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
|
£1/2million
fines on top universities in the push for state pupils
By
Sarah Harris - Education Correspondent, Daily Mail, November 9,
2004
Elite
Universities were yesterday threatened with fines of up to £500,000
unless they admit more state pupils. A new Government watchdog
is putting pressure on them to admit more disadvantaged students
and plough much of the money raised by top-up fees into subsidising
them.
The
Office for Fair Access said yesterday up to £200million/year
could be put back into bursaries to help poorer students. It said
universities that are currently failing to attract enough students
from poor back-grounds will be expected to offer the biggest bursaries.
The
Russell Group, which represents 19 top universities, questioned
how they could be expected to plough so much of their extra fee
income 'back into the pockets' of poorer students. Professor Michael
Sterling, its chairman, claimed the bulk of the £200million
would be met by a few institutions.
When
top-up fees are introduced in 2006 universities must draw up 'access
agreements' with Offa in order to charge fees of up to £3000/year.
The agreements are designed to boost the number of students from
working-class backgrounds. Offa will have the power to withdraw
a university's right to charge top-up fees or in extreme cases
fine it up to £500,000 if there is a 'serious and wilful'
breach of its access agreement.
The
maxinum state grant, for students whose families earn less than
£15,970/year, will be £2,700. Universities have been
told that if they charge £3000 they must offer poor students
bursaries of at least £300 to make up the difference. But
the new Offa guidance says universities that are failing to attract
enough state school pupils should offer their poorest students
bigger bursaries.
The
guidance says: 'It is up to each university to decide, dependent
on its access needs and priorities, what proportions of additional
variable fee income it assigns to bursaries and/or outreach and
any other financial support. However, we expect that institutions
whose records suggest they have furthest to go in attracting a
wider range of applications may wish to invest more than others.'
Former
polytechnics often have large proportions of students from poorer
backgrounds. But elite universities will be among those deemed
to have 'furthest to go'. They will be expected to set 'reasonably
stretching targets' for widening access.
Sir
Martin Harris, head of Offa, has cited the Higher Education Statistic
Agency's (HESA) published data as a possible goal for such targets.
HESA's latest 'benchmarks' provoked anger among universities as
they massively increase targets for state students. The body has
demanded that Oxford and Cambridge increase their intake of state
school students from just over half to 77%.
Professor
Sterling said: "I am concerned that there is effectively
a hidden benchmark in all this despite the fact that everyone
says it's up to the universities to set their own targets. A large
proportion of the sector is already at their benchmark targets
and that £200million would have to be spent by relatively
very few institutions. They would have to put such a high proportion
of their additional income into this that they would be in danger
of not delivering additional quality."
Sir
Martin insisted that Offa would work with a 'light touch'. He
said universities would not be fined for failing to meet their
targets as long as they showed their commitment to reaching them.
Last
night, Tory education spokesman Chris Gayling said: "Offa
has nothing to do with improving standards in higher education.
Rather, it is the creation of Labour backbenchers ' blind prejudice'.
For
the health of our democracy, we, the people of the United Kingdom,
must find a way to force Mr Blair to resign
Such
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.
