‘I DON’T AGREE WITH NICK’ – WE ARE THE PARTY OF SOCIAL MOBILITY

September 24, 2011   Andrew Morrison   No comments

 

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg used his main set piece at the Lib Dem conference to major on the themes of social mobility and equal opportunities. When critics feared the Liberal identity would over time be tainted us Conservatives in the Coalition, I had no idea the process would be so quick.

However, as the wider public know, just because a Liberal says something it doesn’t mean it is true. Conservatives have always been on the side of advancement, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. A good barometer is the more forceful our arguments and indeed actions for social mobility are, the louder the howls from the Left become. Think back to the 1980′s.

Take the Right-to-Buy policy as a strong example: the single biggest and most successful transfer of wealth from the State to the masses, which took us from being in a position where dark corners of the country had home ownership levels on a par with the former USSR, to the position now where it is impossible to walk down a street in Scotland without there being an owner-occupier living within a mixed community. Far better than the ghettos of social housing versus pockets of privately-owned housing which existed before. Far more progressive, and far more socially mobile.

Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When we took many state-owned industries and utility companies, and put them up for purchase by the wider public, creating a true property-owning democracy in the process and making many ordinary people shareholders for the first time, I again ask the question of you – Where were the Liberal Democrats then?

When one considers Grammar Schools – the deliverer of the best means of social mobility – what is the Lib Dem stance? No more – totally against. When parents wish to choose a decent school for their children so they can get a good start in life, irrespective of wealth, where are the Liberal Democrats? Nowhere to be seen.

Yes I agree, social mobility has ground to a halt during Labour’s term in office. The disparity between the income of the parents of people entering the professions now, compared to the average household, has increased. Increased beyond the disparity for people born in 1955 actually. This is a step backward, not forward.

Take our banks and finance houses as a prime example. We need the best talent possible at the helm of our major financial institutions – those with the technical expertise and numerical discipline to do a good job… not just he or she that can navigate the ‘Old Boys Network’ best. Not just because that is the fairer thing to do, but because it delivers the best outcome for the country at large.

In terms of policy, what does this mean we should do? Nick Clegg, to give him some credit, did make reference to unpaid internships, around which future prospects for many professionals are based. To a young man or woman looking to join a profession immediately after school, or after college / graduation, it just isn’t feasible to work for free. Living off Mum and Dad whilst working for free is though, and this is where social mobility hits a brick wall.

There are practical things we in the Conservatives could easily espouse to ensure it is potential and ability that determine success in life, not how successful one’s parents were. We can quite easily re-iterate the fundamental principles that made us successful in the past and assisted us in attracting support from all social backgrounds.

We did offer a useful policy at the May 2011 elections. We suggested introducing a graduate contribution, and setting aside tens of millions of pounds a year from that income to offer more bursaries to young people from financially-deprived environments so they could sustain themselves though University. After all, that is the main stumbling block for the poorer in society when considering Higher Education – it isn’t how to pay off the fees when one is earning a good wage – it is how to subsist themselves during studies.

Nevertheless, the opposition made a good job of tearing our policy apart, we never really espoused the virtues of what the additional revenue would let us achieve in terms of social mobility. The wider public thought because it was a Tory policy, there had to be a catch: in multiple polls, before the sample knew it was a Tory policy, the majority of the public supported it after all (figures quoted ranged from 63% to 67%). Yet when it came to the ballot box, they didn’t support us. Our message was lost in translation.

There are many professions one can enter now without a University education. Accountancy is a good example. The ACCA allows students entry after A-levels (or Highers). Between sitting the Association’s own exams, combined with work experience, one can become a Chartered Certified Accountant – without having to go to University. Because the end qualification is at a higher level than a bachelor’s degree, it is possible to obtain the degree easily afterward. The main barrier then is subsistence because trainees’ salaries are very low.

In that case, I propose in our next manifesto we should provide grants and bursaries to vocational trainees entering the professions in this manner – grants, bursaries and student loans on a par with those undergraduates at University would receive. If the end attainments are fundamentally the same, and we’re cutting out barriers for financially deprived young people – without a single ounce of dumbing down, as the professions regulate themselves in this regard – then where is the problem?

And where has Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the SNP proposed a practical policy such as this?

