Vice-Chancellor Warns of Privatised University Education

A stark warning has come from the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster in light of the Browne Report.

Professor Richard Barnett says what he brands a small group of "elitist" English universities lobbied and got a lot of their own self interest included in the Browne Report. A point that if true should send alarm bells ringing amongst those of the Liberal Democrat MPs who seem to have so whole-heartedly switched to accept the recommendations. Recommendations that we were wary of back in May enough to allow us to abstain if we didn't like them.

The view of these elitist institutions he says is that University Education should essentially be privatised. That would appear indeed to be what the lifting of the cap on Tuition Fees would allow, Oxford and Cambridge already competing on the international stage for best performers in academic achievement would be able to increase their funding without increasing the student base.

Professor Barnett said:

"This is a case of not wasting a good crisis to push through that agenda.

"Fortunately for us higher education is a devolved responsibility, it will be a decision for the assembly to decide.

"But, the scale of the cuts here do not justify the scale of the increase of fees.

"As we re-balance the economy it's skills that matter. This is an investment in our future and it's important that all sections of our society be part of that new economy. Every country in the world is investing in skills and in universities."

However, the agenda of Browne seems to be to privatise the institutions of Higher Education. That will make it a case of ability to pay not ability to learn that will be the differentiating factor.

Posted Elsewhere and the Story Rolls On - Northern Ireland Education

Over the weekend here in Northern Ireland we've had a First Minister Peter Robinson calling for an end to education apartheid then a response from the Catholic Church. Which are two stories I have posted about on Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland.

The Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness has accused his colleague of "taking on" the Catholic Church about it's provision of education. But Mr Robinson is not taking on the provision of the provision but the state funding of them to church schools. This would apply to all church schools, though the largest group would be the Catholic schools.

McGuinness has said:

"If Peter thinks taking on the Catholic Church, the Catholic bishops and indeed the Protestant churches for that matter and other interest groups is a sensible route to go, I think that is a big mistake.

"I think what we have to do is try and achieve and continue to build a consensus within our society about the need to develop shared services.

"If you go for a head-on collision with the so-called vested interests, that is a collision course which will lead us into a total and absolute mess."

Now I do think it is heading for a collision course, indeed I've said down the years how ludicrous the provision of new dual schools on one site sectarian primary schools in Scotland have been built. The separation of children for education purposes builds in difference, a barrier, a sense of otherness.

Donal Flanagan, chief executive of CCMS (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools) added to McGuinness's comments with:

"He is certainly not speaking as an educationalist because everybody knows that ethos adds value to education.

"If Peter Robinson wants an open, honest and inclusive debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland then why would he choose a platform at the installation of a DUP mayor in Castlereagh to launch this so I have to question his motive."

Well my mother is a educationalist. What's more she is someone who was involved in that most divisive of Northern Irish board curriculum items Religious Education. Earlier today she was telling me about the Education for Mutual Understanding (EMU) element which first came into Northern Ireland in 1983.

She was saying that there are some education establishments some are in the Catholic sector, some are in the state sector in staunch loyalist areas, who only paid lip service to EMU provision to their pupils. The education equivalent to break down that barrier wasn't and isn't working. She wishes that other children could have been like me and my brother, playing with our catholic neighbours outside of school time. Learning from an early age that there is no difference in them as individuals, rather than as some have to do after a separate education and housing system only learning that when they enter the workplace.

What Peter Robinson has done is to ask us in Northern Ireland to look deep within ourselves. To ask what is the problem? Where does it stem from? Is there anything we can do? It is a bold move. It is one that is not meant to devalue educationalists but to build up our children, build up our future and make the generations to come ones that Northern Ireland will be proud of.

We haven't fully dealt with the age old problems, isn't about time that we did?

Too many words often a sign of running to hide - LibDems.org.uk

Hat tip to James McKenzie for saving this:



Today that has been replaced on the website by this emphasis mine:

Liberal Democrats believe university education should be free and everyone who has the ability should be able to go to university and not be put off by the cost.

In coalition the Liberal Democrats are looking at proposals to ensure the bottom 30% of graduate earners will pay less for tuition than they do at the moment.

Following the Browne Review into Higher Education, Business Secretary Vince Cable is working on a system of repayment for tuition designed to make the highest earning graduates pay more than those who earn less.

He has also secured the raising of the payment threshold from it’s current £15,000 to £21,000.

The coalition agreement says:

UNIVERSITIES AND FURTHER EDUCATION

The Government believes that our universities are essential for building a strong and innovative economy. We will take action to create more college and university places, as well as help to foster stronger links between universities, colleges and industries.

• We will seek ways to support the creation of apprenticeships, internships, work pairings, and college and workplace training places as part of our wider programme to get Britain working.

• We will set colleges free from direct state control and abolish many of the further education quangos. Public funding should be fair and follow the choices of students.

• We will await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

- increase social mobility;
- take into account the impact on student debt;
- ensure a properly funded university sector;
- improve the quality of teaching;
- advance scholarship; and
- attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

• If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

• We will review support for part-time students in terms of loans and fees.

• We will publish more information about the costs, graduate earnings and student satisfaction of different university courses.

• We will ensure that public funding mechanisms for university research safeguard its academic integrity.

Can be please now allow the arrangements to be made for our Liberal Democrat MPs to use their judgement over the vote? Rather than telling them to support these findings, and trying to convince members to do likewise.

