Denzil Coulson

Amanda, Joshua and I wish all of my readers a very merry Christmas. May this time with your loved ones be filled with many blessings. Enjoy the rest. I know I will after the delivery of all the Christmas cards to my ward residents.

 Lord Mandelson crudely chose 3 days before Christmas to “bury bad news” by announcing slashing cuts to teaching staff at universities. The consequences will be far-reaching and damaging to our UK tertiary sector.

The cuts are as much as £135 million and universities were already ordered to find £180 million of cuts over 18 months earlier this year. So - for general election purposes - schools were given immunity from budget cuts in the Pre-Budget Review but universities are going to pay the price instead. This means that tuition fees will rise well above £3 225 per year as universities struggle to find the extra cash and more rich foreign students will be recruited to try to make up the shortfall - putting our students at a distinct disadvantage to the rest of the world.

So what went wrong? In my view, the Labour Government tried to be egalitarian too far too quickly and encouraged many institutions such as colleges to become universities to meet the Labour demand that all young people should have a university education without considering the needs of the UK economy and world demand. It is one thing having the degree but is it worth it with no graduate jobs available for many to go to?

All that Labour did was throw money at the problem without encouraging universities to analyse the needs of the economy. Now that things are financially desperate, Lord Mandelson’s cuts mean that many deserving students will be caught in the crossfire and we may lose out on a large number of potentially excellent graduates - either because of exhorbitant tuition fees or no lecturers to teach them.

Universities should be there to train students based on their educational abilities and not on the ability to pay. That is why I support free tuition fees because graduates will contribute and give back to the UK economy through taxation. But what you have now is a system where only the more well-off will be able to go to university and most students will be saddled with debt putting off the buying of homes for example. How does this help our economy?

If I was in charge of education - as this is my field - I would promote more apprenticeships as well as colleges that teach the skills that the economy needs. I would not spread the false notion that university is for everyone - rather that there are many other avenues and paths to education for the future. This would relieve the pressure on our universities providing free tuition to those who demonstrate the aptitude and ability to be successful graduates.  

I was most amused to see Rage Against The Machine’s song, Killing In The Name, take the top spot away from what would have probably been yet another X-Factor No.1.

I was amused not by the fact that this dreadful song beat out Joe McElderry but more by the fact that this X-Factor single, The Climb, sold 450 000 copies in its opening week - more than the song probably deserved. The increased sales were clearly fuelled by Rage’s Facebook campaign, which was far from “raging against the machine” of the Simon Cowell music machine. To think this is quite delusional. Rage Against The Machine have clearly profitted from this campaign as they have pledged only to give some of their proceeds to charity. They are pocketing money from the very machine of the music industry they are raging against.

The reason why X-Factor and Simon Cowell are successful is that the show gives the people what they want - entertainment. Is it such a bad thing for aspiring contestants to audition for fame and fortune? Let’s face it - the show has produced one of the UK’s biggest exports in Leona Lewis (the only worthy winner out of all the series of X-Factor in my view) earning revenue not only for herself but also for the record companies keeping the UK music industry innovative, successful and keeping UK jobs. Would ITV have survived without X-Factor? Think of how many jobs and families would have been affected if ITV ever folded?

Yes - I am a fan of X-Factor because of the talent and entertainment it has produced over the last 6 years. It is one of those family programmes where all of us in my family can enjoy and spar over who we should vote for every Saturday. My 8-year old son was a staunch fan of Jedward enjoying winding me up against my favourite, Stacey Solomon. Incidentally, Stacey was at King Solomon High School in Ilford - a school I taught at for 6 months back in 1999. She wasn’t at the school at the time (she was probably there from 2001 to 2006 judging from her age) but I felt proud that a working class girl from Dagenham had such a wonderful opportunity to get so far in the show. And I was proud to vote for her each week.

After all, with viewing figures of over 13 million for the final shows, are half of the UK viewing population wrong in supporting the machine? Although I don’t think Joe McElderry is in the same class as Leona Lewis, JLS or Alexandra Burke, I do hope that the X-Factor succeeds in finding more first-class talent in future. Anything is better than the dreadful Killing In The Name single. Where is the talent there?

At first glance, the Copenhagen Accord passed yesterday seems to reflect Brokenhagen rather than a real commitment to reduce carbon emissions damaging our planet and its climate. Judging from the Accord, which can be found at this link here, it appears that the accord requires a mere recognition that countries must ensure that the global temperature rise not exceed 2 degrees Celcius.