Read More

Let’s ‘Call Time’ On Minimum Unit Pricing

September 21, 2011   Andrew Morrison   1 Comment

Scotland has a problem with the bottle… whether that is addiction, indirect harm through a friend or family member being addicted, or just not being able to afford any. Industry sales figures suggest that Scotland has the eighth highest alcohol consumption in the world. Some blame our miserable weather, some say we just like to enjoy ourselves (and cannot do that without a drink) – there is always an excuse for a cheeky pint or glass of wine.

There are questions of first principles around dealing with minimum unit pricing: what is the Government’s role in dealing with high levels of alcohol consumption? Is it to do nothing? Is it only to protect the innocent from harm? Or is it to, in effect, save people from themselves?

The SNP’s stance is, essentially, to save people from themselves. Well, sorry, the majority of drinkers who cause no harm to others do not need to be re-educated in this way. I know the risks already – and I certainly don’t want to live in a country where the State forces me to be fit and healthy. Those nations which went to great lengths to boss and order it’s people around to guarantee sporting success, for example, are totalitarian or former totalitarian nations, such as the GDR (East Germany), China, the USSR and North Korea.

That takes me nicely on to minimum unit pricing for alcohol. It is the social consequences of alcohol that the State must redress, not the health consequences for the individual. In short, the drinker consents to the harm done to the individual, but the child within their womb, or the family having to deal with drink-induced violence and abuse, have no say in the consent.

To my surprise, the SNP narrative on minimum unit pricing is that Scotland as a whole drinks too much alcohol, therefore a blanket price increase is a must to tackle our consumption levels. This is where I take issue. The concern is not directly for the social impact of alcohol consumption – it is merely the high level of consumption that they want to tackle. And their tactic is to kick people where it hurts – in their pockets.

The SNP say it will only be the cheapest of the cheap of drinks that will be affected. But hold on a minute here… think ahead to Christmas. How many supermarkets promote ‘3 cases of beer/lager/cider for £20’ around the festive period?
Now, here is an example – for 3 cases of a typical beer with a good brand name, the cost using many supermarket deals is £20. Using the SNP’s minimum unit pricing calculation, this could rocket to £34.43. People slam the supermarkets for selling alcohol so cheaply, but actually, I think they are amongst the most responsible retailers for alcohol. Most operate ‘Challenge 25’ policies to ensure they do not sell alcohol to minors, versus smaller ‘off sales’ retailers who can be rather more casual about selling alcohol to underage people.

This is where much of the anti-social behaviour that troubles our neighbourhoods is derived from. This is what should be tackled. This is what causes people grief, not the fact I may shave a year off my life because I like a drink or two. This is the natural realm of the State – whereas forcing healthy living routines down people’s necks is the natural realm of totalitarian dictatorships, such as China.

During the previous election campaign, the issue of minimum unit pricing came up at several hustings, and I gave the same answer each time: target the problem drinks, such as those laced with caffeine (apparently some tonic wines have a higher caffeine content than energy drinks sold for the specific purpose of giving a caffeine boost). It is the behavioural problems arising from alcohol that has to be tackled first and foremost, not the lifestyle choices of the masses. In terms of policy, this means a new category of alcoholic beverages for duty purposes, and hike up that level of duty. Then the Treasury, not supermarkets, will receive the extra proceeds.

Whether our own Dear Leader, Mr Salmond, would like to introduce compulsory exercise regimes in Scotland is a different matter. Yes, a hysterical claim to make at this stage… but the worrying thing is both the SNP and China have the same motivation towards public health: ‘if the people do not take the most extreme care for their own health, then the State must intervene.’

Scottish Conservatives must focus on dealing primarily with the social impact of alcohol, not health concerns for the individual with the social impact being secondary to that.

The SNP have their first principals wrong, so it naturally follows their policies in this field are flawed.

Read More

Europe in Crisis! A case of Sovereign Debt or Sovereignty attack?

September 18, 2011   Tory Hoose   No comments

 

Ian Grant is the current Treasurer of the Kilmarnock & Loudoun Conservative Association and the 2012 council candidate for Kilmarnock North.

 

TrueStory:

An old man, a multi -millionaire, lived with his one servant in a vast luxury flat overlooking the grand harbour of Monte Carlo.  His servant, a middle aged man of Moroccan origins had served his master well for nine years. The younger man was troubled however. What would happen when his master died? Where would he live and would he be remembered in the old mans will?  The servant hatched a plan to become more loved by the old millionaire and thus gain a place in his will. Achmed as we shall call him, would start a fire in the flat and just in the nick of time save the old man and become a hero (and hopefully a beneficiary of his great fortune)

You may have guessed, the plan went horribly wrong. The old man was not in his study when the fire broke out, but in the small store room at the back of the flat. Trapped and inhaling smoke the man died quickly before the servant could get to him. Far from benefiting as he hoped, Achmed lives to this day in one of Frances most notorious Jails, near Marseilles. Hardly the luxury he had hoped for.

