The village of Sutivan, island of Brac, one hour from Split, Croatia’s second city. An amazing place on the chain of Dalmatian islands in the Adriatic sea. Very peaceful, very remote, fantastic. But there is Wifi unfortunately! I will be disconnecting though in case you miss my blog posts or tweets…

UPDATE: I just received an email from Tangent PLC’s executive director threatening potential legal action for my Tweet earlier suggesting that Gordon’s Brown website wasn’t very well designed:

I respectfully suggest you delete that tweet, issue no more similar ones and generally try to sell your products in a more professional way. I really don’t like the prospect of either a public slanting match or legal action, but if I need to protect my company’s business and reputation, I will.

Nice, I really don’t like being threatened. I am a tiny, tiny start-up business and I was not making a commercial point. A large PLC, working with the Labour party, which is afterall about fairness, threatening to sue a very small company because of a subjective comment on quality of design is really bad form in my opinion.

Since I wrote this piece for Progress in the Autumn of 2008, I have been known in the Labour party as somebody who has quite clear, sometimes forceful thoughts about how we should communicate with new media & the Internet as a party. I may rub some people up the wrong way with my comments, namely Labour HQ, Tangent One (Labour’s IT provider) and previously Derek Draper (although we did make up, not with a kiss mind you…), but I do it in good faith.

I believe that in the 21st century, the Internet is no longer a plaything of the geeks & nerds. In a political context it is now one of the most important tools in any political party’s tool belt for campaigning, fund-raising and engaging with the public. I believe Labour has failed time and time again to fully grasp how to engage with the Internet. They offer up excuses, be it the lack of funds to pay for fancy websites or as one of Gordon Brown’s special advisers told me in a private meeting in No. 10 last September, the fear of “pissing off Rupert Murdoch” if we under-cut the traditional media in favour of new media (this was just days before the Sun trashed Gordon Brown in a highly embarrassing Conference Week front-page). I will not stop publicly saying what I think until I believe Labour has succeeded in becoming a 21st century party. This extends beyond Labour nationally and even into the leadership race, where the vast majority of online activity is dismal in quality and strategic terms.

Tangent One (parent company is Tangent Plc) provides the “WebCreator” platform which, in return for a monthly fee provides a website content management system and templates for MPs, CLPs, Councillors, PPCs and the like all around the country. WebCreator is a cash-cow for Tangent, and is an added revenue stream for the company which develops some brilliant websites for the likes of Levi’s, Channel Five, Cadillac & Borders, and also provides Labour’s national web development services. I don’t take it lightly, but I think it’s time to recognise how much better the WebCreator service needs to be in this day and age. In an age where design on the Internet is crucial, are websites like the following up-to-scratch for communicating political message and engaging with electorates effective:

- http://iwc2.labouronline.org/164931/home (Sheffield Labour Party)
- http://www.brentlabour.org.uk/ (Brent Labour Party)
- http://www.ianaustin.co.uk/ (Ian Austin MP)

These are just a few examples. Anybody who uses the WebCreator system gets a very similar, not very well design web template which actually turns constituents off rather than makes them feel they can engage with their local Labour Party or their Labour MP. The website that inspired me to write this post is the new website for Gordon Brown MP, former Prime Minister and Labour leader:

- http://gordonbrown.org.uk

I apologise if I’m blunt, but this website is not befitting of a former Prime Minister. It has an unprofessional feel to it, and doesn’t portray the image of a statesman and one of Labour’s biggest figures. Tony Blair’s is far better, and it isn’t a Tangent website. It is not about money before people start throwing that excuse in the air. It would have taken an hour for one of Tangent’s top designers to sit down and design a site for our former leader. And when the party has given Tangent so much money over the last few years, you would think that would come for free and without prompting from me.

I’m sure Tangent means well, but it is time for them to stop providing shoddy websites to the Labour community. Eventually there will be an alternative to the anti-competitive Tangent/Labour HQ relationship which makes it hard for Labour politicians to choose other providers, but until then Tangent should in good faith, start providing a better quality service to its most important client.

