Gove had the right idea with the poorest of implementation.

Education Secretary Michael Gove is under pressure from all sides. 

‘Exams are getting easier’ has been a reoccurring discourse at this time of every year for the past twenty years. Teachers have insisted that it is their improved planning and continued dedication to the job that has consistently improved GCSE results for the last two decades or so. Yet, even the most ardent supporter of our education system would admit behind closed doors, and off the record, that the exams could and probably should be a bit harder.

However, the solution to the problem is not to increase the grade boundaries mid-way through the year without actually telling anybody. We’re currently having to deal with exam boards being threatened with legal action from head-teachers at schools and ‘C Grade’ students receiving D’s and struggling with entry into sixth forms – not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.

So what’s the solution I hear you ask? Firstly, I believe we as a nation have to escape the stigma that is attached to students not going to university and wishing to complete vocational qualifications or to undertake an apprenticeship. We need to produce skilled workers within the country that are capable of working different trades and for their commitment to these trades not to be shunned by heads looking to increase their grades in subjects that will never be relevant to their place in the working world and beyond. Embrace those looking to achieve excellence in trades such as mechanics, plumbing and bricklaying. Do not ostracise them as ‘non-academics’ and therefore unsuccessful.   

Further, we do need to reform the GCSE qualification in the future and Education Secretary Michael Gove’s plan to bring back the O Level is not far off of the mark. We have clearly fallen behind the standards that we once set in education and the qualifications we receive at sixteen years of age are no longer rivalling that of other nations. Many students can breeze through school, picking up top grades, setting the wrong attitude for later life. And I can tell you now that even a Bachelors’ Degree and a Masters will not allow me to stroll into my dream job. We’re going through difficult times as a country, a continent, even a world. But if we renew the principles that we once set and win back the lead in the education, we will stand more chance of producing a higher number of harder working, determined and articulate individuals from our schools.

So the stall is set. Let us and our teachers care less about statistics. Less about 12 A* GCSEs. And more about a world in which the potential is there for everybody to succeed as equals, whether you’re going to be a future Oxbridge graduate, or an apprentice mechanic. Success isn’t pre-determined by pretty looking pieces of paper. It requires hard work and endeavour, something we as Brits know we can do best.

MPs Right to Vote in Favour of Parliamentary Inquiry

Ed Miliband and David Cameron clash over Barclays inquiry 

The Barclays banking scandal has again reignited the need for transparency in the British political and banking sectors. Three senior Barclays executives have left their posts after the manipulation of a key inter-bank borrowing rate by Barclays traders. The manipulation made Barclays appear to be a much more lucrative investment for traders, and eventually cost the bank a fine of £290million.

This criminal activity from the bank forced the House of Commons to launch a Parliamentary Inquiry into "professional standards in the banking industry". Yet the Labour Party was not of the belief that this was enough. Ed Miliband had proposed a two-stage public inquiry that would focus on the allegations facing Barclays to report by the end of this year, followed by a ‘Leveson-style’ year-long probe into banking standards and practices. Surely Mr. Miliband must be aware that this pain-staking long mode of investigation is just not necessary. People in this country are battling with a double dip recession and crippling financial constraints. The last thing they want to hear is that we may have some recommendations regarding improving the banking system at the start of 2014. We want action now!

And it is exactly those types of calls that were answered by MPs, who voted for a parliamentary inquiry by 330 votes to 226, a majority of 104. So what we as the public require now is a rigorous, detailed examination of exactly how the banking system currently operates, where its pitfalls are located, and legislative changes to combat those pitfalls.

Prime Minister David Cameron told the Commons: "People want to know that crime in our banks, crime in our financial services, will be pursued and punished like crimes on our streets." People want to know that executives running banking and financial institutions are behaving responsibly, and if they are found not to be doing so, that they are held accountable for their actions and correctly punished as a result. Altering interest rates for the benefit of an institution is a criminal offence and deserves a criminal punishment.    

Currently, Barclays has been slapped with a multimillion pound fine and three executives have left the company by their own choice. Not only were they not sacked, they may even receive vast pay-offs after leaving their positions! Justice well and truly served again. The Treasury Select Committee need to get to the bottom of this inexplicable mess as soon as possible in order not to risk further speculative gambles from executives who are well aware that the worst punishment they will currently receive is to be potentially asked if they would leave their job in return for a lucrative sum of cash. Over to you Dave..

A Free Press is Vital, Just Put It on a Leash

As the Leveson enquiry approaches the finish line, I feel somewhat obligated to underline the importance of the free press to Britain and throughout the world. The free press, when acting out the role is it designed to do, holds government accountable for their actions, keeps MPs on their toes and forces companies into more ethical procedures all round. The enquiry was commissioned to seek out whether the press should be regulated or censored in the future, to avoid further incidents such as the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed the entire news media in 2011 and still today.

The current body in charge of regulating the British press is known as the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), which of course contains several editors of national newspapers. Therefore, it is essentially a system of self regulation in which a few of the ‘old boys’ get together over some extortionately-priced whisky to discuss what celebrity is going to get their mobile phone hacked next.   

This is not good enough for the British general public. It is unacceptable and it needs to change. What I propose, and it seems many are in agreement with this view, is a total disbanding and abolishment of the PCC and to replace it with a government funded (but independent of the government) Ofcom-type institution. This institution would investigate complaints from the public but it would also watch over the press to make sure that its ‘house is in order’ and to maintain the type of standards that brought it to the forefront of journalism in the first place.