So what, you may ask, has this to do with European debt.

There are actually many similarities. For decades, backed by some special interest groups in the U.S. a small number of senior French, German, Dutch, Swedish and some British politicians and industrialists have plotted and planned The United States of Europe. Like the Servant, they planned to engineer a crisis that would endear the plan to the comfortable and normally quite patriotic European population. They would start a fire, a financial blaze brought about through the simple equation that a monitory union without a fiscal union would almost certainly lead to massive exports for the Northern industrialised countries and massive debts for the more rural and less organised south. After a bit of smoke and screaming. we would all agree to a convergence of governance to match the currency block. Just like the servant in the story though, something went wrong.

The plotters could not foresee that this well-engineered time bomb would go off Just at the point that the banks across the World had run out of Cash. Wrong plan, Wrong Time.

So what to do?

Today we are witness to the Plotters and a few stunned helpers trying to give the Kiss of life to the Corpse that is the Euro. The more they blow cash into the corroded lungs of this smouldering cadaver the more dirty air and singed paper blows out the back of it and out onto the markets.  The quantitative easing (used to buy time) is creating inflation exactly as predicted, but on a scale that is becoming irreversible.

The plotters still insist that more integration is the answer (sticking to the plan come what may) while refusing to accept the disaster they started has now gone completely out of control.

I have an answer.

The plotters and the rest of the World need to recognise the true position.

The Euro is an inflexible and unloved paper handcuff holding together squabbling siblings and more integration will only make things worse. We need a new contract for Europe. A phased return to National currencies for the P.I.G.S. group, Supported by the E.U. with an orderly conversion over a prescribed time period with EU wide guarantees to keep the markets steady.  A new pact on taxation between the Governments of Greece in particular but also Italy and others to keep taxes at an acceptable level but to strictly enforce  collection. In Greece this would involve land taxes for the biggest landowner (The Orthodox Church) Paying Tax on the most profitable businesses (shipping) and other common sense measures like charging passengers to use the Athens underground for the first time!

So to answer my title question, yes, it was always a sovereignty attack. But the whole plan has gone terribly wrong. Only the realisation of this, by the attackers, most of whom are still in charge, will get us the planned withdrawal that we need to avoid a life that feels like a jail sentence for the majority of our population and their descendants.

I look forward to your comments and support on one of the most important financial decisions about to be taken during in World History. Get it right or we are all in it, up to our necks!

Read More

Does Scotland Build Things Anymore? Let’s Start With a Decent Education System…

September 16, 2011   Andrew Morrison   1 Comment

Who hasn’t heard, at some point, the statement ‘We don’t build things in this country anymore’?  The fact Britain is quoted as being somewhere between the fourth to sixth largest manufacturer in the world clearly illustrates this is not the case.  The British manufacturing base has remained stagnant over recent years, but this has been masked by a growing service sector, thus manufacturing appears to be in decline where it is not.  Indeed, in 2007 we manufactured more than twice as many cars compared to what we achieved in any year of the 1970s.  That doesn’t mean the manufacturing base we have at present is adequate, and the slow economic recovery following the banking crisis demonstrates this.

The downturn in the financial services sector here in the UK has left politicians across the political spectrum facing up to the fact we need to rebalance our economy and develop a wider industrial base, which naturally includes manufacturing.  Germany, the largest exporter of goods in the world outwith China, is driving the economic recovery in the Eurozone, with an estimated growth rate of 2.3% in the 2011 year.  Naturally this resilience can be attributed to German successes in the fields of science, innovation, engineering and manufacturing.

Germany’s manufacturing strength has not developed through sheer luck, but rather, as a result of a consistent and sensible education policy over the decades.  Whilst here in Britain we ploughed on into a ‘Brave New World’ of comprehensive education and a notion that one must graduate from University to make the most worthwhile contribution to society, Germany retained their specialist education establishments such as technical and vocation schools.

