Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin, not
face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the Government's
chosen method of communication. Ordinary
people are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question
which throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member
might reveal himself or herself to be a human being like
us, and not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she
might tell the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September
16, 2004
|
Percentage
of students who sharted courses in 2001 but then dropped
out - published today by the Higher Education Statistics
Agency(HESA)
|
|
Worst
Ten
|
Best
Ten
|
|
Napier
University, Edinburgh..........................37.0% Bolton
Institute of HigherEducation...............35.8% University
of Abertay, Dundee........................30.3% London
Metropolitan University.....................28.1% University
of East London ..............................28.0% University
of Sunderland.................................26.9% Middlesex
University.......................................26.8%
NE Wales Institute for Higher Education ......26.8% University
of Central Lancashire .................. 26.0% University
College, Northampton ................. 25.4%
|
Royal Veterinary College .........................
0.9% University of Cambridge ...........................
1.3% University of Oxford ..................................
2.1% University of Durham ................................
2.3% University of Nottingham ..........................
2.5% London School of Pharmacy ...................... 3.1%
London School of Economics ..................... 3.2% University
of Bath .......................................3.3% University
of Bristol ................................... 3.4% Royal
Welsh College of Music & Drama . 3.6%
|
The
worst failure records are at Institutions which admit large numbers
of students with low entry qualifications, writes Sarah Harris,
Education Correspondent of the Daily Mail, September 30, 2004,
calling into question Government plans to enrol even more people
on degrees.
Colleges
upgraded to University status in the 1990's dominate a league
table of institutions with the worst record on retaining students
for the full period of their degree course. The overall dropout
toll, some 42,000 students a year, costs the taxpayer more than
£300million in tuitiion fees and subsidised student loans.
The worst failure records are at institutions which admit large
numbers of students with low entry qualifications, calling into
question Government plans to enrol even more people on degrees,
Blair
wants to recruit 50% of under-30's to higher education by 2010,
but business leaders say school-leavers should be trained in vocational
skills instead. The former Polytechnics also typically take higher
numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Critics will
argue that working-class students are even more likely to abandon
their courses when top-up fees of up to £3,000/year are
introduced in 2006.
Some
of these may have moved to other institutions or switched to different
qualifications bu 14.1% - one in seven - will have nothing to
show from their money or time. HESA cautioned against comparing
the figures with last year's because of changes in the way they
are calculated. But it has singled out 27 institutions for having
particularly worrying dropout rates, the majority being so-called
new universities. Last year only 17 were highlighted as performing
significantly worse than 'benchmark' targets for retention of
students.
Critics
have warned that universities are increasing opening their doors
to potentially unreliable students as they struggle to fill all
their places. They also cast doubt on the Government's widening
participation drive to increase the numbers of working-class students
if it means they lack qualifications to succeed on courses. Only
1.3% of students abandon Cambridge degrees early while the figure
for Oxford is 2.1%.
Britain
still has among the lowest university dropout rates in the developed
world, according to figures from the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Social
engineers tighten the squeeze
Leading
universities last night united in condemnation of new targets
for the recruitment of state school pupils, writes Laura Clark,
Education Reporter of the Daily Mail, September 30, 2004. They
are being put under pressure to sideline privately-educated students
in favour of state school children with lower qualifications.
Oxfor
has been urged to increase its annual intake of state school students
from the current 55.4% to 77.2%, while Cambridge must aim for
76.8%. Other prestigious universities including Bristol, University
College London, and Imperial College are expected to achieve steep
increases. They have also been saddled with stricter targets for
boosting the numbers from working-class homes and areas where
few residents go to university.
Oxford
said it was 'dismayed' by 'flawed' targets while Cambridge attacked
them as 'unfair to schools, applicants and parents'. The unveiling
of the new 'benchmarks' for the admission of state students sparked
fresh fears over social engineering just weeks after universities
were given the green light to discriminate in favour of disadvantaged
students.
An
official university admission blueprint urged tutors to look beyond
A-level results to accept sixth-formers who add to the 'diversity'
of campuses through social class, race or religion. University
performance figures have revealed how many leading institutions
are already bowing to Government pressure to narrow the social
class gap in higher education. The proportion of pupils from state
schools or colleges admitted in 2002/3 by the elite Russell Group
of 19 institutions rose 2.5% overall, according to data published
today by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.
