British National Party Public Services News Bulletin w/c May 21, 2007
Subscribe to this and other BNP News Bulletins here http://www.bnp.org.uk/mailing_list.htm
No sign up required, just give your email address, and that's it.

1. TORY BETRAYAL ON GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Why don’t the Tories want people like us to have grammar schools? It’s not because of the PC reasons they give about equality, but because they, like Labour’s ruling elite, want their own kids to go to fancy private schools and end up running Britain, while our kids are handicapped by lousy education at bog-standard comprehensives. The old class attitudes haven’t died; they’ve just taken new form in PC disguise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/05/17/do1703.xml

So now it comes down to pirouettes and forehands. Grammar schools are wrong, says David Willetts, because they favour middle-class parents who can afford to pay for their children to have ballet lessons and tennis coaches. Their crime, he says, is not that they are failing - they are highly successful - but that they are favouring the better-off and those with pushy mothers. Mr Willetts is a likeable, clever, product of a direct-grant school, who has sent his two children to highly selective private schools. He can't have been making a mistake when he made his speech yesterday. He must have known it would horrify the majority of his party. He has alienated just about every middle-class parent by saying that he disapproves of aspiration (except when it comes to his own children). He seems to be saying that his party no longer wants to be associated with mothers who feed their children fish-oil pills, take them to Brownies or help them with their homework. The only pupils he cares about are the 13 per cent who are entitled to free school meals. Not enough of these children attend grammar schools, therefore these schools are evil.

When I asked him last night whether all this was true, he agreed that ‘declining social mobility’ was what worried him most in education - not results or parental satisfaction, children's happiness or what would benefit the country most. What he cared about was that the poorest should not be asked to sit an ‘invidious’ exam at 11 alongside children who may have been coached by more affluent parents and given an unfair advantage. What he couldn't answer was why the Tories didn't attempt to raise the standards in all primary schools, to make sure that everyone had a similar chance at 11, rather than degrading all secondary schools or allowing selection by house price or income. The new Tories have talked about their dislike of grammar schools before. They are worried that the word has connotations with the old elitist Tory party, constantly harking back to the 1950s and only ever reaching out to its core vote. But none of the party has ever said it with such conviction. So what is Mr Willetts up to?

He may have gained John Prescott's vote and given him the leaving present he always wanted. He has certainly made Alastair Campbell's partner, Fiona Millar, happy. But the Tories won't have picked up many new votes. According to the most recent ICM polling, more than three quarters of the public think that bright children should be taught separately to push them further. It's not only Daily Telegraph readers who believe in excellence; Guardian readers have a soft spot for the grammar schools that once heralded the greatest change in social mobility this country has seen. By the 1960s, bright grammar-school pupils, given unprecedented access to opportunity, were beating private school alumni to Oxbridge places on merit alone - a trend that was reversed when most of the schools were closed. Nowadays, Oxford takes only 55 per cent of its pupils from the state sector, compared with 62 per cent in 1969. Tory parliamentary candidates are panicking about what to say on the doorstep. They were issued with an incomprehensible ‘line to take’ yesterday afternoon.

The elders in Mr Willett's party - most of whom went to grammar school - are furious. It was hard enough to cope with the jokes about windmills, but now this public-schooled shadow cabinet appears to be trying to outflank Gordon Brown on the Left. Last night, after an avalanche of criticism on the ConservativeHome website, Mr Willetts posted a reply asking everyone to give him a chance, while the 1922 Committee asked him to come and explain himself. This looks like a Clause 4 moment. The Tories seem to have ditched what they always held dear - a belief that those who worked hard and were talented would be rewarded - to embrace the socialist principle that all must have prizes. Equally bizarrely, Mr Willetts has wholeheartedly endorsed Mr Blair's education policy of pumping vast amounts of money into city academies - which are allowed to select by dramatic or sporting ability, but not by academic talent, and so are encouraged to produce actors and cricketers, not scientists. With one speech, Mr Willetts has taken the focus off Gordon Brown and refocused it on the Opposition. David Cameron's trip to teach at a school in Hull yesterday paled into insignificance compared with what his shadow education secretary was saying to incredulous business leaders at the CBI in London.

They had come to hear how the Tory party would provide them with well educated employees, perhaps through a policy of selection by ability. Instead, they heard Mr Willetts say that the party is committed to comprehensive education, a system that has helped to ensure that more than half the senior figures in the media, politics and law enjoyed a private education. When I rang Tory aides, they seemed surprised as well. They had been briefed that Mr Willetts's speech would be about opening up new schools and encouraging more diversity in education. ‘The 164 grammar schools are fine; we just want to open up a debate about how to make the 24,000 other schools better,’ said one. Another explained: ‘We have already decontaminated the brand by hugging hoodies. We don't need a Clause 4 moment with grammar schools to prove it. We want to move on.’ But other Tory strategists believe that the party needs a break from its ‘naive and nostalgic’ attachment to selection.