The ‘Hauptschule’, as the Germans call it, is one of five types of secondary school funded by the state.  Found only in former West German states – there are none in the former Socialist East Germany – these establishments put a large focus on technical and engineering training and I attribute German manufacturing success to their dynamic approach to educating young people, as compared to our dismal comprehensive approach.  Whereas, here in Scotland, if one cannot afford fees for independent school or buy a home within the catchment area of a desired school, then there is no choice of education establishment.  In deprived areas with lower stay-on rates after S4 (Fourth Year), there are fewer pupils to justify running wide ranges of Higher courses and perhaps too few to justify running Advanced Highers at all.

One of the main aims of comprehensive education is to reduce inequalities arising from differences in wealth, however, in my view it merely compounds them.  Those who can afford to live near a good state comprehensive buy homes there, and those who lack the wealth to do so have to accept whichever school is nearby.

Focusing on the German car industry as an illustration of the impact the education system has on manufacturing industries, it is no coincidence that quality German marques such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Porsche and Audi can be found on the streets of any reasonably-developed nation around the world.

Put simply, when it comes to manufacturing and engineering we in the West simply cannot compete with the Far East and BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India & China) on cost.  Purchase parity power and labour forces mean even if we have the most lax employment legislation feasible and if we worked as efficiently as possible, we still couldn’t deliver products to market at a retail price to compete with the East.

If the German example teaches us anything, it is we can still develop our manufacturing base, widen our economy and improve our trade deficit – but only through the innovations in the fields of science and engineering which will come through offering opportunity to all and improving all of our state secondary schools.

I was the Scottish Conservative & Unionist candidate in the constituency of Glasgow Pollok – home to BAe Systems, one of the last remaining shipbuilders in the River Clyde, which has recently been entrusted to build two new aircraft carriers as part of the Strategic Defence and Spending Review.  There are also new opportunities developing, especially in the field of renewable energy.

If we’ve to make the most of these future possibilities, we need a more flexible education system in Scotland to equip our future workers, researchers, scientists and researchers with the necessary knowledge and insight to identify opportunities and seize upon them, to assist in the development and manufacturing of unique products the East do not currently offer, and to produce high-quality and innovative products which are built to last and can compete with manufacturers in developing nations.

A ‘one size fits all’ education system across Britain – including Scotland – fits neither the individual nor the future needs of our country. 

Let’s learn some lessons from Germany, and re-evaluate the importance we put upon a university education versus learning vocational and technical skills at an earlier age.  We (Scottish Conservatives) were close at the last election, with the pledge to allow people to go to an approved, alternative education establishment at age 14, but we did not set out in our manifesto adequate clarity as to how this policy would work.

That vacuum left too much space for our political opponents to make hysterical claims and discredit what is fundamentally a sound concept used across the globe.  We need to develop the policy and point to Continental examples – something our high profile candidates utterly failed to do.  A prime example is the German model, as set out above.  If Germany can do it, I challenge the nay-sayers who lack ambition for Scotland to set out why we couldn’t here.

Read More

Anne Jarvis – Love Thy Neigbour? Joint Council Services in West of Scotland

September 10, 2011   Tory Hoose   No comments

Anne Jarvis is Conservative Councillor for Lenzie and Kirkintilloch South on East Dunbartonshire Council.

For years councils just kept on growing and raising the Council Tax to fund their eternal expansion. Now the gravy train has stopped, the economy has hit the buffers but Salmond won’t accept the money has run out.

When a Conservative Government was last in power it should have capped Council Tax but it thought the people would not like it. People didn’t like the large increases imposed by councils and blamed the Government. Capping would have prevented this.

2011 now finds us with an SNP administration that learned from that and froze Council Tax in 2005 under the disguise of no longer ring-fencing local authority spending. COSLA even signed up to the “Historic” Concordat, which laid this out.

You have to admire Alex Salmond’s audacity. The Concordat agreement is brilliant as it allows him to say Scotland’s financial problem is caused by :

1.Westminster not giving him enough money and
2.Councils wasting money.

It always amazes me that councils think they have to supply services. Why? Purchasing services is always cheaper and expertise in the private sector is often better than in the public sector.

To fund his giveaways Salmond is forcing councils into a shared services scheme with the veiled threat of “comply or vanish”. The Scots seem to like this.

East Dunbartonshire Council is one of eight Clyde Valley councils proposing to share services in waste management, transport, health and social care, and support services, expecting to save between 10% and 20%. The councils’ joint budgets are about £6.5bn a year, they employ 76,000 people for a population of 1.75 million people – more than a third of Scotland’s population. That is 1 council employee for 23 residents.

