I am English. I was born in England. I have lived in England. I like English food and I enjoy the BBC on occasion. I am also British by virtue of having grown up in the United Kingdom and European by virtue of having grown up in Europe. This amalgamation of cultural identities is perhaps why I find it so hard to understand why Scottish people aren't particularly interested in being British but just love the idea of being European.
Now I should say that I am not in anyway opposed to Scotland having held an independence referendum.
I just don't understand why it was required.
Scotland has been part of the United Kingdom for just over 300 years, and even before that it was the Scottish Monarchy of the Stuarts who inherited the English Throne. Scotland 'won' the royalty game and put their royals on our throne.
So why do they seem so intent on leaving the UK?
Well I'm no expert but for the SNP at least it seems to revolve around the idea that Westminster is draining the life out of Scotland. That the English 'take take take' all of their precious oil (which arguably belongs to the whole United Kingdom and just happens to be based off the coast of Scotland) and return to them nothing but empty promises. This isn't even a problem they attribute just to the Conservative party either. They have levied similar claims against Labour in the past.
But the flaw in this logic is very easy to see when you take Scotland out of the equation.
Let's say the oil was in Warrington, a sleepy town in the north where I happen to have been born. Warrington is part of England. The UK Government has funded the oil extraction for years and all of a sudden a new political movement sweeps the town claiming that Westminster is stealing Warringtonian's hard earned oil cash while passing laws that don't only benefit Warrington but do benefit Basingstoke. Therefore Warrington should become it's own country and avid paying all our oil money to Westminster so it can support Basingstoke. Westminster compromises by giving Warrington it's own parliament with sweeping powers to set the Warringtonian agenda. The Warrington First party comes into power and... decides to hold an independence referendum which they lose... and then keep talking about independence and how they're going to hold a second referendum and maybe a third or a fourth until they get the result they want.
... Now I don't know where Scotland's logic goes wrong (perhaps because of the historical connotations of them as a formerly independent nation) but the truth of the situation I describe is that if Warrington wanted to declare independence because it's citizen's perceived there was some unfairness with taxation from their town being used to help people in another town we would say the town was just being selfish.
Except that doesn't seem to apply to Scotland. Even though it does.
English students at Scottish Universities have to pay tuition fees. European and Scottish students don't. This in most places would be described as discrimination against English students and it is petulant and childish. Selfish even given that for years it has been the money of the United Kingdom helped to fund those Scottish Universities which English students are discriminated against by.
Scotland claims that it is their oil because it off their coast. When in fact it is off the coast of the United Kingdom and it isn't just Scottish people working on the oil rigs and it isn't just Scottish money buying the oil rigs... selfish.
Scotland's government say they dislike Nuclear weapons and want them out of Faslane... even though it is a major investment by the UK government into Scotland which provides thousands of jobs for Scottish people and millions of pounds worth of business for Scottish businesses... petulant. Selfish and ultimately self harming.
Do these examples sound fair considering that we in the United Kingdom are supposed to be working together for the benefit of everyone in the United Kingdom?
No it doesn't.
Sometimes government's need to help one area more than another. Sometimes government policies hit one harder than another. For Scotland though to demand special treatment and claim that their fruits are theirs and so are some of ours isn't just hypocritical it's childish and to do it against the backdrop of demanding more and more independence referendums is just the last straw.
Scotland needs to stop fighting the UK and embrace it because I think all of us are getting a bit tired of them twisting the knife in and I can say now, as with all petulant children, we will eventually run out of patience.
Tuesday, 30 August 2016
Monday, 29 August 2016
The UK University System and Funding - A Guest Article by Jordan Millward
Note from the editor
Good Afternoon everyone, today we have an article from Jordan Millward.
Jordan is a current
student at Harper Adams University studying Animal Behaviour and
Welfare. He previously studied Animal Management at Reaseheath College
and went to High School at Saint Thomas Mores Catholic College in
Stoke on Trent.
He got involved with Stoke on Trent’s conservative party through his
work in the rural community through charity work where he acts as the
health and safety advisor with personal liaison between the staff and
management.
He joined the conservative party at the beginning of the year,
as he felt they had the most sustainable arguments to concerns he has
for the nation and have the vision to build a better Great Britain
for all of its inhabitants sustainably.