They point out that Margaret Thatcher closed a great many grammar schools and never opened one. The Tories have to be careful. Over the past two years, Mr Cameron has shown that he is a natural star at politics, but he has recently proved more shaky on policy. Asking Greg Dyke to become the Tory candidate for Mayor of London was misguided. The proposal this week that Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote on purely English matters was unworkable: you can't have a government that doesn't have a majority on domestic issues. Oliver Letwin's speech on Cameroon Conservatism was unintelligible. Neither Mrs. Thatcher nor Tony Blair announced detailed policies before they entered Number 10. Mr Cameron can win the next election by saying very little, but his party could lose if it keeps talking too much.

2. CALL FOR FREE UNIVERSITY FOR CHILDREN OF ASYLUM SEEKERS

Can you imagine anything more insane and unfair?

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1412241.0.0.php

Universities are calling for the Scottish Executive to waive tuition fees for the children of asylum seekers after it was revealed a small number of students are already being offered degree places. Last night there were warnings that the controversial move to allow the most academically gifted to pursue their studies beyond school could act as incentive for people wanting to come into the UK illegally. Currently, because children of asylum seekers are treated as overseas students if they apply to higher education, they face paying thousands of pounds in fees. Scottish students have their fees paid for them. What makes the situation even more difficult is that asylum seekers cannot legally work to pay for their studies under UK government rules. Asylum seekers are similarly restricted in taking up university education in England and Wales. However, some Scots universities already run small-scale initiatives to scrap fees and provide bursaries for a limited number of high-achieving asylum seekers.

Now Universities Scotland believes it is time for the executive to enable all those who could benefit from a university education to do so. Careers Scotland figures show there are currently 17 asylum seeking school leavers who have been offered a place at a Scottish university in 2007-08, but only three or four will get a place depending on the goodwill of the institutions involved. A spokesman for Universities Scotland, which represents university principals, said: ‘We will ask the executive to consider that children of asylum seekers who attend Scottish secondary schools get the same rights as Scottish domiciled students.

‘There is an anomaly because if they want to go to university they have to pay overseas students fees, but if they want to attend a further education college course part-time they are considered as home students and get the appropriate support. ‘Anyone who has seen the enthusiasm and commitment of these talented children in the Scottish school system will be in no doubt what an asset they could be to Scotland.’ However, Murdo Fraser, education and lifelong learning spokesman for the Scottish Conservative Party, cautioned against the move. ‘There is a very delicate balancing act of providing opportunity to those who want to make an economic contribution to the country, but on the other hand we don't want a situation where there is an incentive to those coming into the country illegally to access free education. ‘Universities are private institutions and can do what they like, but a change in government policy has much wider implications.’ Simon Hodgson, head of policy and communications at the Scottish Refugee Council, backed the call by Universities Scotland. ‘If you can't work then you cannot save money and any payment of fees becomes hugely problematic.

We have a lot of children who have done very well at school, but then cannot go on to the next stage and it is very frustrating for them,’ he said. There was also support from Imelda Devlin, access co-ordinator from Strathclyde University, who oversees the institution's bursary scheme which - along with similar schemes at the universities or Glasgow, Paisley and Glasgow Caledonian - allows one talented asylum seeker a place every year. ‘These children are integrated enough into the Scottish system to come out with excellent Highers results and then they come up against this barrier,’ she said. ‘They are often the top performers in their school, but that is where it has to stop because the funding doesn't allow them to go any further. We would support any move to make this more available.’

3. UK’S CONGESTION HOTSPOTS REVEALED

Ultimately, the only effective way to reduce congestion will be to stop mass immigration and return foreigners to their native countries. With the population keep increasing at the rate of the last ten years, any investment in transport will merely chase a moving target.

http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/article-115516.html

The nation’s worst congestion hotspot is the southern end of the M1, according to a new report launched this week by Trafficmaster and the RAC Foundation. The first UK Congestion Report takes the theme of commuting and shows the extent of Britain’s congestion by identifying the UK’s top five congestion hotspots and assessing average journey times on the country’s major routes.

The top five UK congestion hotspots (May 2006- April 2007) were: Road – Location - Trafficmaster congestion alerts 1. M1 - Home counties - J6a-J11 - 145,641 2. M25 - Western sector J9-J20 - 140,822 3. M25 - Northern sector J21-J28 - 110,521 4. M6 - West Midlands J3a-J11a - 98,671 5. M6 - North Mids/N. West J11-J21a - 78,453 The M25 and M6 both have two top five entries but were well beaten by the M1. Junction 6a to junction 11 on the M1 near Luton was worst of all over the past 12 months. Regular congestion in this area has been exacerbated by long-term road works due to widening. Trafficmaster data shows that in the year to April 2007, congestion on this particular stretch of the M1 was almost twice as bad as the M6 through Birmingham, making it the nation’s current traffic hotspot by some distance.