As for the impact of Browne on these areas:

- increase social mobility;
- take into account the impact on student debt;
- ensure a properly funded university sector;
- improve the quality of teaching;
- advance scholarship; and
- attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

While it is ensuring points 3 and 4 I feel it is lacking in providing for the students. Degrees are not merely a priced commodity, that should be free to vagracies the market forces and available to those who can afford it. Look at the opening line that remains from the previous education page.

"Liberal Democrats believe university education should be free and everyone who has the ability should be able to go to university and not be put off by the cost."

I still believe. I do not believe Browne allows for that or enables that.

A short story set in a browne brick thatched college...

...and I hope a work of Fiction.

Cross posted on Liberal Democrats in Northern Ireland

Sitting in his rocking chair in 2050 Stephen Glenn is talking to his eldest great-nephew about to head up to Belfast Metropolitan College rather than Cambridge University or Oxford University, where 40 years earlier he would have been smart enough to go.

It was Thatcher what started it you know?

I was there a fresh-faced young student back then, with hair, stop your sniggering. No where was I? Oh yes I was a fresh-faced student. Back then there was what was called a maintenance grant.

No. That wasn't what paid for your education that was actually what was given to students dependent on your parental income to actually help you afford to live away from home at the University of your choice.

Fees? Oh they were all paid for you didn't pay a sausage everything that was required to teach you was paid for by the Government. The only requirement was that you had the right results at school to prove you were smart enough for the course. It was the learning power that was good enough to determine where you went not you parent's earning power. How do you think Granda and Granny and Great Aunt Jacqui managed to get to St. Andrews?

Me? No I went to Kingston.

No, it wasn't because I wasn't smart. I was pretty smart I just didn't dedicate all myself to academic achievement. I was smart enough to get by at a top-level, if I'd done less extra-curricular stuff I'd have achieved a lot more. Anyway we're digressing.

Any way Baroness Thatcher. Yes she is still around. Maybe there is a painting of her somewhere that keeps her hanging on. But she wasn't a Baroness then, merely the Prime Minister. Her Government, sorry Her Majesty's Government, of which Thatcher were head, Mícheál would kill me if he were here for such a slip, decided to bring in student loans instead of grants.

So your great-uncle. No me! Not your other great-uncle, and thousands of others marched on Westminster shouting 'Grants not loans."

Why? Well we knew that if we started to give out loans to fund people's higher education it was just the top of the iceberg. For starters the richer students would not take out loans anyway, mater and pater, would see them through with their silver spoons in their mouths since birth. So it would only be the poorer students who would end up accumulating debt.

Also although they were only going to limit loans initially to a certain proportion of the maintenance grant amount and at a rate below commercial rates of interest for repayment, this would slowly be eroded. There was also going to be the incentive that once people borrowed money to feed, clothe, accommodate and transport themselves, some government would then make them also pay for the education.

We shouted that at the time. We? Oh the National Union of Students and students in general. Oh yes Students were Unionised back then, before the riots of 2011, when David Cameron decided he couldn't allow political activity on University Campuses outside of the Oxford and Cambridge Unions*.

Haha. No on the pretence that the other Universities weren't capable of engaging in sensible civilised political debate.

Anyway slowly but surely changes happened. First there was the removal of grants altogether and all the maintenance coming from loans or parental contribution. Then they brought in Tuition Fees, which again could be paid for by loans. Then the Liberal Democrats helped get rid of Tuition Fees in Scotland.

Yes, I was part of that. You've seen the pictures. Me with Charles Kennedy, Nick Clegg and Jo Swinson the first Liberal Democrat Prime Minister for 100 years.

Anyway then came the Browne report. Instead of merely increasing the cap on tuition fees it called for the removal of it altogether. Mere months after all the Lib Dem MP and other candidates including me had signed a pledge that we would vote against any rise recommended by Browne when his report was published. My Cameron had asked those same MPs to promise to abstain, rather that vote against if after decades for some of campaigning against this movement to the rich being able to afford the best education carried on.

They were good men and women. Initially it was only 30 but their number grew as the pressure from the party faithful grew. It grew large enough that with all the opposition parties we would have beaten the raise in Tuition Fees but then Ed Miliband told his troops to march through the aye lobby. Many did but a few hung back and joined the Lib Dems in the noes lobby. Sadly it was heavily won and since then smart kids like you, and your dad have found it really hard to get to a good University. Indeed you are the first Glenn family member in 4 generations not to go to University, despite you being smarter than all of us, with the possible exception of your granny. Simple because we cannot afford to send you to Queen's and the University of Ulster sadly got absorbed into it during the worse days for Higher Education.


Update: There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, joining other PPCs, AMs and others.

* Nice subtle play on words here as these two institutions are not unions in the sense of the common man's vernacular.

When a Defeat's Not a Defeat #LDConf

I'm sure I was watching the Liberal Democrat conference earlier on BBC Parliament, I'm just not sure where the BBC were watching it. Their headline says

Lib Dems suffer conference defeat over free schools

Hello!

This was a Lib Dem conference. How can a democratically debated and voted upon motion be a defeat?

Not only that the debate as I watched it enhanced Lib Dem education policy as I have heard it debated over the last 22 years of my association. So why is it a defeat?

Also they call it a rebel motion. No it was like all manner of Lib Dem motions coming from the membership not from the leadership. That is the nature of the party, and its conference, not like the Tories and Labour who will simply rubber stamp the will of the leadership.

