Next week the Government is scheduled to release details of the Browne Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, however some details have already been released – We know that the review will call for variable rate interest linked to graduate earnings, and to at least more than double fees to £7,000 from the current rate of £3,290 per year. The Guardian reports that a higher fee of £10,000 was considered but Browne understood that such a rise would be too “toxic”.

I reject every aspect of this report, right from the appointment of the person who spearheaded it – Baron Browne. Browne was Chief Executive of BP until 2007, when he resigned after allegations regarding his personal life and misuse of company funds; and he faced perjury charges for lying in court. He pushed for dangerous cuts that compromised safety at BP, making him largely responsible for multiple disasters, including the Deepwater Horizon explosion earlier this year. Browne’s only experience with regards to education comes in the form of being a Cambridge Graduate as well as graduating from Standford. He also allegedly has links to the partner of Peter Mandelson, who was responsible for the appointment, and also accepted a job from the present government, undermining [further] the independence of this review, say the University and Colleges Union.

One option laid out in the review, and apparently approved by both sides of the Government, is to introduced tiered interest rates for HE students from 2012; which would replace the current fixed 1.5% rate. This means that whilst graduates won’t be earning any more than at present (starting salary approximately £22,000 in 2009), they would be be expected to pay more back each month, putting them at greater risk of accumulating new debts as they struggle to balance rising living costs, the rise in VAT, and having to pay off more of their even larger student debt.

The review also recommends rising tuition fees to at least £7,000. Such a rise would do little to offset the savage funding cuts education and the wider society face, and in essence means students are paying more for the same, or worse quality of education than seen now as institutions are forced to stretch their funding to the limit. The biggest impact of raising these fees, however, is that it fatally undermines the viability of university education to persons from less-well-off backgrounds. Thousands more people will be denied the opportunity to learn, not because of their ability, but because of their income. Education plays a vital part in enabling social mobility, and graduates more than pay for themselves in graduate employment work over the course of their life. By reducing the number of graduates by excluding those from lower socio-economic backgrounds puts the economy at risk over a far greater period than presently seen with the global recession and deep spending cuts. An entire generation faces the prospect of long-term unemployment, large debts, and grossly reduced welfare and services to support them.

Raising tuition fees doesn’t just compromise society and the economy. A £7,000 means that we won’t just see a division of universities to elite institutions and lower quality colleges similar to polytechnics, but we risk seeing up to a quarter of the Higher Education sector struggle and perhaps collapse as the low-income students they rely on to survive are forced away from education due to costs. Additionally, science contributes billions to the UK economy, and being hit with the double-whammy of funding cuts and less graduates puts UK – and international collaborative research on the back burner, reducing economical contributions and delaying important scientific progress.

Prior to the General Election, over a thousand PPCs signed a pledge to oppose any rise in tuition fees, including Clegg and most of the Lib Dem MPs. Now-Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also said in April that rising fees to £7,000 would be a “disaster”, and their manifesto pledged to scrap tuition fees entirely over 6 years. The Browne Review is likely to be the strongest test for the Liberal Democrats and the Coalition Government. Whether the Liberal Democrats will support the rise in fees, citing they “didn’t know how bad the deficit left by the last Labour Government really was”, and that “coalition government always means compromises”; or whether they will stick to their original pledges is yet to be seen, but I sadly expect we shall see the former.

12/10/10 Update: It’s even worse than expected. The review calls for uncapped fees, and lays out models for up to £12,000. Repayment of loans would also follow market rate, currently 2.2%+inflation. If implemented, this policy would throw away the ambitions and chance of success of an entire generation due to the mistakes of the older generations who took what they pleased, and leave us to pick up the tab and suffer the consequences. It is not on, and students, unions, and politicians across the country should not support any rise in fees, especially the Lib Dems, all of which signed the NUS pledge to oppose increasing tuition fees.

Next week the Government is scheduled to release details of the Browne Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance, however some details have already been released – We know...

Julian Lewis, Tory incumbent for New Forest East, last week made some remarks that many people were understandably pissed off by. With many calling for him to be sacked from the Tory Party — who according to Cameron aren’t homophobes any more — even Alan Johnson called for the resignation. Some people thought this call was unfair – tory rascal said it’s fine, he’s not a homophobe, just  “a bit out of touch”, as if that’s any better.