As this progressed, all seemed well but West Dunbartonshire and South Lanarkshire Councils are having second thoughts. Why? Is it political dogma? I am sure that these councils are getting cold feet as in Clyde Valley between 2,000 and 3,400 staff could transfer to the new shared body.

Unison is, as one might expect, against the shared services.  Unison has said, “It is the wrong approach to service design, comes with huge risks in return for limited savings that are unlikely to be realised.” Savings won’t be realised if councils allow Unison to dictate policy; services will suffer and jobs will go.

We need to get behind this, councils need only be enablers, but, as that is probably a step too far for the left wing Scottish councils shared services it has to be. Let’s be innovative; Stirling and Clackmannanshire Councils have joint education and social work departments. Councils should also be looking at closer working with other agencies e.g. NHS, emergency services and transport. However, will they want this?

East Dunbartonshire will make a decision on 29th September about whether we want to be on board with the Clyde Valley project. As a minority coalition we may be over-ruled by the triumvirate of SNP, LibDems and Independents.

Read More

£1m cash book for enterprising pupils in East Ayrshire.

September 04, 2011   Rob Murray   No comments

Business and Skills Enterprise Centers (BESC) across East Ayrshire are being given £1m cash boost in order to encourage entrepreneurial qualities and to get more schools leavers into work, or training.

With the likes of Sir Tom Hunter, one of Scotland’s richest men backing the initiative, it is important that East Ayrshire schools use this money to the full potential and the skills and experiences that top businessmen and woman can bring to the development of Ayrshire’s young people.

With the £1m coming from a one off grant from the council, schools will be expected to come up with their own ways of funding after the money has run out if they wish to sustain the learning and training programmes.

Other business leaders involved with this initiative include Mark Strudwick, chief executive of the Princes Scottish Youth Business Trust, Craig Stevenson from Norman Drummond of Drummond International and Columba 1400, Peter Hughes, chief executive of Scottish Engineering.

This is a great opportunity for the young people of East Ayrshire to engage in. Developing in the skills and knowledge required to be excellent entrepreneurs will enable our young people to be amongst the best business leaders in Scotland and hopefully in years to come the area will see benefits from this investment through the creation of local companies which in turn would bring jobs and wealth to East Ayrshire.

Both the SNP and Scottish Conservative Councillors back this proposal however once again the Labour Councillors have put up opposition to these proposals saying the money could be better spent. This is a typical response from Labour who seem to think businesses are not important to the future growth of our communities. Labour would happily see the money being spend on more public services which in turn would not create growth in our communities.

Read More

The relationship between the public sector and the voluntary sector.

August 29, 2011   Rob Murray   No comments

In Scotland today we are hearing more of the third and voluntary sector. One might ask them self what these sectors do? Where have they come from? And most importantly do we need them?
All very important questions!

In short, modern society does need the third and voluntary sector, some of these organisations have been about from the early nineteen hundreds and they mostly work for the benefit of protecting and supporting young people and the most vulnerable in society!

Local governments this year faced difficult decisions in reducing their spending due to another round of the never ending council tax freeze! Those that were hit the hardest through the recent freeze were our most vulnerable through cuts to youth, addiction, literacy, elderly provisions.

With more cuts filtering down to local councils it important that we don’t forget how important it is to continue services for the most vulnerable. One might ask, how do we protect those who work with vulnerable people from cuts?…the answer is very simple, take projects run by councils and put them out to tender! This in turn would reduce the pressures on local councils and their budgets.

At present councils provide services that are based around cost which in practice means a service with the view of one size fits all! If contracts had to be put out to tender then this would give the opportunity for the third and voluntary sector organisations to provide a service that is suited to the needs of service users.

So, the next step one might ask. There is at present a lot of support for this way of working in the field. The Conservative party has been at the forefront of this policy and have submitted plans for this to be enforced in England and Wales! In Scotland we have less hope! The Scottish Conservatives are pushing for this in parliament however other parties are not interested. Labour would not touch this policy due to fear of their TU pay masters at local council level kicking up a fuss! As for the SNP, they would not entertain this policy as they promise the world to the public sector and would not want to risk losing public sector support.

The only way to protect funding for those working with vulnerable people is by putting all contracts out for tender!

Read More

  • Get Email Updates