I know it’s not exactly fashionable nowadays for a Labour member like myself to welcome with open arms a policy of a Conservative Mayor of London. But I’m going to go ahead and do it anyway. The Barclays Cycle Hire scheme, launching next Friday (July 30th) has the potential to revolutionise the way we get around this great metropolis. How long have we looked on to cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam & Zurich with their fancy bicycles and cycle-friendly policies, while we put up with uncivilised busses & tubes?

That it took Boris Johnson, London’s somewhat entertaining, but according to some a serious thinking, Mayor to bring a London-wide cycle scheme which will be accessible to millions of people, is a shame. That doesn’t mean we should look down our noses on it though.

From next Friday, people all over London will have access to bicycles in many local neighbourhoods across town. I’ve already spotted two of them very close to where I live. For an annual membership of £45, users can take a bicycle from their local “docking station”, cycle to their place of work, a restaurant, the shops or a meeting with friends for up-to half an hour completely free. When you consider the amount of London that can be covered in 30 minutes by bicycle, it’s clear that this scheme has the potential to replace thousands of bus & tube journeys per year, and simultaneously improving the health and well-being of Londoners.

As the London Cycling Campaign points out here:

…cycling reduces the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke and promotes good mental health.

Everybody recognises that London is oftentimes a grumpy, frosty city, home to millions of people in too much of a rush to smile, take a deep breath and enjoy the wonders that wandering through this amazing city can bring. If cycling improves the general demeanour of even a small percentage of our commuting population, it will be a great benefit to us all.

Ken Livingstone and Oona King, who are both running for Labour’s endorsement for 2012’s mayoral election should recognise the benefits that this cycle scheme should bring, regardless of the fact that Boris Johnson brought it into being.

This Londoner for one, can’t wait to give the new scheme a spin.

It struck me today, while doing some basic maths, that the estimated total amount of money required to pay for all of the tuition fees (at current levels) for all UK & EU students in the UK (around 1.9 million) would only be around £5billion. I previously assumed that it would be much, much more than this. Let me put this number in perspective:

- £5bn is 1/30th of the total amount of revenue the Treasury raises from income tax;
- £5bn is just under 5% of all national insurance contributions raised per year;
- £5bn is the total amount raises from petroleum, air passenger & spirits taxation revenue;
- £5bn is a tad over a tenth of what the UK spends on defence each year.
* Source: Wikipedia.

Considering that UK students currently have to saddle themselves with tuition and living cost debt, often more than £30,000 worth before they even get onto the jobs market, isn’t it time that we looked at other ways of paying for university education? It is already the case that students in Scotland (either home students there or EU students residing in Scotland) have their tuition fee subsidised by the public purse. It is unethical, unfair and constitutionally baffling that a student in England or Wales should have to break their back with debt when a student in Scotland does not.

When Vince Cable introduced the idea of a graduate tax, I wrote here that I agreed in principle with the idea. But in practice there are a range of problems, not least the fact that the tax effectively “stops at the border” and that EU students, with the legal right to be treated equally with UK students, would be able to study here and then leave having received in-effect a free university education.

The whole of society benefits when a large proportion of its citizens receive university-quality education. It results in better doctors, better engineers, managers and scientists, amongst others, which makes the country run better.

Instead of saddling 18 year olds with tens of thousands of pounds in debt, and instead of a clumsy change to the tax code, why not just raise all taxation by 0.8% across the board to make university education free at the point of use? Now that would be progressive…

We don’t often look to smaller, less influential countries like Portugal when it comes to social & economic policy. Well, at least not until sovereign debt entered the wider public lexicon, and economists, politicians and financially-minded people realised that a failure of a small, quiet south European state to pay its debts had the potential of a knock-on effect on the more prosperous economies of the north.

Portugal has had particular difficulty of late in setting out trustworthy austerity plans, aimed to reduce its deficit, which reached as high as 9.3% of GDP in January this year. In order to shield itself from the effects of the credit crisis, and the ensuing recession, Portugal borrowed billions of euros to pay its bills. Having spent in total around two years living in Portugal, in one of Europe’s most amazing cities Porto, and as a speaker of Portuguese I have had the benefit of being able to follow politics and economics in Portugal relatively closely over the last seven years or so.

