into it when it matters so another reason for constant assessment (at the appropriate frequency) is to keep students in practice.

A concern with the proposal to let teachers decide that details of curriculum is that not all teachers are good teachers. The current close guidance takes away that responsibility from the teacher and limits their input to simply data transfer. I'm not against examinations for this reason but I do think it needs to be addressed. Teachers who are also not experts on their subjects or passionate about it will not make the most of this flexibility which can work to the students' detriment. Hence strengtheningTeachfirst and Teachnext programmes is a tremendously helpful as well.

My rough suggestion for the structure of education is:

Teachers have to maintain assessment through all school years which are based on the content and method of teaching. The national exams remain at A Level standards. Even if GCSEs are kept, the years leading up to A Levels and including GCSEs must be made more complex and challenging in terms of content.

Why I hate to love David Cameron...

As a candidate I found him uninspiring and directionless. Sure Brown wasn't the opposite but no, not David Cameron for Prime Minister!

Look where it's got us now. 

He's reducing benefits, forcing the unemployed to work even if they don't get paid through volunteering, he's kicking people out of prime London property by reducing housing benefit and forcing families to relocate and he's getting rid of the quangos. 

I love Prime Minister Cameron and Tories have my vote in the next general election.

This country has been built on layers of support that are a disincentive to 

a) work

b) support one's own standard of living 

I am completely behind the initiative to aggregate all benefits under one single payment which more severely penalises individuals who either do not look for work or do not accept work they are offered. Taxpayers should also not be paying for people to live in central london locations when they themselves slog into work every day on long commutes because they themselves can't afford to live in those homes.

Any individual of able body and mind of a working age needs to get up every morning and do something useful with themselves whether or not they enjoy it. Quite simply and literally, beggars can't be choosers.

We all have to do things in life we don't want. Hell, I don't really want to have to pay tax, but I do. So someone out of work who doesn't get the job they want, needs to get on with a job they get offered but one that they may not enjoy. Even if they don't get paid for it - they need to get on and pay their dues or I, as a tax payer, refuse to pay for them.

The other day, a debate on Radio 4 had an MP passionately describing the plight of one of the members of his constituency who had lived in the same house with his wife for 30 odd years. They had brought up their kids there, all their friends lived there and that was their home. The home we the taxpayers had paid for. This appeal was supposed to generate an emotional reaction whereby we all wipe a tear from our eye and prevent this couple from the likely eventuality of relocating and having to make new friends because once the cruel coalition government cuts their housing benefit, they can't live there (in Kensington, I think) any more. 

To that I say, they should be grateful for the 30 yrs that their lives had been subsidised for and now consider it their duty to support the country in its time of need by adapting their lives to more suitable standards. Its not an unusual story for working people to lose or move jobs and have to adapt their living standards (house, or car or shopping frequency) appropriately. So well, why not them?

And so I hail, Cameron and the coalition for doing what Britain has needed desperately. An overhaul. It's ballsy, it's tough, it doesn't help them make friends in the short term but it's the right thing to do and I'm glad they are doing it, even if it means I now need to eat my words and agree that Cameron ain't so bad after all!