The
UK University System and Funding - By Jordan Millward
With
the left wing of politics targeting an increase in the tuition fees
as well as discouraging the student loan repayment freeze. Now whilst
the repayment freeze may be seen as an unpopular decision. Students
and the taxpayers have to be aware that the money loaned to them is
an investment not a gift. The change in repayments does not put any
particular individual at a disadvantage it simply makes it so that
students earning less also contribute back not just those on a higher
salary. We are in a phase of Education Inequality unfortunately as
students from Wales and Scotland are given their education at a
cheaper rate then English Students. Which someone could argue is
unfair to English students who may go into the same line of work as
their Scottish or Welsh equivalents. To make the repayments fairer
and increase education equity the goal should be to streamline an
education policy that does not discriminate against other students
that the left overlook frequently. Whilst the Scottish deficit under
the SNP enters a Fifteen Billion Pound whole where education will
surely face cuts the Tory party is making difficult decisions to make
education affordable for all
A
policy change by the Tory has allowed the education short fall to
return into the hands of the public budget continuing to reduce the
deficit. Whilst Labours tactic to attract young student voters is the
same as what the Liberal Democrats attempted in 2010. The continued
borrowing and free education is unsustainable as it affects the
public budget far to greatly and would be largely an unpopular move
for the middle age and older citizens of the UK.
It
must be understood that there is flaws with the education system
which need addressing and some moves in terms of policy may be
unwise. The Nursing bursary is in highly important for nursing
students to live off as student nurses are doing a job and the
bursary should be seen in a similar way to how apprentices are paid.
If the plan goes ahead with the bursary cut then to cover the
recruitment shortfall that the NHS will have to make up may have to
consider paying the students for their time. The student would need
this wage as the hours they are forced to work make part time work
impossible and careful planning and talks need to happen with all
agencies involved. This is also to make sure that the nurses do not
feel discrimated against for they do such as this student nurse said
“To take away the bursary will not only deter students, it is one
of the most insulting things I have seen this government do since
they came to office.”
The
Tory party needs to ensure it works with the students so that it does
not allow left wing of politics to attract irritated voters who feel
discriminated against who will undo all the hard work with empty
promises. There are areas in the university system that need
addressing as wealthier students on average earn more, this is
largely due to the fact that wealthier students are able to gain
access to more prestigious university and unoffical networks. Whilst
this is advantageous it is not the be all and end all what is a
significant diservice to students is the wealth of courses that
universities sell to students with little or no employment
opportunity. This should be the main focus of university marketing
which needs regulating and the students need to be aware that some
degrees will not all lead to top grossing graduate salaries but at
the same time the experience and opportunity can be invaluable. With
proper regulation of the degrees employments rates can go up
significantly as they have steadily done under the conservative
government.
A
Government which invests in its youngest minds to better society
whilst giving back to the people that have given them the opportunity
this is only possible under conservative leadership.
Saturday, 27 August 2016
Thursday, 25 August 2016
Post-EU Referendum and lessons to be learned.
I'm not ashamed to admit I was a remain supporter. I stood there on the day of the referendum handing out leaflets for remain, I phone banked for remain and I encouraged m friends to vote remain. I believed then and I still believe now that Britain was better off in Europe.
That being said I knew remain had lost when I saw the Newcastle result at the very beginning of the night.
I sat through each and very result (getting slowly more drunk as each result rolled in) seeing the pattern continue that saw remain fall steadily more behind until mathematically there was no chance of victory even if 100% of the remaining votes were for remain.
It was, to me, a sad night but one which could have been avoided. In fact I can point to the very moment that Remain lost the EU referendum. It was the day that George Osborne stood up with Alister Darling and threatened the nation with a punishment budget if the public did not vote their way.
If there's one thing I know about the British public it's that they don't like being threatened.
Meanwhile the leave campaign were quietly plodding along with a campaign designed to be an ear-work "£350-million a day" sat in the backdrop of everybody's minds being repeated by the media, in pubs and in the work place. People who otherwise never thought about voting (let alone cared about the EU) were incensed by the pouring of money to the EU.
What made this line so effective and George Osborne's punishment budget so devastating?
To quote the old Clinton campaign adage: it's the economy stupid!
We've known for many years that electoral campaigns are won or lost on the economy. People will vote for anyone and everyone provided they believe that they will put more money in their pocket or their public services than the other team will.
To their lasting credit it was the leave campaign which painted a brighter economic picture... even if it was admitted to be false literally the day after the vote. Whilst the remain campaign had painted a truly bleak financial image of a world in ruins if we failed to vote IN.