This knowledge of how Portugal works as a society and economy has me baffled as to where all of these billions are going. Whenever I contrast government spending and the size of the state of the United Kingdom with that of Portugal, I see two vastly different systems, attitudes and approaches. In the UK, everyone can see and experience the state almost on a regular basis. We have certain social and historical economic problems which one could argue require state intervention, which result in many, many people being dependant on welfare, and millions relying solely on the state for their housing needs. The Portuguese are much more self-reliant, either by spirit or just out of necessity. The footprint of the Portuguese state is smaller than in the UK, for some of the following reasons:

• There isn’t much in the way of a welfare culture. People find ways to make ends meet, and welfare is an absolute, distant option of last resort. It’s more likely that somebody would be helped by family and friends before claiming welfare. You have to work longer and contribute more in order to be paid unemployment benefit and even then the provision is hardly generous.
• There are very few state-provided social housing programmes. Rents are low, it’s relatively easy to purchase properties and overcrowding is not yet a serious issue.
• There is universal healthcare, but it is is hugely underfunded and fees are charged for almost any medical procedure (often significant fees). At least 25% of the population is covered either by private health insurance or by cover from mutuals and receive treatment privately.
• Although active in some conflicts over the last few decades, Portugal is not a major player on the world stage and therefore doesn’t have to spend much on defence.
• The education system is not as expensive as it is not as advanced as in some richer countries. The “functional literacy” rate of Portugal is one of Europe’s lowest. Nearly 50% of all secondary students drop out before completing their education.

Not only does Portugal have a small state, it has quite a large private sector influence in areas which states are often the main players. For example, all major roads in Portugal are owned by private enterprises, and they are free to collect massive amounts in tolls. As I mentioned above, 25% of healthcare is not provided by the public purse. The national airline, TAP Portugal, is to be privatised.

Portugal is currently governed by the centre-left Partido Socialista, under a charismatic Prime Minister Jose Socrates. There is a rising star on the right however, Pedro Coelho, who since taking over the leadership of the centre-right PSD in March has moved sharply to the right, and this is an interesting development. The next election is scheduled for 2014, although the current government is a minority one, and the President has the right to dissolve that government if they cannot deliver or if they cannot effectively slow down Portugal’s economic crisis. Pedro Coelho is more charismatic, younger and seems more in touch with the public than the current PM, and there is every chance that he will be Portugal’s next leader.

Two major developments have happened in the last week which should be of alarm to left-thinking people with an eye on EU countries like Portugal. The first is an attempt by PSD to amend the constitution to remove the right to free universal healthcare for all Portuguese citizens. In a country where the healthcare system already fails in many ways to provide the level of care one would expect of a developed western European country, this is indeed an alarming move which may result in even less Portuguese citizens receiving the treatment they need. Although having said that the Portuguese private healthcare system is much less expensive and more accessible that its equivalent in the UK, Switzerland or USA. The PSD would also like to remove the constitutional right not to be fired from a job without “just cause”.

The second is a speech today in which Coelho sought to further differentiate himself and his party with the centre-left PS. He said that “no more will people be able to say that PS and PSD are the same thing” and that the PS governs on the principle that “only the rich should contribute to the state and the poor should not”. He said he believes that “politicians should not be afraid of making a storm, or of introducing different kinds of policies for government, even if unpopular”. These statements, in conjunction with the attempts to remove minimum barriers to exclusion, equality and fairness from the Portuguese constitution, are a preview to a future government which will take Portugal sharply to the right, and which will see more of Portugal’s state services in the hands of private companies.

In a country which already has such a small state, this will be a very interesting experiment indeed. But if you live in Portugal, just don’t get sick, and don’t get fired otherwise you might view the political philosophy of this rising star as more terrifying than interesting.