So the Policy Motion on Free Schools and Academies may be opposed to some of the government

Basically because the membership of the Lib Dems have passed a motion that contradicts that of the coalition Government. So a more accurate headline would have been 'Government suffer Lib Dem conference defeat over free schools'.

But this was a victory for the Lib Dems and their independence as a party, holding the government to account even if some of our representatives serve in that Government. It is just what our Scottish conference did through the eight years we were in government and our Welsh cousins similarly.

So if anyone doubts that the Lib Dems have lost their way, you are now seeing that this is not the case. The party will continue to act in a progressive and fair way.

Former Tory Candidate Teacher Keeps Job After Homophobic Comment

Back in April, when it was too late to replace him, the Conservative candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, Philip Lardner was deselected by the party for anti-gay comment made on his campaign website. As you may recall I was rather busy at the time fighting that election so didn't blog about it, but I refer you to Andrew Reeves for the story.

At the same time the Primary School teacher at Rashielea Primary School in Renfrewshire was also suspended from work pending a disciplinary hearing. That hearing has been held this week with the result that a teacher who thinks homosexuality is "not normal" or to be "encouraged" in children is to keep his job.

One has to wonder what he would do it a child came to him because of homosexual bullying at school? Or what he would do if I child who was gay objected to his assertions in a classroom? It is not a matter of encouraging but a matter of supporting those who are vulnerable. You cannot encourage someone to be gay, however you can ensure them that there is nothing wrong with it and support them when others feel that there is.

Homophobic bullying does go on at Primary level so you have to wonder how Mr Lardner would handle it in his classroom. As a supporter of Section 28 he fails to acknowledge the amount of harm that was done to homosexual young people by the exclusion of giving them sexual health advise that was relevant to them. He clearly needs some education on the issue himself if he thinks that the aim is encouraging people to be gay rather than simply to be themselves.

Once Upon a Time in a Polytechnic Not Too Far Away...

Episode IV: A Dying Hope*

When I was only two Margaret Thatcher took away free school milk, yet somehow I still got mine through my primary school days. When I was a student and I was old enough to do something about it she started to completely phase out grants for students and replace them with loans.

So it was that one of my first campaigns and indeed I think my first public march was on Westminster in the late 80s shouting for 'Grants not Loans'. The basic argument is the same that the more people have to pay for their own education the more you price out those with ability from the poorer areas of our country who might just make a difference to our world.

I'm going to cite an interest in this as one of those who wouldn't have gone to university without assistance was the son of late french polisher and a quality controller in a shirt factory. He lived in a two up two down without an inside toilet, bathroom or telephone. The only advantage he had over some on the other side of the Derry walls was that as a protestant he would have a vote when he came of age. Because that person was the first of the Glenn's to go to university my father. He went on to a career in teaching when he affected the lives of many and inspired them either to take maths seriously or to get involved in computers when they were still a novelty and then beyond.

The issue of fees has been a hot potato in Lib Dem conferences for a number of years now, not least because we delivered the removal of top up fees in Scotland when we were in coalition. So therefore imagine my shock when Vince Cable today announced that he was asking Lord Browne to look into the idea of a graduate tax as a matter of 'priority'. Seeing as we stood on a platform of removing fees for students when we could afford it to suddenly start talking about a graduate tax is a reversal in our commitment to education.

I also recall that Vince defended the VAT rises with a glib comment that he never stood in front of the VAT Bombshell poster. Well lucky him. However, I was proud to be there for the launch of that poster in Glasgow. I still say that VAT is a regressive tax and has no place in a progressive society that looks out for those least able to look after themselves. Especially as even those who don't pay income tax pay some VAT.

I'm equally glad to say I've waved a placard saying grants not loans. Kept on fighting to do away with the unfairness of the Students Loans Company. Glad that in Scotland our party has backed a minimum income guarantee for students and that we were fighting as recently as May to do away with top up fees as and when we could afford to do so.

I do not agree with Vince that this is a priority. I object to the fact that he even thinks it is. A student priority at the moment is a way for our recently graduated to find employment, and by that I mean paid employment. Sure internships give skills but no money and that is not what our brightest spent 3 or 4 years to get their Bachelors or Masters degrees to go on to. Having graduated in the last major recession I know how tough that can be.

* Not yet it isn't I'll be fighting on.

Where is the Labservative Substance this Week?

At the weekend both David Cameron and Gordon Brown said more or less the same thing this election is about substance not personality.

This morning Nick Clegg talked about radical reform in our schools, yesterday he talked about banking reform as well as fairness for rural Britain and on Monday he was talking about stimulating the green economy.

Now I may be wrong but all I've heard from the Labservatives is how they are all about change, or that they are the progressives. Unlike Nick they haven't been putting any substance behind those claims all week. Indeed the Labservatives have been talking about negative issues, usually part truths about the Lib Dems all week. Come on Gordon and Dave where is the substance? Or is that lacking because there isn't any real change, progressiveness or radicalism in what you have to offer?

Tories Lay Out Tough Educational Attainment Targets

In an indirect way Michael Gove, Tory Education spokesperson, has shown a prejudice in the way the Tories view education. He has said:

"In the last year for which we have figures, of the 80,000 pupils who are eligible for free school meals, the very poorest, just 45 got to Oxford or Cambridge."