Now I was a Remainer, but I was no demagogue. I did the research and mathematics for myself and I knew that leaving the EU did carry risks, but ti also carried potential rewards and staying in the EU carried risks but had potential rewards as well. The only main differences I could see were short-term long-term differences with me believing that short-term EU membership MIGHT be better then voting to leave and long-term leaving MIGHT have brought benefits to our economy.
Key word there being might.
This was an unprecedented situation after all. No one had yet left the EU so we have no real idea what shape the article 50 deal will take or what long or short term impact it will have on our economy.
All I do know is that the lesson to be earned from the remain campaign is one that we Conservatives need to learn before the next General Election.
Our London Campaign this year was full of fear and not focused on the economic issues impacting everyday Londoners. Frankly it was sloppy and relied so much on Labour screwing up as opposed to us winning. We were moving from pillar to post to paint Sadiq Khan as a dangerous extremist and all the while he was walking around London winning the economic argument and ensuring that our campaign looked racist and angry by comparison.
I applaud the work all of our activists put into the campaign but the people at the top let us all down and should really think hard about how we intend to win in 2020, because right now I suspect they believe it will be an easy ride against Corbyn...
...I heard that about Sadiq Khan.
That being said I knew remain had lost when I saw the Newcastle result at the very beginning of the night.
I sat through each and very result (getting slowly more drunk as each result rolled in) seeing the pattern continue that saw remain fall steadily more behind until mathematically there was no chance of victory even if 100% of the remaining votes were for remain.
It was, to me, a sad night but one which could have been avoided. In fact I can point to the very moment that Remain lost the EU referendum. It was the day that George Osborne stood up with Alister Darling and threatened the nation with a punishment budget if the public did not vote their way.
If there's one thing I know about the British public it's that they don't like being threatened.
Meanwhile the leave campaign were quietly plodding along with a campaign designed to be an ear-work "£350-million a day" sat in the backdrop of everybody's minds being repeated by the media, in pubs and in the work place. People who otherwise never thought about voting (let alone cared about the EU) were incensed by the pouring of money to the EU.
What made this line so effective and George Osborne's punishment budget so devastating?
To quote the old Clinton campaign adage: it's the economy stupid!
We've known for many years that electoral campaigns are won or lost on the economy. People will vote for anyone and everyone provided they believe that they will put more money in their pocket or their public services than the other team will.
To their lasting credit it was the leave campaign which painted a brighter economic picture... even if it was admitted to be false literally the day after the vote. Whilst the remain campaign had painted a truly bleak financial image of a world in ruins if we failed to vote IN.
Now I was a Remainer, but I was no demagogue. I did the research and mathematics for myself and I knew that leaving the EU did carry risks, but ti also carried potential rewards and staying in the EU carried risks but had potential rewards as well. The only main differences I could see were short-term long-term differences with me believing that short-term EU membership MIGHT be better then voting to leave and long-term leaving MIGHT have brought benefits to our economy.
Key word there being might.
This was an unprecedented situation after all. No one had yet left the EU so we have no real idea what shape the article 50 deal will take or what long or short term impact it will have on our economy.
All I do know is that the lesson to be earned from the remain campaign is one that we Conservatives need to learn before the next General Election.
Our London Campaign this year was full of fear and not focused on the economic issues impacting everyday Londoners. Frankly it was sloppy and relied so much on Labour screwing up as opposed to us winning. We were moving from pillar to post to paint Sadiq Khan as a dangerous extremist and all the while he was walking around London winning the economic argument and ensuring that our campaign looked racist and angry by comparison.
I applaud the work all of our activists put into the campaign but the people at the top let us all down and should really think hard about how we intend to win in 2020, because right now I suspect they believe it will be an easy ride against Corbyn...
...I heard that about Sadiq Khan.
Tuesday, 23 August 2016
Olympic Success & the Problem of Claiming Credit
Last night I was on the tube home reading a copy of the Evening Standard. I saw articles about the Olympics and how it was absolutely great that the United Kingdom is because of the way that our athletes beat many other athletes around the world. Further, I saw articles trying to link Olympic Success to Brexit as if those two concepts were somehow related.
I also recall a BBC article with a blast from the past saying that maybe John Major deserves credit for our Olympic Success as he created the Lottery.
This morning I woke up to a facebook poll telling me that Sadiq Khan is claiming credit for the Night Tube, saying it was him and not Boris that delivered a 24-hour tube service for London. He argued that because he was Mayor when it happened it makes it his victory, where as other people have argued that Boris and his team put in the leg work therefore it belongs to them.