Chris Patten is one of the UK’s leading foreign affairs figures. To my sadness, and despite the best efforts of Chatham House, Britain doesn’t really have much of an academic/expert foreign affairs community in the American style. Hilary Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice was an accomplished foreign affairs academic before entering the world of politics, completing her PhD in her 20s on Czech politics in the Soviet era. That she ended up directing US foreign policy, showed a willingness to have experts leading the external affairs policy and implementation of a government, and this policy was continued by Obama when he appointed Dr. Susan Rice as UN Ambassador, who carried out her doctoral studies in Oxford, and who’s dissertation was entitled “Commonwealth Initiative in Zimbabwe”.

Contrast this with the UK, where major appointments at ambassador level are career civil-servants, and where ministers who fill the ranks of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office often have close to zero experience on the world stage, let alone doctorates in international studies. Chris Patten is an exception. After 13 years in Parliament, he took to foreign affairs, taking over the role of governor of Hong Kong from 1992 until the colonial outpost was handed back to China in 1997. Since then he has become something of a foreign affairs academic, as well as an important figure in European foreign policy (having served as Commissioner for External Affairs for four years), and has written several books on Asia, British relations with America and on the changing landscape in foreign affairs.

The Guardian is carrying an interview with Lord Patten today, marking his visit to Gaza. He makes some interesting points, and reading the interview I am baffled as to why William Hague, a man with little foreign affairs experience and not much gravitas in the world (although he is highly educated, with an MBA from much-respected INSEAD in Paris as well as serving a stint at one of the world’s leading management consultancies), is our Foreign Secretary when Patten himself is a Conservative peer. If the world is to tackle and finally resolve the problems in the Levant, we need to be bold and put an end to this idea that we can simply isolate Gaza and allow Israel to continue the status-quo on the ground. It seems Lord Patten agrees, and he thinks Europe and European countries shouldn’t just wait around for America to fix the problem:

“The default European position should not be to wait to find out what the Americans are going to do, and if the Americans don’t do anything to wring our hands. We should be prepared to be more explicit in setting out Europe’s objectives and doing more to try to implement them.”

Patten went on to specifically criticise Israel’s Gaza blockade:

Patten, who found it “easier to get into a maximum security prison in the UK than to enter Gaza”, said Israel’s relaxation of its blockade had not gone far enough. “It’s moved from about minus 10 to about minus eight. It doesn’t do anything to help restore economic activity in Gaza.

And something you would hardly ever hear a leading Western politician saying, that the blockade of Gaza might not have anything to do with security but more to do with punishing Gazans and punishing Hamas:

“It’s difficult to understand what preventing exports has to do with security. It has everything to do with the view that Gaza should be collectively punished to discredit Hamas. Unfortunately there are some centuries, if not millennia, of history that show that does not work. Presumably the international community as well as Israel wants at some stage – sooner rather than later – to be able to persuade Gaza and its political leadership to take a course which will lead to reconciliation and peace and stability. It’s difficult to know how you accomplish that if you deny the people of Gaza any social or economic progress.”

Perhaps over the next few years we will start to see more of an effort to actually sit down and talk to Hamas leaders. The world made a very big strategic mistake after the 2006 elections which resulted with a Hamas leader of Palestine. To dismiss the result of a democratic election, no matter how unsavoury that result, was an insult to everybody in the Palestinian territories. Israel, Europe & America should have sought ways to engage with this group and try to bring them into the fold of moderate statesmanship. The only way the long-standing dispute in Northern Ireland was solved was to sit down with people on all sides. As Patten says:

“You don’t always agree with people you talk to – indeed sometimes you find them despicable – but you need to ease them out of the corners into which they’ve painted themselves rather than lay on the paint much thicker.”

And he goes on to explain how isolating Hamas & Gaza may be counter-productive in the medium-long term anyway:

“I think it’s wholly reasonable to say we couldn’t deal with Hamas unless they agreed to a comprehensive and complete ceasefire. But do we need to insist on them accepting all past agreements? Has Israel accepted all past agreements? If you simply isolate them, do you weaken them? You strengthen people who are even more extreme than they are”.