The M1 is closely followed by the western sector of the M25, near Heathrow Airport. Overall, Trafficmaster reports the UK has seen a 0.8% increase in congestion in the first quarter of 2007, compared to 2006. According to the CBI, congestion is estimated to cost the UK economy as much as £20 billion per year in resources and lost time, meaning an additional £160 million has already been added to this figure in the first three months of 2007 – around £74,000 every hour. The report also highlights how using less obvious routes to get from A to B can save you hours simply by avoiding congestion. Trafficmaster conducted a ‘virtual study’ of some of the nation’s most popular journeys over a seven day period, comparing the typical route used by most drivers with another parallel, less obvious option.

The study shows many of the supposed ‘faster’ routes actually meant arriving later, often because they are indirect, or run through congestion hotspots. The top five Parallel Routes for weekly time-savings were: 1. Manchester to Leeds (M62 vs. A628/M1) Winner M62 weekly saving 2 hours, 25 minutes 2. London to Norwich (A12/A14/A140 vs. M11/A11) Winner M11 weekly saving 1 hour, 50 minutes 3. London to Exeter (M3/A303 vs. M4/M5) Winner A303 weekly saving 1 hour, 10 minutes 4. Edinburgh to Glasgow (M8/A8 vs. M9/M876) Winner M8 weekly saving 1 hour 5. York to Newcastle (A64/A1M vs. A19) Winner A19 weekly saving 20 minutes Philip Hale, spokesman for Trafficmaster, said: ‘We all know where our local congestion black spots are – and many people have heard of some of the nation’s worst roads.

The problem is we all continue to use these roads when they’re most congested, despite knowing we’re likely to hit a traffic jam. ‘Our Congestion Report shows that congestion is a nationwide problem and is still on the increase. The first step in reducing the problem is identifying and avoiding it. In our experience, you can use alternative routes to literally save hours – and we’ve proved it in our virtual driver test.’ Further insight from the UK Congestion Report shows that while the majority of rush hour commuting happens between 7:30am and 8:30am, peak commuter hours get earlier as the week progresses – we get up earlier but also leave work earlier with the weekend on the horizon. On Fridays in the North East, for example, commuters leave for home as early as 2:40pm whereas in the North West workers are still driving home as late as 6pm. London has the longest spread of peak traffic and the concern is that other conurbations will soon be catching up as traffic grows.

Trafficmaster and the RAC Foundation believe the ability to navigate by real road speeds and around jams could help reduce congestion for all drivers. Trafficmaster’s Smartnav customers already save an average of four hours a month on the road, by avoiding jams and taking the best routes, equivalent to 300,000 working days each year. RAC Foundation research for the Report found 20 per cent of company car drivers spend more than five hours a week in congestion, but half find their employers ‘not at all’ supportive over flexible work practices to avoid commuting. Edmund King, Executive Director of the RAC Foundation, said: ‘We must get smarter by using traffic information and in-car technology to avoid the worst congestion. We must also change the way we work and time when we commute to reduce congestion and pollution. Travelling out of the peak or working from home one day a week can have great benefits for the economy and environment.’

4. DARLING TO AXE 2,500 POST OFFICES, BUT WILL NOT SAY WHERE

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2081519,00.html

Trade and industry secretary Alistair Darling will today confirm that he will close 2,500 post offices, mainly in rural areas, although their particular locations will not known for up to 18 months. The government has declared the present 14,000 post offices to be unsustainable, with many dependent on as few as 100 customers. Various attempts to transform such offices into community hubs have been only partly successful. The trade and industry department has set fresh criteria for location of post offices so that 99% of the population are within three miles of one, and 90% are within one mile. This will result in a big cut in rural offices, and an outcry among those that claim such offices act as the focal point of village life; in consequence, ministers deferred any decision until after the May elections.

The criteria set out in December proposed that in the most remote areas 95% of the population would be within six miles of a post office. The Conservatives are certain to claim the announcement is being made on a day when many political eyes will be on the news that Gordon Brown is being elected unopposed to the Labour leadership. Ministers will try to lessen the blow in rural areas by promising mobile post offices, free-to-use cash machines, or post offices set up in community halls. Sub postmasters who leave the industry will be compensated. The government will claim that it has invested £2bn in the network since 1999, including £500m designed to make the offices usable by 20m bank customers; it says 4m fewer customers use the post office every week thantwo years ago, and losses have mounted to £4m per week. Stamps can now be bought at shops, benefits are increasingly paid into bank accounts, and utility bills can be paid direct - depriving offices of an increasing amount of traffic. Nationally, 8.7m out of the 11m pensioners, for instance, receive their pension direct into a bank account. If purely commercial criteria were applied, the network would fall to 4,000.