Julian claims he wants “respect for the truth“. He also claims that there is an elevated risk of HIV transmission via homosexual contact. This is why he voted against lowering the homosexual age of consent on 22 June 1998. (you can see his full, shameful, voting record on gay rights at theyworkforyou.)

Surely he must have based this vote on evidence, right? Given his desire for the truth, and that nobody would just unfairly discriminate against a section of society due to their preferences, it must absolutely be the case that, at the very least, in 1998, homosexuals were at more risk of contracting of contracting HIV, right?

WRONG.

Since 1997,  there has been a higher rate of HIV transmission from hetereosexual contact, than homosexual contact.

Line Graph showing HIV transmission routes in UK (source: http://www.avert.org/uk-transmission-route.htm )

As you can see, from 1997 onwards, heterosexuals have been at greater risk than homosexuals. Which means even back when Julian Lewis voted against gay rights, his opinion was wrong. And it’s still not true now, indeed, it’s not even equal risk. Heterosexuals, based on recent figures from the Health Protection Agency, have a 44% chance of acquiring HIV through contact, as opposed to 2000 less homosexuals, with a 43% chance.

So, Julian. There’s my respect for the truth. Where’s yours?

Julian Lewis, Tory incumbent for New Forest East, last week made some remarks that many people were understandably pissed off by. With many calling for him to be sacked from...

On Monday afternoon, I attended a hustings at my college, with Julian Lewis, incumbent Tory for New Forest East. Shortly thereafter, I tweeted that I had “just spent an hour listening to the scaremongering of a corrupt, paranoid homophobe“ – not the first time I have declared him to be such, after I first met him in the spring of 2009, just before the expenses scandal went public. Since I published this tweet, I have been contacted by several bloggers, journalists, and reporters asking for details on just what was said.

In response to the first enquiry, from Left Foot Forward, I outlined the event as I recalled it bearing in mind I did not take notes, as I was not expecting anything to come of the encounter. Whilst the statement contains paraphrasing due to lack of notes, it was written only shortly after the event, and is as accurate as can be expected, and almost any omitted details weren’t relevant to the points discussed, or relevant enough for me to remember them. As such, I disagree with Julian Lewis’ claim that what I have said was “both incomplete and inaccurate”. Although there was one thing I neglected to mention – that he said his vote against civil adoption was about the child’s rights not those of the civil partners’ (as if somehow a homosexual family is detrimental to a child’s welfare?).

In my statement, I mention that he compares the risks of homosexual sex to fighting in the armed services. A point he clarifies and confirms (so much for inaccurate?) in a response to pinknews – “When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply. This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-old into front-line situations in the Armed Forces, for example.”

To this I repeat the question asked of him at the hustings, and I invite Julian Lewis to point to scientific evidence proving that homosexual sex involves a level of risk so much greater than that of heterosexual sex, that a higher age limit should apply.

Below is a copy of the statement as sent to the Lymington Times

Brockenhurst College, on Monday, where this week all the New Forest East candidates are coming in for a Q&A session separately.

firstly, in his “presentation” on defence, he was talking about how it’s ridiculous to vote lib dem because they want to fully scrap trident and all deterrents, to which i corrected him as it’s non like-for-like replacement. he kept insisting that if we don’t have nuclear weapons, we are at greater risk, and that the liberal idea of disarmament is ridiculous. He said exclusively using cruise missiles would lead to world war 3 due to other countries believing them to be nuclear warheads when they were not.