President Bush, in 1991 made a now infamous speech where he foresaw the coming of a “new world order” through which, and he quoted Churchill, “the principles of justice and fair play would protect the weak against the strong”. He was speaking at the end of the first Gulf War which saw the reversal of Saddam Hussein’s aggression in Kuwait. The President was laying out his vision for a peaceful Middle East, and more broadly a peaceful world where conflicts would be settled, the rule of law via the United Nations would be upheld and where economic development would be “fostered for the sake of peace and prosperity”.

In his speech, there was not a single instance of a loaded and now much-used and misused word: democracy. This is reminiscent of a time when the West, and America in particular didn’t openly push for democracy around the world. The “modus operandi” which the Americans preferred to deploy in previous decades of state manipulation was more likely to involve covert arms shipments to one or more sides of a conflict, the installation and support of undemocratic hard-men and attempts at assassination of specific political figures in different parts of the world.

As economic liberalism took hold, and globalisation slowly marched forward in the 1980s, economics became a tool in pursuing American foreign policy goals. The European Union placed the principle of a free community market unhindered by tariffs and barriers to the movement of goods and people, at the core of its mission to unite Europe. America, and later Europe, could use free trade with the largest markets in the world as a carrot in their efforts to bend certain states to their way of thinking and acting. The founding of the World Trade Organisation in 1995 underlined this principle, and if you look at the current map of WTO members, the vast swathes of land that are in the grey (non-members) are the least “democratic” countries in the world, with the exception of China and some Arab states.

The Middle East is often seen as a troubled part of the world. The 21st century’s largest conflict so far involved a theoretical clash of cultures: George W Bush & Tony Blair vs Osama Bin Laden & Saddam Hussein. The “Christian West” against the “Islamic East”. After 9/11 in New York, the Western world woke up to reality of a body of people numbering more than 400 million, who to varying extents vehemently disagree with the way the United States conducts its foreign policy in the Islamic, and Arab worlds. This led not to a period of reflection in the American psyche, but to a period of extended and deep-felt insecurity and a desire on the parts of many to isolate, put up walls and back off from the world. The Arab was the other, the enemy; Islam was the evil octopus, replacing the Soviet Union as the straw man of choice for those who wanted to pursue war.

It doesn’t take much to pull down these psychological barriers that have been erected between these two important cultures. Spend some time in the Middle East, talk to Arabs, read and absorb media written from the Arab point-of-view and you will quickly realise that there’s not a lot to really separate us. Arab parents want to raise educated, well-rounded children, Arab graduates are looking for the best career opportunities in their chosen fields, Arab entrepreneurs want to build businesses and create jobs, and Arab media figures and artists want to express themselves and entertain their citizens. Religion is important, yes, but the most pressing concerns are around jobs, family security and economic prosperity. People don’t tend to concern themselves with politics as much as in the West.

This “economic happiness” and political disengagement of Arab citizens keeps repressive and undemocratic regimes installed from the kasbahs of Morocco to the beaches of Dubai.

Tunisia is a prime example of this point. This small Arab state at the tip of Africa, the launching point of the ancient Carthaginian Empire and beach destination of choice for tourists from the UK, France & Germany is one of the most economically prosperous countries in the Middle East and Africa. According to the World Economic Forum Tunisia is the most economically competitive nation on the African continent, and 36th most competitive worldwide (ahead of European nations like Portugal, Italy & Greece – 43rd, 49th & 67th respectively). Tunisian children grow up with good education, universal healthcare and the prospect of a good degree from one of the country’s respected universities. They’re promised stable and well paying careers in engineering, medicine or information technology. Year-on-year GDP growth in Tunisia has been impressive despite the global recession.

Tunisia however is run by a government that, according to Amnesty Interational, regularly and systematically abuses the human rights of its citizens. President Ben Ali came to power in November 1987 in a “medical coup” when, after just five weeks as Prime Minister, Ben Ali had President Bourgiba declared medically unfit to run the country. Since his ascent to power, the Tunisian constitution has changed several times to allow Ben Ali further terms in office. Most positions of military, political and business importance are filled by members of the President’s entourage. Major international businesses won’t invest in Tunisia because of alleged bribery by Ben Ali’s own family members. As in most Middle Eastern countries, the Tunisian state created and perpetuates a personality cult around the President; there is a poster of Ben Ali on every street corner and in every business up and down the country. The Internet is censored – on a recent trip to the capital Tunis I was unable to access either YouTube or Flickr as they are deemed a risk to national security by the regime. There is no real political opposition, and elections usually end with more than 90% of the vote going to the incumbent Ben Ali.