He went on to say that Labour had failed the poorest pupils as a result. But hang on I say. Is the hallowed spires of the oldest Universities the only real judge for their success and are Labour the only ones that can be blamed for that failure.

Compared to when I went to Kingston University, after not having free school meals, so I must really be a failure, less students travel far away from university. Indeed more are staying at home. One wonders why that is. No hang on I remember going on a rally as a student, a rally calling for grants not loans. Then protesting against the eventual introduction of tuition fees. The road to such ruin is Tory initiated.

But it is not really a failure to not get to Oxford or Cambridge. Academic attainment should be based on improving the chances of the students that are taught. My parents were both teachers, my Aunt* is quite senior in the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency. All of them working on the front line of education cared about improving the lot of all those students as best as they could.

Free school meals provision is a way to he that improvement, whether that leads to an engineering degree at somewhere like Brunel, or a more practical Economics degree at Kingston than that offered at Oxbridge, or a even just to attain a college place for a work related qualification.

I think Michael Gove has failed to understand the nature of education and fully encompassing all aspects of our universities, further education colleges and even just our schools achievements.

UPDATE: I got this reponse from the fake George Osborne on twitter.



* An update from my cousin regarding her mother, my Aunt:

"Of course, your Aunt, who is very senior at the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency would have been eligible for free school meals. But she never went to Oxbridge. She couldn't afford the flight to the interview. Or indeed a new coat."

Welcome to the "real world", Mr Gove.

***Exclusive*** Tavish Scott Reaction to Nick Clegg's Speech #sldconf

I had been hoping to bring you an interview with Nick Clegg in a short while after he had dealt with some press commitment. But conferences being conferences not to mention the press taking more of Nick's time, something about a Fifer appearing before Chilcott, that was not to be.

Instead at very short notice I had to direct my questions to the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Tavish Scott.

Stephen: What were your highlights of the speech Nick has just given?

Tavish: I think his utter commitment to the Scottish and UK values of fairness. The need to change our country to reflect that in the four ways he highlighted, fairer taxes, a fair start in life for our children, a fairer, green sustainable economy and a fairer politics.

Under the Lib Dems it has to be better and fairer future than what Brown and Blair before him have done. All that David Cameron offers is a different slick manager, but no real change.

Also on this day when Brown is facing Chilcott, it is good that Nick is here. To emphasise once again how our party offered a clear and absolute opposition to the illegal war on Iraq.

We now are going to have the Prime Ministerial debate's including Nick what could Alex Salmond possibly have to tell the rest of the UK? (Nick had mentioned in his speech that Salmond had "elevated independence to a one man fetish")

Well it is not just a one man man fetish, it is a one idea fetish. It is all that the SNP truly have left on the table. They have failed to deliver on so much of what they promised just 3 years ago.

They are out of ideas and out out of time, a lot like what has also happened with the Labour party. The only thing they have over Labour is that Alex is a better salesman.

Salesman? Wasn't that Cameron's phrase?

Quite. But Alex is only out to try and manage the decline in the economy. Nick in his speech has outlined ways to bring about the recovery. Admitting it is going to be tough, but bringing fresh ideas to table to turn us around.

One of those was the idea of utilising the ship yards of the Leith and the Clyde to produce off shore wind turbines. How can we take this further ever more?

It is a very positive message. It shows we're taking our commitment to a greener economy beyond the theoretical, into economic reality for job creation for people. In real ways, that make a real change and have a real impact.

Something that even the Greens fail often to do?

Indeed. But not only is it a commitment to our long term goals of sustainability, but showing ways that by achieving our aims we can also help the country out of the mess that Brown has got us into.

One of the areas that Nick commented on was a fairer education. Obviously that is a devolved issue and we have just had our own debate on "A fair start for all our children?". What does this mean for the future of Scotland?

Well again it is a positive message and one I will be touching on more in my own speech tomorrow. But again it highlights the unfairness of the mess we have got ourselves into. The other parties are not promising to protect key services making things worse. There is a danger they will even take away some of the little choice that they have now.

The Lib Dems will give them a real boost. There are hard choices in public expenditure, but the Lib Dems are committed to give a real choice for these people.

As time is running out I have one final question on a lighter note. It is rumoured in Liberal Youth Scotland circles that you didn't pay the entrance fee for you attendance at their quiz and debate night last year. Are going to be attending tonight and will you be paying double?

(laughs) I'm not aware that I didn't but I shall certainly be attending again tonight. But whether I did or I didn't I shall certainly be making a donation to this very worthwhile organisation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you Stephen and good luck.

A Positive, Serious Contribution Deserves a Serious Answer

No my ears were not deceiving me. That is what Alex Salmond replied to Tavish Scott's question regarding colleges admission (or not) findings and youth unemployment in Scotland.

Basically Tavish pointed out that 85% of colleges in Scotland have had to turn away applicants this year, many for the first time ever with some having seen a 800% increase in applications. In West Lothian the number of applicants has increased by 41% over last year, Oatridge college who have never had to turn away applications before saw a 74% increase in applications and turned away 300. These findings came from a Liberal Democrat survey of the the 43 colleges in Scotland looking at the numbers of applicants each has had to turn away over the last 3 years, the first of its kind to be published. On top of this the number of our young people claiming Job Seekers allowance over the past year has risen by 35%.

Jeremy Purvis the Finance Spokesperson has said about the findings in the report:

"Too many young people have been hit twice. They can’t get a job and now they can’t get a college place. What government can do is give them the opportunity to gain the skills and experiences that will help them get the most from economic recovery when it comes. Scotland as a whole will benefit from having more people ready and active for the workplace."