These are just two examples of politicians trying to claim credit and I tell you now this is one of the reasons that less than 35% of young people even bother voting.
When did politics become about claiming credit as opposed to helping people? when did it become about one upping the other side as opposed to presenting your policies and explaining why they are beneficial?
Some would say it was the Blair era. Or, more precisely, the Post-Truth era that he heralded where by repeating a lie often enough it essentially becomes the truth in the eyes of the public. By applying that politicians can take credit for anything provided the media is on their side. The problem is that as young people are becoming more skeptical of the 'main stream media' they are also becoming more and more disengaged with what politicians are actually doing and fighting over credit, or trying to take credit where none exists, or even trying to connect two unrelated events is not a helpful way to restore their confidence in politicians.
It has been more then 5 elections now since the Conservative party won among first time voters. If we continue with that trend then pretty soon our core vote is going to shrink rapidly as on one end we have less voters coming in while on the other - and I do hate being blunt here - the elderly voters who have swung us elections are dying off.
And why are these young people so reticent to come to us when we have put more money into their future than any other Government? why don't they trust us with their vote when we have reduced unemployment to it's lowest levels in decades? why despite more young people agreeing with our positions on welfare do they not feel they can give us their support?
Because they see us in the press claiming credit or using rhetoric rather than being straight with them.
All young people want is for politicians to actually speak to them, not about them. They want people who will represent them fairly. That can be Conservatives but the emphasis we have placed on Post-Truth politics won't work with them.
It's time we got back to being the honest party.
Truth be told:
The Olympic Success is wonderful, but nothing to do with Government really. Yes we helped fund them but it was the hard work of our athletes and their trainers that brought in the medals.
Brexit has nothing to do with the Olympics and pretending it does is both disingenuous and wrong.
Boris did start off the Night Tube Project, but if he had finished it before leaving office I would be able to get the night tube home on Saturday's. I can't. but in a few months I will be able to. Thanks to Sadiq Khan.
There.
Three easy truths that people can respect.
Let's start telling it more often and see how much more respect we receive from the public, and specifically young people, as a result.
I also recall a BBC article with a blast from the past saying that maybe John Major deserves credit for our Olympic Success as he created the Lottery.
This morning I woke up to a facebook poll telling me that Sadiq Khan is claiming credit for the Night Tube, saying it was him and not Boris that delivered a 24-hour tube service for London. He argued that because he was Mayor when it happened it makes it his victory, where as other people have argued that Boris and his team put in the leg work therefore it belongs to them.
These are just two examples of politicians trying to claim credit and I tell you now this is one of the reasons that less than 35% of young people even bother voting.
When did politics become about claiming credit as opposed to helping people? when did it become about one upping the other side as opposed to presenting your policies and explaining why they are beneficial?
Some would say it was the Blair era. Or, more precisely, the Post-Truth era that he heralded where by repeating a lie often enough it essentially becomes the truth in the eyes of the public. By applying that politicians can take credit for anything provided the media is on their side. The problem is that as young people are becoming more skeptical of the 'main stream media' they are also becoming more and more disengaged with what politicians are actually doing and fighting over credit, or trying to take credit where none exists, or even trying to connect two unrelated events is not a helpful way to restore their confidence in politicians.
It has been more then 5 elections now since the Conservative party won among first time voters. If we continue with that trend then pretty soon our core vote is going to shrink rapidly as on one end we have less voters coming in while on the other - and I do hate being blunt here - the elderly voters who have swung us elections are dying off.
And why are these young people so reticent to come to us when we have put more money into their future than any other Government? why don't they trust us with their vote when we have reduced unemployment to it's lowest levels in decades? why despite more young people agreeing with our positions on welfare do they not feel they can give us their support?
Because they see us in the press claiming credit or using rhetoric rather than being straight with them.
All young people want is for politicians to actually speak to them, not about them. They want people who will represent them fairly. That can be Conservatives but the emphasis we have placed on Post-Truth politics won't work with them.
It's time we got back to being the honest party.
Truth be told:
The Olympic Success is wonderful, but nothing to do with Government really. Yes we helped fund them but it was the hard work of our athletes and their trainers that brought in the medals.
Brexit has nothing to do with the Olympics and pretending it does is both disingenuous and wrong.
Boris did start off the Night Tube Project, but if he had finished it before leaving office I would be able to get the night tube home on Saturday's. I can't. but in a few months I will be able to. Thanks to Sadiq Khan.
There.