The Tunisian example is seen throughout the region. The trade-off between economic prosperity and a concentration of political power in a small elite can be witnessed in Morocco which is an autocratic monarchy disguised as a constitutional one, in Egypt which has been under a repressive “state of emergency” since the assassination of President Sadat in 1981, and in Saudi Arabia which has an aggressive religious police keeping its citizens in-check and following strict cultural & religious traditions. Many other Arab countries follow a combination of these models.

Morocco’s GDP growth last year was 5%, Egypt’s was 4.7% and Saudi enjoys lavish economic success based on its oil revenue. “Economic happiness” is present in all of these places and gives the repressive regimes in these and other countries a convincing answer when people ask why they aren’t more democratic and politically open.

In an age of growing economic insecurity around the world, and the openness of communication provided by the Internet and satellite television which is beamed from Hollywood throughout the Middle East, surely the days of repressive Arab regimes are numbered? It’s hard to say, although there are opportunities for change on the horizon. Morocco’s King Mohammad VI is a relatively young man at 46 and one can only hope that being of a younger generation he may be inclined to adapt a more open way of governing. Speaking recently to a British diplomat in the region, I understand that at the very least, being a relatively young King has led to a willingness to look at global best practice in various areas of society. Time will tell whether or not that will lead to real political reform.

Egypt is holding presidential elections in September 2011. It’s easy to forget that Ayman Nour, the candidate who ran against President Mubarak in 2005 was incarcerated just after the election and kept in prison for four years. This time around, the main opposition contender is Mohamed El-Baradei, the former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Organisation (IAEA), and a respected international diplomat boasting strong relationships with Western diplomats and leaders. It should be harder for the Egyptian state to crack down on a presidential candidate with such international credentials. El-Baradei has recently become a high-profile face of a large group demonstrating against the apparent murder of a young Egyptian man who posted a video online about aggressive police tactics, and this has resulted in the appearance at least of leading a movement for change in Egypt.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, who ascended to the throne in 2005 is seen as something of a moderniser of Saudi culture. Last year he sacked the head of the religious police and appointed the first female minister in the Saudi cabinet, Nora al-Fayez as deputy education minister, pointing toward further reform and inclusiveness in the future.

Tunisia held elections last year, resulting in President Ben Ali’s fifth “mandate” to rule the country until at least 2014. Tunisians who are interested in politics wonder who will replace the ageing Ben Ali. The first lady of the country, Leila Trabelsi has been successful in harvesting her own personal power and fortune, and those of her children. Ben Ali’s son-in-law Sakher al-Materi has built an impressive business empire and was elected as a member of the Tunisian parliament last year. Being married to the President’s daughter has allowed him to create a power base of his own and he is widely seen as one of the most likely successors to his father-in-law’s throne. Perhaps there’s hope though, that when an opportunity for transition of power does come to Tunisia, the parties involved take a long hard look inside themselves and ask if perhaps the Tunisian people, a moderate, educated and forward looking people, might want a say in who runs the country and how it is run. This would send a strong signal to the rest of the region.

Economic prosperity is crucial in the global age. If somebody has a job, they have a stake in their future. If you have children, one of your main concerns in life is to ensure the career success and economic stability of those children. Until now, economic prosperity and relative political stability have helped keep a group of repressive leaders in power in an important region of the world with a massive amount of human capital ready to achieve its potential. It is time that the people of these countries are entrusted with their own destinies. The region will not in a fell swoop turn into a fiery anti-Western, Islamist melting pot if real democracy is “unleashed”, and this mustn’t be used as an excuse to keep the privilege of democracy from nearly half a billion people when we take that privilege so seriously here in Europe, America and in other democratic parts of the world.