Then, in the Q&A session, he would constantly drift off topic into areas he’d pre-prepared, such as how voting lib dem results in another 5 years of brown. how there’s only two real choices – LAB and CON. He said that coalition governments never work, pointing to 1960s Germany, and that the party in 3rd place percentage wise shouldn’t have such a large say (despite our current system still allowing those in 3rd to have more seats, as seen when the recent poll with the LD on 33% is calculated)

Questioned on his gay rights votes, he continued his claims that homosexuality/anal sex alone poses risk of HIV/AIDS, and that is why he still opposes gay sex at 16. Someone put it to him that it is no more dangerous than any sexual activity, to which he insisted on proof, but when asked to do the same – over 10 years after he already made up his mind, he said he didn’t have figures and it would have to be a project to find them. He then made a comparison that gay sex is as big a health risk as being a soldier, and that they don’t let people fight in the army until the age of majority, so why should gay sex be allowed at 16 if fighting in a war isn’t. He also said “I know it’s cliché, but… some of my best friends are gay”

When it came to expenses, and his votes against transparency and reform, he quickly spun it to suggest his private members bill that prevents the publication of MPs Addresses from FOI Requests was a good thing, and that “in this state of heightened terror” it was unacceptable to have 646 insecure addresses available to the public. He then said that the publication of his expenses (including £119 for a trouser press that he explained at the time of the scandal as needed “otherwise [he'd] be up all night ironing”, and an attempt to claim £6000 for a floor), was purely because the reporter from the telegraph had a personal vendetta against him, as the journalist had been opposing the MPs Addresses legislation Julian Lewis pushed through.

He also expressed support for the Whips Office as it presently works.

Anticipating contact from Julian Lewis’ office himself regarding the matter, I would like to say that every part of my original tweet holds true. At the hustings he was scaremongering by suggesting the only choice was Vote Tory, otherwise it’s 5 more years of Brown, as well as the claims that nuclear disarmament would potentially lead to war. He is corrupt by any standard definition, as evident through his expenses claims and opposition to increased expenses scrutiny, as well as voting against reforming Parliament to be more democratic. He is paranoid, as he claims anti-FOI legislation is a good thing due to ridiculous claims of risk of terrorism, something I’d more often expect to hear from New Labour, and strongly fought against the publication of his ‘home’ (whether it be his first home, second, or his Southampton flat) address, and he is evidently homophobic, voting against gay rights on numerous occasions, justified by shocking unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, I wonder if he’ll put forward a bill in the next parliament to increase the age of consent for sexual intercourse among the black population, given claims that they are also more likely to pass on HIV? Or would racism be one step too far for this out-of-touch politician?

On Monday afternoon, I attended a hustings at my college, with Julian Lewis, incumbent Tory for New Forest East. Shortly thereafter, I tweeted that I had “just spent an hour...

Today, a general election was declared. It was also the day that the human rights infringing, industry-drafted, protectionist Digital Economy Bill had its 2nd Reading in the commons, before being passed through the wholly undemocratic process of wash-up in the coming days.

The controversial bill would see the death of public wi-fi, houses being disconnected on allegation of copyright infringement – with them having to prove innocence by paying for an appeal after the fact, photographers and works creators having work taken and exploited by industry without consent, or as one MP put it (in an endorsement of the bill!) – “putting creativity before freedom” – despite the fact the bill mentions not once the content creator or artist, and instead refers only to the rights holders – most often record labels or publishers, not the artists who created the works.

Understandably there has been outrage over the bill itself, and the government’s insistence on passing it without true scrutiny and debate: Over 20,000 letters and e-mails to MPs, over 35,000 signatures on the Number 10 petition against the bill, 100,000s of tweets, campaigns against the bill from consumer groups, business groups, ISPs, the  public, and the Pirate Party; concerns from the JCHR and the Law Society of Scotland that the bill breaches human rights, one of the  most discussed topics on social media worldwide, even on the day of the declaration of the election.

Guess how many of our great ‘Representatives’ turned up to the debate today?

(more…)

Today, a general election was declared. It was also the day that the human rights infringing, industry-drafted, protectionist Digital Economy Bill had its 2nd Reading in the commons, before being...

Well, it’s started with a change – Coordinated Universal Time  ticked over to read 2010:01:01:00:00:00, so that’s at least one thing that’s different; but just else will be different in this coming year to the years prior?

Firstly, VAT has just risen to 17.5% again, so expect price rises immediately, or phased in over time depending on the retailer. I would have thought it wise to have extended the VAT break to a later date, as a price rise whilst we’re only just approaching the end of the recession could run the risk of reducing sales, and leading to a double dip; many retailers, in deciding to freeze the increase for a while, seem to be thinking along similar lines.