But the Accord is ”toothless” if it is not made legally binding. At the moment, it appears to leave each country to its own devices in trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. Although President Barack Obama’s efforts to save the summit from total collapse appear admirable, it will be totally meaningless if the Accord is not made legally binding anytime soon.

I am left with many questions about Copenhagen such as why there were such high expectations of a binding agreement when the disagreements about process starkly highlighted the differences and concerns raised by “rich” and “poor” nations. Surely the conference organisers could have foreseen these conflicts and played down some of the unrealistically high expectations for a legally binding agreement? The whole summit appears to have been very badly managed in trying to take account of each nation’s national interests.

Tonight’s council meeting was a golden opportunity for Woking Borough Council to support the 10:10 campaign to reduce our council’s carbon emissions by 10% during 2010.

Instead Woking Tories voted against our Lib Dem motion to take up the issue tonight for debate. It was kicked over to the Tory Executive meeting for debate on 7 January 2010 by 18 votes against our 16 votes for debate tonight.

Due to a procedural ruling, the Tories didn’t have to explain themselves. Is the reason for the Tory dithering to do with the fact that any possible climate change denialists within their group would not be exposed?

If the Tories at front bench level led by David Cameron could see themselves supporting the 10:10 campaign as well as other Tory-led councils such as Mole Valley, what is the problem with Woking Tories? Surely there is a national consensus amongst all parties that unless we act now, climate change consequences will become irreversible in our lifetime?

With over 50 000 individuals, organisations and businesses signed up to the 10:10 campaign, tonight would have been the perfect opportunity for Woking to declare its support at the same time as the Copenhagen Climate Summit taking place now until 18 December. After all, Woking Council is supposed to be a Beacon Council for the Environment. 

I fear that Woking Tories do not share the green credentials of their national party leader or the urgency of tackling climate change - even while the planet burns… 

The Chancellor has ducked the hard choices on spending and cuts. Instead of facing up to reality he has chosen to move the goal posts by relying on fanciful growth forecasts.  He could have used this Budget to make the tax system fairer.  But instead people on middle incomes will be paying more tax while those at the top end continue to enjoy their loopholes.  

The bankers’ payroll tax is the worst type of gesture politics and a gift wrapped invitation to tax avoidance. The hidden costs of this budget will be borne by low paid workers who face a cut in wages because of the 1% pay rise – which is lower than inflation – and an increase in tax for NICS. 

This was the most fiscally irresponsible Labour budget or pre budget report we have seen in the last 12 years. While it is right that the economy needs to be supported with public spending until we are truly out of recession, it is reckless to announce increased spending for 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. The country cannot afford for Labour to carry on spending outside our means.

The Chancellor has totally failed to be clear as to where the axe will need to fall to tackle the structural deficit; simply squeezing budgets will lead salami slicing of key services. The public have a right to know how each party would balance the books.

The Labour party may talk of fairness but when it comes to raising taxes, they have slapped a 1% tax increase on peoples incomes, increasing everyone’s marginal rate of tax and making people earning over £20,000 worse off.

The 50% Bank Pay Roll tax is the worst type of gesture politics, even the Treasury hopes to only raise a paltry £500m out of the estimated £5bn which will be paid out by banks this year. The reality is that this tax will be easily avoided and raise virtually nothing.

The Government’s plan will hit the poorest the hardest, while some one on £15,000 will only see their pay rise by £150 some one on £150,000 will see their pay increase £1,500. The Liberal Democrats propose a tow year £400 pay cap so that those on low incomes can see real increases in their pay while those on the highest incomes will feel the pain.

At least half of the 38 Ministers and officials that the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) are taking to the Copenhagen Conference will be travelling by plane, research by the Liberal Democrats has revealed. The information was released in answer to Parliamentary Questions.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Simon Hughes will be travelling to the Copenhagen conference by train next weekend. The cost of his travel will be cheaper than the average £460 that DECC is paying to send each of its ministers and civil servants to the Conference. Commenting, Simon Hughes said:“It’s a disgrace that ministers and officials are flying today to attend the Copenhagen Conference.

“They are supposed to be discussing how to save the world from a climate crisis and yet many of them are using the most polluting form of transport available - and at a very high cost to the public.

“I will be travelling to the conference by train, a method of transport far less damaging to the environment. It may take a little longer to get there, but it certainly will cost less than the people at the Department of Climate Change are spending on their travel.

“Labour has to wake up and realise that words are not what is needed to avert a climate crisis, it is real action that counts.”