An increase in college places and training opportunities is one of the issues that the Lib Dems have been applying pressure on the SNP Government to provide for to help in this recession.

Alex Salmond's response to the actual question "Will the First Minister agree that action taken by his Government in this Budget must increase college places across Scotland?" is encouraging as is his acknowledgement that a recession inevitably increases the demand on college places.

Jeff has already pointed out that he thinks the answer "dropping the jousting" he gave Iain Gray and Annabel Goldie is a "clear signal that the budget would reflect Tavish's concerns" I would tend to agree, it seems that lessons have been learnt over the last 12 months on both sides.

Nick Clegg Sets Out the Real Gay Rights' Agenda

Earlier this week David Cameron made what looked like an ad hoc adjustment to his income tax marriage person's allowance announcement when he added in civil partnerships. After the slap dash 50 minutes in which he took to clarify his position when he first announced those plans, this addendum looked like an add on from policy wonks to answer some, though not all of the inequality questions his proposal raised.

Nick Clegg this morning talking in The Independent goes further than any other leader ever has to knock out the last few areas of inequality for the gay community. He's basically saying enough of 'equal but different' why can't we just be equal.


Education

First up Nick calls for all schools to adopt anti-homophobia bullying policies and to teach that homosexuality exists and is normal. This he wants to apply even to faith schools. Many people grow up in a faith community feeling they are isolated, the feelings that they are going through are not something they can share with teachers, fellow pupils or whatever because of the way that homosexuality is treated. It can, and does, lead to depression in a number of people. Of course such feeling are not exclusive to such an school environment, but they do accentuate it in a faith school environment. At least having access to information and feeling more able to talk about it is something that people who actually are of that faith and find themselves to be gay need as much as every other teenager in our country.

As for protection from homophobic bullying, not every child has the opportunity long after the bullying ceases to go up to the bully and say, "You know you were right". To looks of confusion from the bully like I did a few years back.

Equal Marriage

Nick is calling for the same marital rights for gay men and women as straight couples. The Tories appear to be wanting to tinker around the edges of this, acknowledge it in the tax code but not much else. David Cameron talked earlier this week about extending the 'marriage' allowance to include 'civil partnerships' Nick wants to make those unions marriage. By full marital rights Nick is also saying that those that want a same sex marriage to be solemnised within a faith may do so if they find a clergyman or woman willing to do so. He's not forcing the churches, mosques, synagogues or whatever to all carry out such ceremonies merely allowing those who are inclined the option of being involved in such a ceremony where currently they are banned.

On this issue Nick has said:

"If we don’t want to discriminate, why do we make differences in language? Language is a hugely important signifier of how we segment society and how you seek to create differences between people. Since we don’t want to make differences on this and the law has moved a great deal to do that, we should be linguistically the same too."

Blood ban

As I said at Scottish Spring Conference last year, there is fallacy in the Blood Transfusion Services definition of "risky" sexual behaviour of those who donate. It isn't actually based on behaviour it is based on a categorisation of an entire section of the population, ignoring more risky sexual practitioners in the straight community over the safer members of the gay one. Recently I read another article about the shortage of O negative blood as a result of the recent cold weather, crying out for donors to come forward. My O neg of course could have helped if they'd only let me.

Asylum seekers

Currently there is no recognition that someone fleeing their country for sexual persecution can seek asylum in this country. We have sent back young men to some countries where they face certain death for admitting they are gay. We offer such protection for those who are politically or religiously persecuted. These people if they are faced with eminent danger should they be returned home will often face a favourable hearing for their case for asylum.

This of course is not about immigration but offering help to those who face persecution. Even the Christians would have to own up that Jesus told them to help those who face persecution, he didn't put any provisos unto that appeal.

On the issue of asylum seekers Nick added:

"It's a moral stain on our collective consciousnesses. The public debate has transformed asylum seekers into threats rather than human beings."

He said Lib Dem policy would be that Britain should provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution because of their sexual orientation:

"It’s not just me that says this, it’s international law that says it."

Uganda

For those that do not know Uganda are currently debating a new policy that will lock up anyone involved in homosexual practices for live. Any who are HIV positive or who have AIDS face summary execution. Considering the rate of HIV infection on the African continent this could well turn into a cull. After all the use of HIV may well turn into the only 'evidence' that homosexual activity took place.

As with the asylum regulations above this is something we could not condone. While most of those asylum seekers come from countries where we may well have little sway with sanctions, Uganda is part of the Commonwealth and we have in the past excluded such members for taking actions against the spirit of the Commonwealth.


Finally

Speaking of the Conservative positioning on gay issues Nick said:

"He [David Cameron] is a confection. I don’t really know what he believes in. I don’t know what his convictions are and the reason is because they keep changing – and they seem to change for convenience. So when it mattered, when people went through the lobby to vote on Section 28, his convictions were on the wrong side. Suddenly they’ve changed and we get an apology!"

Mr Clegg questioned the Tory leader’s record of supporting gay equality, highlighting how Mr Cameron voted against the repeal of Section 28 (he last year apologised for the Tories’ introduction of Section 28) and how he has allied his party with right-wing anti-gay groups in Europe.

"The surveys of a lot of the next generation of Conservative MPs show massive residue of indifference at best, prejudice at worst [to the subject of gay rights]."