Related to this, the UK, on May 6th most likely, will have a General Election. Unless a major upset happens, we’re currently looking at a Conservative Government with a small majority, or even forming a minority or coalition government from a hung parliament. But will a shift to a blue government really bring about much change, after all New Labour was an attempt to shift Labour towards the Conservatives, and Cameron’s Conservatives pull themselves towards New Labour? Yes, and no. Both sides promise dangerously low investment, and even cuts, in industry that desperately needs investment, such as eco-technology and energy, sciences, and education. Labour want to balance investment by cutting it in areas they don’t like, the Tories want to destroy the public sector, all the while supporting the renewal of hugely expensive, weapons of mass destruction. The Tories want to slash taxes for the rich, whilst doing little for the middle and lower classes, and Labour aren’t progressive enough to properly support those who need it. Labour risk destroying an entire sector of the economy, and people’s rights, with the ghastly Digital Economy Bill (which the Pirate Party, and non-party organisations such as ORG are fiercely opposing), whilst the Tories are so out of touch as to seem not to even care about the sector at all, with their pledge to scrap the much needed, albeit inadequate, “broadband tax”. So ultimately, we’re screwed either way.

But the winds of change do blow in politics this year. Approximately one-third of the House of Commons will consist of MPs new to the house following the election, with a likely small increase in independents, especially with Jury Team out there supporting them. Many of these new MPs will be replacing those corrupt, out-of-touch bastards who saw fit to abuse a ridiculously poorly regulated allowances system, squandering public money to pay for their first class seats, their mansions, their moats and trouser presses, and all the other crap they apparently can’t afford on their “chumps change” of a salary of £64,766 – some £40,000 more than the ‘average’ wage earner in the UK. Maybe, just maybe, these replacements will be less self-obsessed, more in touch with modern Britain, and able to represent their constituents properly. Maybe, but maybe not… I’m not getting my hopes up for this lot.  Assuming Mr Cameron has a brain, he’ll call an election in 2014 to coincide with the EU Elections, and that year, I feel, will be a big turning point in both British, and European politics. Indeed, 2014 is where I’m focussing my own efforts, not withstanding the results of the 2013 local elections, and where I plan to make my entry into politics under the banner of the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom if I do not do so in 2013.

Another change which will hopefully happen this year is the introduction of, or the preparations to introduce some form of electoral reform; however this will only happen if the Conservatives continue to fail to set themselves apart as anything other than “not-Labour”, and we end up with a Liberal coalition. Such a result is quite frankly the best outcome we could hope for. British politics needs radical change and sweeping reforms, and this would be the place to start, in this year. So let’s hope it happens.

Moving away from politics, 2010 will be bringing about many changes to my personal life. I’ve got exams in a few weeks, exams that will ultimately decide whether I get into Aberystwyth; my university of choice, have to utilise the terrible clearing system in a (post-)recession climate, or just end up not getting into university at all. This of course means I’m also finishing college this summer, and quite frankly I’ll be glad to be leaving, because that college was a pretty exhausting place to be, crushing and suppressing the hobbies, hopes and interests that I had when I first attended there. And running alongside all this, those few friends I do have will all also be heading off to university and whatnot themselves, so this year is really our last year together, and I want to spend as much of it as I can with them. In reality I realise I probably won’t see them much more than I did this past year, and that is upsetting to me; but even so, spending some time with them is better than none at all, right?

So there you go – 2010 will bring change right from the start, but it’s not necessarily good change, and that’s incredibly frustrating, especially for a powerless control freak like me, who just wants to be able to change things, make them better, improve on what we have.

Addendum: Whilst writing this post my  site went down, luckily I learnt long ago to always copy what I’ve written to the clipboard just in case something like this happens. Downside is I lost links and stuff I’d put in. Let this be a lesson to you all, copy to clipboard, and save drafts often. I also realised I never got around to talking about 2010 in technology like I planned, but I can’t be bothered to write more for this.

Well, it’s started with a change – Coordinated Universal Time  ticked over to read 2010:01:01:00:00:00, so that’s at least one thing that’s different; but just else will be different in...