As the Churchill quote goes, “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong”. In the case of the Middle East, the freedom of the many is put aside to benefit the few. Justice, fair play and democracy, coupled with economic prosperity, will protect the weak in the Middle East and will result in a self-assured, vibrant and successful Arab world. And that result will be good for the whole world.

Many people are unable to achieve their goals in life because of the heavy debt burden which prospective university students are presented with. The perception that in order to get a good education, one must laden oneself with £30,000+ in debt to cover tuition fees and living costs, is a powerful disincentive to continue education post-18. That’s why I welcome Business Secretary Vince Cable’s announcements today on higher education reform.

The headline suggestion that Mr. Cable has announced today is the replacement of the up-front tuition fee system with a “graduate tax” which would see graduates paying back their student debt through the tax code. The current system already has a link between payback of debt and earnings post-graduation; graduates start to pay back their government-lent tuition fees when they earn £15,000 or above.

The proposed graduate tax would alter the balance between state and individual in a positive way – instead of handing out debt at the start of university, and therefore making students dependent on the state early on, the state pays for one’s education with the bargain that the state will create a job for each graduate in order to be able to pay that debt back. Instead of a large handout of debt, one’s education is paid for at the point of use by the state.

I would like to see more initiatives like this, and I think Labour lost an opportunity to transform the culture of this country by making people slaves to the state instead of freeing people up to achieve their own goals. Tax credits is an example of this: instead of removing people from paying tax, you spend the same amount as the revenue you would lose by reducing the tax burden on the lower-middle income groups on handing out money each week or month to those people, making them clients to state handouts. It even costs more than a tax burden reduction would, because of administrative costs. Tax credits are an amazing achievement of the Labour government but the same goal could be achieved at the same time as making people feel independent and in charge of their own destinies.

Ed Miliband, one of the front-runners in the Labour leadership contest, supports the proposed Graduate Tax:

"the Graduate Tax is a fairer alternative (to tuition fees), and one I’ve been arguing for for some time"

The Graduate Tax will make it easier for people from less privileged backgrounds to become socially mobile through education. This is one of Labour’s principles is it not? Therefore, the whole of the Labour Party should support Cable’s proposal today and work towards removing huge up-front tuition fees which keep those less well-off from achieving their aspirations.

Ideally we would scrap tuition fees for people from certain socio-economic backgrounds altogether.

There’s a bit of a hoo-hah today around the latest news on graduate employability in the UK. According to the Association of Graduate Recruiters, there are now on average almost 70 applicants for every graduate position available. So if you’ve just had your new degree minted, you have a 1 in 70 chance of getting a job that might somehow be related to anything you’ve just spent 3-4 years learning at university. Oh and a sting in the tail comes with the apparent fact that more recruiters than ever are now looking for a 2:1 or a first in the qualifications part of an applicant’s CV.

What does this say about the way we educate our young in this country? I was always uncomfortable with the “let’s get at least 50% of young people into university” mantra that Tony Blair & Gordon Brown spouted as their answer to making Britain more economically competitive in a globalised age where British workers have to compete with Indian, Chinese, European & American counterparts. I mean I’m sure it’s a worthy aim trying to raise the number of people who go to university. Education is one of the most powerful tools we have in improving people’s chances in life. But when more and more people are getting degrees, the law of markets (supply & demand) would suggest that the value of each degree would be reduced.

But alas, hundreds of thousands of young people over the last few years have gone to university and studied for degrees, ending up in a tight market with no work experience and tens of thousands of pounds in debt. Labour did “successfully” raise the number of people going to university: in 2001 only 20% of the population had a degree, but in 2007 that figure went up to 30.8%. But today’s anecdotal evidence reflects on the fact that there are too many graduates, and in a struggling economy, not enough jobs.

Perhaps our graduates are being spoiled and inflexible in demanding higher paying, more professional jobs simply because they have degrees. You can’t really blame them though, this is the system our politicians created. The chief executive of the Association of Graduate Recruiters suggested that graduates might want to be more flexible in their choice of jobs, and even encouraged some to consider working at places like McDonald’s (I can hear a gasp all across Middle England as I write this!). In the light of austerity Britain, his quote is quite apt “Any employment is better than no employment [even] if it’s about flipping burgers or stacking shelves rather than being sat at home feeling sorry for yourself and vegetating”. I do agree Mr. Gilleard, and indeed I worked at McDonald’s when I was unable to find more professional work, without an ounce of shame.