Three easy truths that people can respect.
Let's start telling it more often and see how much more respect we receive from the public, and specifically young people, as a result.
Monday, 22 August 2016
Return of the Tory Network
Welcome back friends to the Tory Network.
It's been 8 months since we went dark and in that time we've had a very eventful political year.
We lost in London but won in Scotland.
We had the EU referendum, the single most important vote many people in this nation will ever have taken part in.
We said goodbye to the man who brought us back to power and hello to the UK's second female Prime Minister.
We saw the rise and fall and now rise again of Boris Johnson
And finally we are standing witness to the largest act of self immolation that any political party has ever undergone in the form of this year Labour Leadership elections.
Amidst this backdrop of politicking and intrigue I thought I would start the renewed Tory Network off with a very brief discussion on an easy topic, nothing morally ambiguous or contentious, so after some deliberation and thought I decided to tackle the most innocent issue of...
Assisted Suicide.
Some of us may have seen that Lord Rix, a noted charity campaigner and activist, passed away recently. In his life Lord Rix had actually campaigned AGAINST assisted suicide but as his body failed him and the years took an ever heavier toll his opinion shifted to the point that in the House of Lord's he proclaimed:
"Only with a legal euthanasia Bill on the statute books will the many people who find themselves in the same situation as me be able to slip away peacefully in their sleep instead of dreading the night."
Now as many people will be aware I studied Law at University. This gives me a very predefined path when it comes to analysing an issue. In effect I start by looking for precedent but the simple truth is that in this particular case I don't feel looking for precedent is appropriate. Assisted suicide is what I believe is a single morality issue. An issue where the desires of the many should not in any way impact the law. That is to say it should entirely be an individuals decision as to when they die and it really shouldn't matter what other people have to say on the issue.
My thoughts here are not supported by law. Assisted suicide is a crime and the European Court of Human Rights has found that whilst we definitely have a right to life we have no corresponding right to die.
But we should and I believe Tories should support it.
As Tories our inclination should always be towards a state which does not limit the rights of the individual. We have a long and proud history of protecting the public and defending liberty, so I firmly believe that we should deliver a fair framework which achieves both aims.
After all, I don't think we should have Futurama style suicide booths, it should be a difficult decision to make if you choose to die. Supported by medical evidence and thoroughly check to ensure it your decision alone.
But it should be a decision available to us.
It's been 8 months since we went dark and in that time we've had a very eventful political year.
We lost in London but won in Scotland.
We had the EU referendum, the single most important vote many people in this nation will ever have taken part in.
We said goodbye to the man who brought us back to power and hello to the UK's second female Prime Minister.
We saw the rise and fall and now rise again of Boris Johnson
And finally we are standing witness to the largest act of self immolation that any political party has ever undergone in the form of this year Labour Leadership elections.
Amidst this backdrop of politicking and intrigue I thought I would start the renewed Tory Network off with a very brief discussion on an easy topic, nothing morally ambiguous or contentious, so after some deliberation and thought I decided to tackle the most innocent issue of...
Assisted Suicide.
Some of us may have seen that Lord Rix, a noted charity campaigner and activist, passed away recently. In his life Lord Rix had actually campaigned AGAINST assisted suicide but as his body failed him and the years took an ever heavier toll his opinion shifted to the point that in the House of Lord's he proclaimed:
"Only with a legal euthanasia Bill on the statute books will the many people who find themselves in the same situation as me be able to slip away peacefully in their sleep instead of dreading the night."
Now as many people will be aware I studied Law at University. This gives me a very predefined path when it comes to analysing an issue. In effect I start by looking for precedent but the simple truth is that in this particular case I don't feel looking for precedent is appropriate. Assisted suicide is what I believe is a single morality issue. An issue where the desires of the many should not in any way impact the law. That is to say it should entirely be an individuals decision as to when they die and it really shouldn't matter what other people have to say on the issue.
My thoughts here are not supported by law. Assisted suicide is a crime and the European Court of Human Rights has found that whilst we definitely have a right to life we have no corresponding right to die.
But we should and I believe Tories should support it.
As Tories our inclination should always be towards a state which does not limit the rights of the individual. We have a long and proud history of protecting the public and defending liberty, so I firmly believe that we should deliver a fair framework which achieves both aims.
After all, I don't think we should have Futurama style suicide booths, it should be a difficult decision to make if you choose to die. Supported by medical evidence and thoroughly check to ensure it your decision alone.
But it should be a decision available to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)