Despite the brave face Clegg is showing, things are not good in the Coalition and each day more rifts are starting to show.
Already in Scotland the leader of the Scottish Lib Dems has argued with the Tories about their policies on justice and their manifesto for the Assembly is clearly at odds with Coalition policy. Take some of their key points:
1. Create conditions for 100,000 new jobs, supported by at least £1.5 billion of investment freed up by reform to Scottish Water.
2. Cut energy bills and boost green economy with new help to pay for insulation and new investment in renewable energy.
3. Give head teachers more power.
4. Give every child a fair start in life with an Early Intervention Revolution
5. Keep higher education free – no fees and no graduate contribution
6. Improve out-of-hours healthcare across Scotland.
Not exactly in-line with the Tory position of cuts, cuts, and more cuts.
Meanwhile back in England, one of Nick Clegg's closest advisers has threatened to quit unless ministers make changes to a proposed overhaul of the NHS. Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb said the plans posed a major "financial risk" to the NHS, and patient care could suffer. He said he would quit as Mr Clegg's chief political adviser unless NHS professionals were "on board".
While supporting the general direction of government proposals, he feared there was "no evidence" how the new GP-led system would operate.
Also speaking on Sunday, Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander acknowledged there were "issues" in the way GP-led commissioning consortia would operate and be regulated.
More recently, an interim report by a five-member banking commission, headed by Sir John Vickers, is expected to recommend a series of measures to protect banks’ key functions at times of crisis. The moves are likely to cost banks an extra £5billion but are set to be supported by George Osborne, the Chancellor. However, the recommendations will be contested by Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers including Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, exposing a clear fault line at the top of the government. Cable has in the past called for the big banks such as HSBC, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland to be completely split up into retail and investment arms- and Sir John’s report does not go as far as this. A senior Lib Dem source attempted to distance his party from the findings ahead of today’s publication of the commission’s interim report.
Is this an ideological shift? Hardly – it has more to do with May 5th and the Lib Dems playing a sneaky move to try and distance themselves from the Tories. They know they will be trounced at the election if they continue to suck up to the Tories, so they are trying to show they are independent.
We are unconvinced.
The evidence has shown they are so close to Tory policy it is untrue. They supported the increase in tuition fees; they were all set to endorse changes in the NHS and only bailed out when RCN and the BMA voiced their opposition. In addition they have gone along with Tory plans to scrap EMA and the Flexible Jobs Fund. The Lib Dems have even nodded through substantial changes to welfare reform that will cause unnecessary stress to thousands of sick and disabled people.
The Lib Dems committed political suicide when they formed a coalition with the Tories after May 6th and now they are trying to squirm out of their commitment. Well the electorate may not have long memories, but they have a long enough one to remember all the lies and deceptions Clegg has offered the people over the last year.
On May 5th they will pay the price – and the devastation is likely to be near nuclear. The party leadership will have a hard time justifying their alliance with the Tories once the votes are counted.
Showing posts with label EMA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EMA. Show all posts
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
No chances fro the young thanks to Gove
Last year, in a thoughtless and deliberate attack on students, the government announced they would be cutting the £560 million Education Maintenance Allowance, This scheme was introduced by the last Labour government and provided up to £30 a week for low income students, allowing them to stay in school or college after age 16. Payment was determined in the first instance according to eligibility – depending on the income of the parents, but if the student was found to fall within its criteria, weekly payments could then be paid if they attended all classes/ lectures during the week. This week, Michael Gove announced a fundamental U-turn in the government’s policy by revealing they will replace it with a £180m bursary targeted to the poorest students. In a pathetic attempt to justify his about face, the education secretary defended the huge cut by asking whether: “…it is socially just to be paying 45% of students a cash incentive to stay in learning when we could be concentrating our resources on removing barriers to learning faced by the poorest.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has actually already answered his question. They found EMA increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%, and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. So clearly the answer is “yes” – a point that has been made by students since the government went on their attack on further and higher education. Even accounting for the ‘deadweight costs’ (people who would have stayed in education regardless of the allowance), the costs of the scheme are exceeded by the higher wages recipients go on to earn in the future.