Oxford
and Cambridge already receive at least twice as many applications
from pupils with straight-A's as they have places available. Out
of students nationally gaining three As at A-level, some 62% attend
State schools or colleges and 38% private. The two universities
are encouraging more applications from state-educated youngsters,
but reaching the HESA target would entail deliberate 'social engineering'
of the crudest kind.
One
HESA official admitted the previous system for calculating the
benchmark was better and the change was a 'shame'. Overall, the
proportion of state school pupils admtted to university rose from
86% in 2001/2 to 87.2% in 2002/3.
Read about the difference in drop-out rates between universities.
Katie
Williams's future put at risk by this Labour Government using
quotas and social engineering
Double
Betrayal
Comment - Daily Mail October 7, 2004
It
comes to something when a world-class university feels so threatened
by interfering politicians that one of the leading lights tells
the Government to 'take its tanks off Oxford's lawns'. The martial
imagery may seem somewhat melodramatic, but Michael Beloff, president
of Trinity College, is in deadly earnest. In its obsession with
social engineering, New Labour has, in effect, declared war on
academic excellence in all our great institutions of learning.
Universities
that have earned a global reputation by selecting only the brightest
and best are now expected to admit more students from state schools
and poorer backgrounds, even if they are less qualified that privately-educated
competitors.
And
if they refuse? Why, the new access regulator won't allow them
to charge full tuition fees. so the greatest names in higher education
must either submit or be brought to their knees. But it isn't
the universities' fault if many students come from private schools.
They try to select on ability, not class. Their problem is that
a mediocre state system too often fails to educate teenagers well
enough for a top-level degree course.
New
Labour is guilty of a double-betrayal. It is not only intent on
dumbing down universities but is miserably failing to ensure that
bright, working-class children get the quality of schooling they
deserve. Instead, it resorts to bullying and blackmail to cover
up those failures. No wonder our best universities - not before
time - dream of gaining independence from this Government of yahoos.
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Defiance
of the democratic process and the will of the majority of we people
of the UK, must be exposed by voters as a matter or urgency, and
not just in the two by-elections we have had this July and the
European elections in June 2004. But how can this be done?
The
most effective way of getting our deceitful PM to resign would
be to mobilise the army of Labour MPs currently in the House of
Commons and get them to demand it, the loss of their seat to be
a penalty if they did not. All voters in Labour-held constituencies
need to write a letter along these lines to their local Labour
MPs:
|
Dear
Despite
his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year
of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's
'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair
has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that
critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence
in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take
immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable
thing and resign without delay..
I
would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and
help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in
Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave
the PM with no option but to resign.
If
I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue
to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances
I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election.
Signed:
|
Simple,
non-violent, protest letters along these lines on a variety of
issues could be the basis for re-vitalising our democracy and
increasing voters' interest and participation in politics. Download
a printable copy of the above letter here.
There
is another way for the voice of the silent majority to be heard,
a voice that made sure broken promises would not only be revealed,
but punished in subsequent elections.
In
the year available before the General Election expected in 2005,
many topics are available as ammunition, each one asking questions.
A weapon for our purpose will be the results of Opinion Polls
in individual constituencies using ICM, NOP, Gallop, Mori
or YouGov.
Questions
suggested for this purpose are listed here.
CAST
YOUR VOTE ON A VARIETY OF OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES HERE.
Current
and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running
for election could share a platform at public forums in every
constituency. They would be presented with the results of
polls on this issue expressed by the majority of voters in that
constituency.
The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their
Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they
intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.
Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged
and the results published on this web site.
Here
is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in
the forthcoming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective
MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote.
This example deals with the proposed
EU Constitutional Treaty.
Your
letters would end: "If you do not answer
this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government
line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election.
Or
why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates
in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions
of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).
Download
a printable example of the questionnaire.
It
is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing
themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives
in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in
their own constituency, even if this means going against their
personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their
case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency,
they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view
of those who elect them.
It
will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters
don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important
subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy.
We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters
do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form
an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of
Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.
Most
important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their
latent interest and obligation to cast their vote, knowing that
the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance
with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be
the result.
Contact
your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public
forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant
topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005.
You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of
your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject
being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected
by your representative in that assembly.