Nick is also being interviewed in the February edition of Attitude magazine which is out this week. But as I haven't seen that article a separate blog entry will probably follow.

Tories to Scrap Limited Tuition Fees

While it must be applauded that the Conservatives are going to pay college fees plus £5,000 towards living costs of our fallen heroes it is only small fry in terms of higher education commitments.

This would lift (at an average of 2.4 children) 1411 children for the 558 fallen soldiers killed in service since 1990 out of tuition fees. But the Liberal Democrats remain committed to scrapping tuition fees for all first Higher Education degree qualifications. Further than that the Lib Dems will offer full funding for off-the-job training costs for apprenticeships, improve access to HE for under represented groups, and reform the bursary scheme more fairly across universities.

So while the war heroes memorial bursary that the Tories are going set up is good, it only goes so far as far as fairness goes. The Lib Dems will lift all students out of the first need of this scheme. The second part is a worthy cause for the sons and daughters of our noble dead, something that is due consideration.

If You Want Real Change not Mimicry

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"

Is a phrase we often hear but this is how Nick Clegg follows it up writing in today's Times

"So it's a compliment of sorts that the core values of the Liberal Democrats — fairness in society, real change in politics — are now being mimicked by others.

"We are, and have shown ourselves to be, very different from the other two parties. My message to Mr Brown and Mr Cameron is simple: the Liberal Democrats are up for real change. We are not up for sale.

"Mr Brown and Mr Cameron utter fine words about reform and fairness, but their policies aren't even close to what's needed."

So before you get fooled into believing what David or Gordon tells you about how similar the Lib Dems are to either the Conservatives or Labour and waste you vote seeking change where none is due and where none will come from here are four key areas of difference that the Lib Dems not only talk about but have been talking about for years because it is who we are, as outlined by Nick in the same article.

"First: fair taxes. Our plan would mean that the first £10,000 you earn would be free of income tax. This would be paid for by taxing income and capital at the same rate, phasing out special pension subsidies for highest-rate earners, switching tax from income to pollution and introducing a mansion tax on the value of homes above £2 million.

"Second: a fair start for all our children. We will cut class sizes and provide more one-to-one tuition to children by introducing a new "pupil premium" in our schools.

"Third: a fair and sustainable economy that creates jobs. We will use the money from one year's cuts in current spending to create tens of thousands of new jobs in public transport, a national programme of home insulation and new social housing. We will be honest about where savings must be made to balance the books and we will break up the banking system.

"And finally, fair, clean and local politics. We will introduce a fair voting system, ensure that MPs can be sacked by their constituents if they break the rules, return powers to local communities and stop tax avoiders from standing for Parliament, sitting in the House of Lords or donating to political parties."

Nick says we will respect the will of the people, quite right we are democrats after all. The leaders of the other parties are hearing that the people are after change, it is the post-Obama cover all. But they don't really offer it, look at the above and compare it to what Labour are doing and what the Tories are promising.

If you really want change where does it lie? For over 21 years I've known it doesn't lie with either Labour or the Conservatives and indeed for all my adult life that has proven to be the case. They are both perfect imitators but of each other not the Liberal Democrats.

If you want change vote Liberal Democrat. The decision is in your hands.

Labour Admitting Failure on Education

After 12 and half years can a Government who had as its mantra "Education, education, education" be allowed room for error over those at Primary School level? The answer has got to be no.

Yet this morning the Prime Minister and his School's Secretary are going to announce plans to guarantee extra tuition for primary pupils who fall behind. Considering Ed Balls is also calling for a debate with his opposite numbers does he really want to defend that Labour record and that election pledge after 13 years of Labour Government. Brave man.

So why after 12 and half years of Labour controlling the purse strings for most of the UK on education has our current crop of Primary School children been failed to this extent. In Scotland at least the reduction of class sizes in the early years was something that came in as part of a Lib Dem partnership, even it the SNP haven't managed to take it further there is a thrust in Scottish education to give our children the best start possible. The same is not true of England and possibly to an extent Wales.

The other news today that too many of our children are too slow to learn to talk may go part of the way to explaining it. The development of early vocal ability comes from the family of the child. In our society too many parents of young children don't have the time to sit down and spend time with their children to learn these key early skills. However, our education system should then be capable of picking up on these situations and make amends for them as soon after the child enters their doors as possible. Is that too much to ask?

I don't want to hear Brown and Balls using this other breaking news story on the same day as they will be announcing this education proposal as an excuse to get Labour off the hook for over 12 years of failure, failure, failure on education, education, education. For most of that 12 year period we have been reasonably prosperous as a nation and the funding would have been then to set up such a scheme long ago. I doubt this is a new issue that has suddenly dawned on the Department of Education and Children

Is Tom Harris Jealous of a Party with a Principled Stance on Education

Now I know Tom Harris is a Doctor Who fan, a fan of reality TV shows, but his recent blog post contains the phrase "back in the real world". The post in question is about the Lib Dems pledge to keep our promise to axe tuition fees for students.

In a fit of Kerry McCarthy-esque pique he is saying that the Lib Dems are keeping a meaningless pledge as he says we will not be able to enact it in the next parliament. Strangely his own party therefore have made meaningful pledges in each of the last three General Elections and have yet to "honour them" by his own standards. We still have hereditary peers in the Lords. We still haven't eradicated child poverty. As for the pledge before the first Labour win it was all about education, education, education.