I left school at 16 with a lot of motivation and some good ICT skills. I later went into politics and I’ve been lucky enough to advise Prime Ministers, MPs, presidential candidates and government agencies. I can provide for my family, and I have good work options in the future. I managed all this without a degree. Today, hearing about the exasperations of 2010’s graduates, I have to admit to a pang of schadenfreude and remember all the naysayers in my life who tell me I can’t get to where I want because I don’t have a fancy degree. I’m already half way there, and at least I have a job.

The answer, in my opinion, lies in helping people to find alternative career paths which don’t require a degree. We should make education through primary and secondary better, by implementing the International Baccalaureate which provides a broad, challenging and internationally compatible curriculum. At the same time we should spend more time and money exploring how vocational careers can be developed from an early age. For this we should be looking at Switzerland & Sweden, as well as other countries, for lessons and pointers. One thing is for sure: New Labour’s model of pushing more and more people into university has only de-valued the idea of a degree and has left hundreds of thousands of educated, bright young things on the heap of unemployment. We need to look a-fresh at how we tackle this challenge if we’re to get anywhere near 10 Downing Street ever again.

@chrisjw133 & @clairee_french also wrote on this subject.

My post last week on my daughter’s school situation certainly put the cat among the pigeons. I had a torrent of response, from comments on the post to emails, @ replies on Twitter and today, an article on the Independent’s website by John Rentoul. The vast majority of comments have been supportive – several stories of other parents who have been through the same situation or are currently in the same boat as me with Sophia.

But some responses have been less than supportive. Particularly the ones which suggest that I’m some kind of closet Daily Mail reader because I’m telling a story about a troubling social situation in the UK. The Daily Mail panders to all sorts of people, but believe me I am not one of them. I’m also not a closet racist. I said in my blog post that:

It’s not my fault that I’m "White British", and it’s not my fault that my daughters are.

Notice I used quotemarks around White British. I don’t care about what colour my skin is, or anybody else’s for that matter. I am pro-immigration in a way which the majority of Daily Mail readers would find abhorrent. But I believe New Labour failed to encourage integration of immigrants, and only in the most recent years have we insisted that English language knowledge is a must of people coming to this country. It doesn’t make you a racist, closet racist or in Gordon Brown’s words a “bigot” to raise this issue. That’s one of the reasons Labour lost this election – we fail to understand what the majority of people in this country actually feel about issues, and instead we just gloss everything over in our politically correct, sterilised, Westminster bubble way.

No, the reason I used this line is because the Ofsted report, the official UK Government report on the performance of schools said specifically that “White British/high ability” students were left to drift, and would therefore have a less good education than other children who required more attention because of their often difficult backgrounds which come with a 96% minority ethnic/migrant background. Of course immigrants want the best for their children, no it’s not helpful to boil this down to a question of skin colour but the truth of it is that if you’re a white child, or if you’re a Black or Asian child who is particularly bright, there are schools which will have a detrimental effect on your education, and that’s unacceptable.

John Rentoul wrote today about my piece that:

But no doubt Paul Dacre, avid reader of this blog, will now offer Bozier money for a two-page spread in the Daily Mail headed, "It’s not my fault that I’m White British."

I’m guessing if I were black or Asian, and complaining that my black or Asian children were getting a poor education because of their skin colour, I wouldn’t be associated with the Daily Mail.

I don’t appreciate people in my own party accusing me of being a closet Tory, a closet Mail reader or a closet racist because I raise these issues. Colleagues, we’ve just lost an election because we are OUT OF TOUCH with the British population and the issues which face them. If we think we’ve a chance in hell of re-connecting with that public by 2015, we’d better start having a hard look at how we, the Labour Party, has failed hundreds of thousands of people over the last 13 years.

Our achievements were brilliant, but our failings have sadly resulted in people being cast aside and trapped in welfare & education systems which were designed to help them.