It is not to say that recently the press have not produced some magnificent pieces of journalism. In 2009, The Telegraph exposed the MPs expenses scandal that led to politicians such as the Conservative Peter Viggers being sacked for claiming a £30,000 duck island in his garden with taxpayers’ money. Furthermore, the News of the World unravelled the corruption that was occurring within the Pakistan cricket team in a test series against England in the summer of 2010, culminating in four players receiving prison sentences.

So, if we were able to combine the type of excellent journalism that I have spoken about above, and then with proper regulation, constrict the type of illegal methods used to gain information, there is the potential for our press to reach the heights that made it so prestigious in the beginning. But we must resist calls for government regulation or any type of censorship. A free press is vital for the future democracy of Britain. It cannot be influenced by marketing and advertisers and it must not be influenced by the government. We live in a country whereby government propaganda is not entirely pertinent, and it must continue to stay that way. Or we as citizens will inadvertently lose the very rights we pride ourselves in having. 

Tory’s NHS reforms going in the right direction?

David Cameron with Health Secretary Andrew Lansley (right)

As a fully-paid Conservative member it pains me to say that I do not agree with their plans to completely overhaul the NHS. I do agree that the NHS needs to be reviewed and reforms need to be made, but The Health and Social Care Bill, in my opinion, is not the answer.

The Bill will see large amounts of public sector work being transferred to the private sector, and alarmingly, allowing GPs themselves to manage their own budgets and to decide treatments accordingly. The idea of such a notion is to remove the vast amounts of bureaucracy that clog up the NHS, wasting its already crippled budget on needless layering, with managers being paid a lot to do a little – an idea that is welcomed among many citizens, including myself.

But I’m not so sure that allowing the GPs to manage their own budgets is the answer. The government have made assurances that doctors will never feel the need to choose cheaper, less effective treatments for patients, to crunch the numbers. Yet, how can they guarantee this? If I’m a GP and one treatment will force me over my budget for the month, whilst the alternative (which of course isn’t as good) will allow me to stay on target, which one am I going to choose?! It’s obvious.

Furthermore, no mention has been made of any changes to the training that GPs and medical students will receive to actually implement these changes. Are the doctors going to be taught basic accountancy skills? Is basic accountancy going to have to be added to an already demanding seven-year long degree course to become a doctor?

If the government want long-term plans to save money with the NHS, they need to think bigger than this. They need to think of more effective ways of increasing the efficiency of every aspect of the institution, not just budget control. They need to consider easier ways of making appointments, more drop-in clinics, more contact time with patients to avoid mistaken diagnoses which are becoming all too common. Now I’m not going to sit here and ‘GP bash’ because it is far too common, it’s unfair and it’s unproductive. But it has to be said, if the government want productivity improved, they need to make sure their doctors get off of Google when making their diagnosis and actually focus on the patient themselves.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley says that the unions criticising these plans, namely the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Midwives, are an example of them just “want[ing] to have a go at the government”. I think there might be a little bit more to it than that Andrew!

Improving the efficiency of the NHS isn’t just based on crunching the numbers and reducing the deficit (although of course being a Tory, deficit reduction is one of my main economic policy beliefs), it’s about actually improving the care and treatment that patients receive. I hope the government doesn’t forget such a simple fact.   

  

Fergie: To buy or not to buy?

Sir Alex Ferguson shocked us all just over a week ago with the announcement of Paul Scholes coming out of retirement, as Manchester United’s solitary signing so far in this January transfer window – a move that has left some United fans excited, whilst leaving others scratching their heads.

The previous summer was marked by the Red Devils by making three major signings in the mould of Ashley Young, Phil Jones and David de Gea at a cost of around £50million. Although, the major debate surrounding the club was not so much about the players they had acquired, it was the one they had not, namely the creative midfield player - Inter Milan’s Wesley Sneijder.

Fergie’s logic was clear: The young Tom Cleverley is the future of the club and spending £30million+ on a 27 year old is not part of the long term plans. However, after being propelled straight into the first-team, and a blistering start to the season, Cleverley has found himself on the sidelines as a long term injury absentee. And it must be said, United’s midfield has been lacking something ever since.

We now find ourselves in the January transfer window; a time when Sir Alex has previously warned fans that he will not do business that doesn’t represent good value for the club. And the news travels that Paul Scholes has signed a deal that will see him play for the club until the end of the season, revealing he missed football after retiring in the summer of 2011.

So what does this deal represent for United? A lack of money to spend? A failure to attract the talent required? Probably a bit of both. It is common knowledge that the red side of Manchester are no longer the club with the largest financial clout in the Premier League. But it is clear there is money to be spent when the right player at the right age can be found.

So don’t be surprised if this summer, Manchester United spend big money on a creative central midfield player. But also don’t be surprised if he’s not yet the finished product. Because United have one advantage over many of their rivals, a vast scouting network that can uncover gems like Javier Hernandez for £6million. Because of United’s financial situation, resale value is now crucial for every player they sign. Young players like Chris Smalling and Phil Jones, purchased for a combined value of £28million, will be worth that each in a few years to come – the long term game is the one United play now, one that requires patience from fans. Especially at the current time, when the squad are clearly in transition, and a changing of the ‘old guard’ is taking place.   

But for any worried United fans, the future is bright, and they will continue to attract young, talented players – just beware that Barcelona and Real Madrid will be watching them; although another £80million or so doesn’t sound so bad does it..?