Sadly in England and Wales our students find it is all about finding the money, finding the money, finding the money to pay their tuition fees. Back in their real world the failure of the Student Loans Company to provide many with money this last term is horrendous. University hardship funds are having to cover students that they should not normally have to. If students turn to them later this year with genuine hardship issues the funds will be lower than anticipated.

Harris goes on to say that the only way to fund such a pledge is by reducing drastically the number of people entering further education. Strangely his colleagues in Holyrood didn't take that attitude when they did agree to follow through the Lib Dem policy here. See we hadn't been the largest party in the Scottish Parliament but we were able to follow through on our pledges to some extent over eight years. Also there hasn't been a reduction in the number of people in Scotland doing further education since the dropping of tuition fees, what there has been has been a fall in the proportion who drop out because they can no longer afford to attend.

Who knows what the outcome of the next Westminster Election will be? It appears that Tom Harris has stopped fighting to win. Even with a little effort from Labour there may be a hung Parliament, which could mean, oh wait, some party may have to negotiate with another to form a workable Government. If that were the case surely certain of their pledges would end up being meaningful.

So if Tom Harris is saying that the Lib Dems should not form pledges to put before the electorate, what does that mean if his party is well behind in the polls from now until May? Does that mean that his party will not have to bother issuing a manifesto as it will be full of pledges they have no chance of keeping or honouring? Of course not.

What Tom Harris cannot stand is that the Lib Dems are remaining true to a long held education policy when over the last 12 years of Labour Government there have been 12 different Education Bills following the shifting sands and a thirteenth was included in the last Queen's speech.

So maybe Tom should look at the "real world" where everything isn't so Red and Blue. Latest opinion polls are showing once again that over 20% are going to vote Lib Dems and in the run up to previous elections that proportion has gone up. In some of those same polls Labour has been within a margin of error ahead of the Lib Dems. As for students I'm glad to see that Tom Harris takes their concerns, their issues so lightly, in the long run they are the people that he will need to re-elect him. Indeed it may be sooner than he anticipates.

Does Salmond Need an Education in Revealing the Truth

On 5 September 2007 Alex Salmond told Holyrood categorically that the SNPs key election pledge of cutting class sizes for all children in Primaries 1,2 and 3 to 18 or less by the end of this Parliament.

However, it appears he may already have been in receipt of information for one of the education department's senior civil servants that stated that this worthy goal could not have been achieved for 8 to 10 years. That meeting had occurred over two months earlier on 2 July 2007 according to the minute that Labour's Iain Gray produced in yesterday's First Minister's Questions. Mr Gray is now saying that the First Minister is breaking the ministerial code which states that ministers must give "accurate and truthful" advise. This is one pledge that has been repeated over and over. But this is one of the most high profile and early examples that it may have occurred while fresh in the face of contrary advice.

Mr Salmond's spokesman said as way of defence:

"The information (from officials] in July 2007 was to the Cabinet secretary for education, not to the First Minister."

With my former civil servant in a Departmental role I want to say that is not a valid defence in this case. There are two perfectly valid reasons that this would not have excluded Mr Salmond from the loop of such information.

The first is that such a high profile minute would undoubtedly have copied in the Private Office of the First Minister: there are times that the bureaucracy and officiousness of the civil service works for the good. Someone there would surely have highlighted this point and brought it to the First Minister's attention. If not, Fiona Hyslop herself on a subsequent memo in the margin against such a statement would have highlighted that one of the key blanks to the manifesto in her area was unachievable. Having worked in a devolved department in Northern Ireland I know just how much and at what level these things would have been copied over to the OFMDFM (Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister) this sort of meeting would have been one area that that memo was an automatic copy in, even the Administrative Assistant who delivered it would have noticed that as they were getting the document copied.

The second reason would be in cabinet itself. The cabinet meeting after receiving such advice I'm sure that Fiona Hyslop would have been briefed by her Permanent Secretary to raise that issue at the meeting. It would have been a crunch matter for her pre-cabinet minute briefing document, so when as most cabinets do, there is discussion of every member's policy areas she would have had this as probably one of her first two points, if not the top one.

The second reason is most serious. If Salmond does not run his cabinet, and it is only a small cabinet in such a way that Ministers aren't allowed to share their issues of the day with their colleagues he himself is clearly not capable or fit for the job of First Minister. As the Conservative's Murdo Fraser said:

"If true, this is an astonishing state of affairs and no way to run a country.

"Many will find it inconceivable that Alex Salmond was unaware his own senior education advisers had made it crystal clear the SNP's flagship class size pledge could not be delivered in the lifetime of this parliament."

From my knowledge of how the civil service works I would say as above that is is true. Further from my knowledge of how Ministers are briefed ahead of meetings with the First Minister it is also something that would not have been dropped for 2 months and would have been highlighted from numerous sources within their reading of the original memo with urgency to that level. Indeed I can well imagine they would have been several margin notes suggesting that the FM needs to be alerted to this (that is just the way civil servants are).

There are only three options:

• Either Fiona Hyslop failed to alert others of this advice. But the memo of the meeting exists so that is not true
• Or That advice failed to reach the office of the First Minister. Again there are too many civil servants who would have got hold of that information for someone not to have made sure that he did.
• Or that having received the advice in writing or in cabinet Alex Salmond chose to ignore it. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes the reject the improbable of the other two and come to the final conclusion.