Neither should Michael Gove use the high proportion of students who receive the EMA to justify concentrating it on ‘the poorest’. While it is undoubtedly a good thing the government are continuing to provide for the 12,000 or so most disadvantaged students, the full EMA was only ever given to those children from households earning up to £20,817 and no child from a household earning over £30,810 received any cash at all. In other words, EMA was always targeted for poorer families and never designed to be a universal benefit. This was already a more targeted transfer than – for example – child benefit. It was also a more conditional transfer than other benefits, because it could be removed if the student failed to attend school or college, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome. So the evidence suggests unequivocally that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just. The same is going to be far less likely when it comes to the government’s scheme. Their intention is to pay those school students who are in receipt of free school meals. What Gove is missing is only somewhere between a quarter and a half of the 16 percent of children who are eligible for Free School Meals are in the bottom 16 percent of the distribution of household income. Even worse, according to Child Poverty Action Group, only just over 6% of poor pupils receiving free school meals remain at school to take A levels, compared to around 40% of students overall. Some students choose to leave school and go on to further education. According to Gove’s announcement some of these students will be eligible for his allowance and the money will be distributed on a discretionary basis by the college. In other words, every college could easily have different criteria to determine eligibility – and with a much smaller purse available, it is inevitable many of our ‘most in need’ young people will be left by the wayside.
The Tories have pretended they have some kind of commitment towards young people. Just before the last general election Citizen Dave, the people’s toff said: “I am determined to ensure that the next Conservative Government provides a radical and exciting new opportunity for all the nation’s young people.” Well since he has been in power the opportunity he has offered is for the young to live in penury and with 25% of them having no hope of a job. Even those with aspirations for advancement and going to university will find their costs tripled thanks to the Tories. Nothing exciting or new there, Dave – it’s time to take another look at what you are doing.
Neither should Michael Gove use the high proportion of students who receive the EMA to justify concentrating it on ‘the poorest’. While it is undoubtedly a good thing the government are continuing to provide for the 12,000 or so most disadvantaged students, the full EMA was only ever given to those children from households earning up to £20,817 and no child from a household earning over £30,810 received any cash at all. In other words, EMA was always targeted for poorer families and never designed to be a universal benefit. This was already a more targeted transfer than – for example – child benefit. It was also a more conditional transfer than other benefits, because it could be removed if the student failed to attend school or college, so it was more likely to lead to the government’s intended outcome. So the evidence suggests unequivocally that the answer to Michael Gove’s question is ‘yes’ – EMA was socially just. The same is going to be far less likely when it comes to the government’s scheme. Their intention is to pay those school students who are in receipt of free school meals. What Gove is missing is only somewhere between a quarter and a half of the 16 percent of children who are eligible for Free School Meals are in the bottom 16 percent of the distribution of household income. Even worse, according to Child Poverty Action Group, only just over 6% of poor pupils receiving free school meals remain at school to take A levels, compared to around 40% of students overall. Some students choose to leave school and go on to further education. According to Gove’s announcement some of these students will be eligible for his allowance and the money will be distributed on a discretionary basis by the college. In other words, every college could easily have different criteria to determine eligibility – and with a much smaller purse available, it is inevitable many of our ‘most in need’ young people will be left by the wayside.
The Tories have pretended they have some kind of commitment towards young people. Just before the last general election Citizen Dave, the people’s toff said: “I am determined to ensure that the next Conservative Government provides a radical and exciting new opportunity for all the nation’s young people.” Well since he has been in power the opportunity he has offered is for the young to live in penury and with 25% of them having no hope of a job. Even those with aspirations for advancement and going to university will find their costs tripled thanks to the Tories. Nothing exciting or new there, Dave – it’s time to take another look at what you are doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