If Salmond really thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the other parties about the working of the civil service, especially when two of them where in Government with that same apparatus months before, he really is the Holyrood village idiot ad should sit in the corner in the Dunce's hat and not on the front bench.

However, from the picture above one effect of the demotion of Ms Hyslop is the formation of the West Lothian triangle. The two West Lothian ladies in this party Fiona and Livingston MSP Angela Constance are now seated behind the Linlithgow born First Minister.

SNP Crying Wolf Again

It appears that the SNP instead of being able to run a government are an unruly rabble. When threatened with the Lib Dem led vote of no-confidence in the Education Secretary that was Fiona Hyslop, they had threatened to resign en masse to force an election.

They have threatened to do so before, indeed it is a constant refrain come budget time, indeed you would expect to hear it again soon, only they have already shot that bolt. However, while the price of a child's education may be measured in monetary terms it appears that the keys to Bute House, home of the First Minister, well that is priceless.

The Tories were showing they were a party of principle too in light of all the goings on. They had also called for Hyslop's resignation. Indeed on Sunday Murdo Fraser their Education spokesman had said:

"There is a growing crisis in Scotland's schools. Alex Salmond's SNP is fast losing the trust of teachers and parents.

"His beleaguered Education Secretary is getting more isolated and desperate day by day.

"Conservatives have long argued our schools need greater autonomy to run their own affairs. But centralising all control to the woman in the ministry is a recipe for disaster."

However, given the chance to vote no confidence in that disaster area they said they would abstain. It was only when the SNP failed to woo their often times partners the Scottish Conservative and Nationalist Unionist Party that the threat of resigning became too much for the ego himself, the Thane of Banff & Buchan, Thane of Gordon who would want to be King hereafter, after all he's be thrown away out of that large Georgian Townhouse in all possibility.

However, a change at the helm of education policy isn't going to be enough, we need to move away from fantasy policy making. The only bricks that the SNP have been matching in building new schools may have been on their screens during Tetris in their think pods at Holyrood. They certainly haven't been placed on the ground, or on top of each other.

Was She Removed Before She Lost Confidence

Just what has led to SNP Education Minister being removed from the Education brief in cabinet, after all she has been the SNP education Spokesperson/Minister for quite a number of years now.

There was obviously the shift in blame over teacher numbers. Only last week Hyslop was about to encourage Local Authorities to borrow money to pension off older teachers. This despite them being unable to meet their lower class sizes policy for primaries 1,2 and 3.

Then at the weekend the blame for the falling teacher numbers fell to the local authorities. But surely only a few days before the Education Minister was actively encouraging them to actually cut numbers further, or rather not employ extra. The fact is that there are 1,300 less teachers this year than last. The SNP promised that even with reducing class sizes they would not reduce teacher numbers, the idea was to provide better support for our children. A noble aim but one that has clearly failed.

She threatened to take control of education out of the hands of our local authorities, and control it centrally. She was threatening to nationalise the education of our children. Numerous time I have filled in a null return to my local authority when they ask about the number of children I have and the age they are. Even, indeed especially, because of my civil service background and my parents education background I cannot see how any authority looking after the children of over 5 million citizens is going to improve educational standards. Even in London this was and is devolved down to a local level.

The new Curriculum for Excellence is due to launch next August, affecting 54,000 children across Scotland in P7. Being the son of teachers, one who whom was also a examination marker I know that these things are in place at least a year in advance to allow teachers time to adjust what and how they teach and also so they can see the future marking scheme to assess such a change. Teachers currently are not aware of any of this, therefore one wonders just what level of excellence these teachers are going to be able to provide in a few short months, some of which will be taken up getting their current charges ready.

On Saturday the Lib Dems announced to the other parties in Holyrood that they were going to bring a vote of No Confidence in the Education Minister on Thursday of this week, at today's business meeting. Today before that can happen we learn that she is being removed of that responsibility.

Tavish Scott has made a statement to that effect, but also points out that a change in Education Minister, to Mike Russell, is not going to be enough, the SNP need a change in Education policy. The children of Scotland deserve no less, they do not deserve to be treated as a political football, or an after thought. They deserve the funding they had been getting, going to the local authorities to enable it to be spent as best suits the needs of their children. If the SNP continue to pull the carpet from under our local authorities feet as far as education provision are concerned four years after taking control will be four years lost out of some of our childrens' education that cannot be replaced.

Breaking News - First Cabinet Casualty of Nationalist Government

I see via the Steamie that local Linlithgow resident Fiona Hyslop is the first of the SNP cabinet to be forced from office.

Considering that last week there were almost back to back announcements. The first that Local Authorities were to be encouraged to 'retire' elder teachers to make room (especially within budgets) to allow new teachers to take their places. The second that local were to blame for the fall in teacher numbers.

So the mantle of SNP buck-passing on education policy has been passed from Ms Hyslop to some other sucker, err I mean Mike Russell, who you'd hope is seeking out sound advisors with more care than he monitors what his office manager gets up to.

To be honest I don't envy Mr Russell's task. On the one hand he has Local Authorities some of the them SNP led telling him they don't have enough money to implement SNP education policies. On the other his has his cabinet colleagues and the First Minister casting blame on the Local Authorities, some of them SNP led, for failing to implement SNP education policies. I'd put that down to a lose-lose situation for Mr Russell, maybe equivalent to what the old posting to Northern Ireland used to be in the 70s, 80s and early 90s.