Joe Armitage: It's time to nationalise exam marking

Joe Armitage is a Conservative activist and works for a Conservative MP.  Follow him on Twitter.

The scepticism about the success of the country’s students in GCSE and A-Level exams has not subsided, not least because none of Michael Gove’s reforms have been implemented yet. It is certainly to the Secretary of State’s credit that he intends to end bite-size modules, ensure tougher questions and demand a higher bar for achieving the grade acknowledged as a satisfactory pass - grade C. However, the proposed reforms themselves cannot be attributed to the reduction of A*/A grades at A-Level, by virtue of the fact they have not yet been applied.

It may well be that it is the very prospect of reform that has encouraged exam boards to up the ante and enhance the academic rigour of their papers. The reduction in high achievers may even be because teaching standards were as high as feasibly possible last year, and technological advances such as computers and the internet have done all they can to allow students to obtain the highest grades. However, I am suspicious of the Mount Everest analogy, where it is said the fact only two individuals climbed Everest in 1953 but that over 300 climbed it in 2012 is demonstrative of what technological advancement can achieve. Exams ought to have become more difficult if the internet made them easier. They most certainly should not be considered easier by individuals comparing them with their own which they sat decades ago.

It is apparent to me, particularly as someone who has only been out of school for a year, that exam boards sacrifice their standards in order to ensure their papers allow students to obtain the highest grades. Not only this, but exam boards are actively encouraging teachers and their students to attend conferences where they are told almost explicitly how to master the papers, not the questions. This race to the bottom, whereby exam boards scout schools by making their papers as easy as possible and thereby advantageous to a school’s results, is an unforgivable disservice to students. It is little surprise that independent and grammar schools are adopting the International A-Level or deliberately choosing exam boards which are regarded as more difficult in order to get their students into the highest ranked universities – something parents of the type of students at these schools generally value.

Joe Armitage: There's nothing much wrong with the current system of funding political parties

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives. He also works for a Conservative MP. Follow him on Twitter.

Party funding reform is inevitable, not least because it’s something the Liberal Democrats will cite as a ‘red line’ for any future coalition (their red lines are mounting up - what with a mansion tax and Trident reductions already indicated). It is highly likely that we’ll end up with public party funding, given that there is an ever-increasing number of unashamedly parasitical career politicians amongst the ranks of the three main parties’ front benches. We should not let this happen, however - for the current funding of political parties has little cause for shame.

In the UK, there are meant to be two parties, each at different ends of the political spectrum: the capitalist Conservative Party and left-leaning Labour. Each party has its roots, and the roots of the modern Conservative Party are associated with capitalism and free enterprise, whilst the unions are the roots of Labour. As such, I do not see it as sleazy or inappropriate for private sector businessman and entrepreneurs to donate to a party which typically legislates for low tax-and-spend economies, which allows for business and ultimately the country to flourish.

Equally, it isn’t wrong for unions and their members, if they so choose, to donate to a party that has been historically left-leaning and affiliated with their views on the public sector. Only the democratic legitimacy of the donation process is necessary to attack. For example, the fact that at present everybody who joins a union which is affiliated to Labour is assumed to consent to £3 of their subs being donated to the Labour Party through the political levy is wrong, and it’s positive Ed Miliband has signalled his intention to change this. To truly ascertain whether an individual wants to donate their money to the party, they should be given an option to opt-in.

Additionally, Miliband should be open to legislate to change the fact that unions can become affiliated to Labour despite ballots having exceptionally low turnouts – usually no more than 15 per cent. These changes, however, will give more power to union barons, since their political budgets will be substantially increased without so many £3 deductions funneled directly to Labour. It will enable them to choose whether to donate union money to Labour if their policies are preferable to them... nothing inappopriate about that.

Joe Armitage: Serious crime today, your music downloads tomorrow – why the Communications Data Bill remains a bad idea

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives. He’s also on a gap year interning for a Conservative MP. Follow him on Twitter.

The Government’s job is to protect its citizens, but there’s a line – and our liberty does not outweigh the proposed overarching powers the Government (or at least part of it) apparently now wants after the Woolwich killing.

So regularly we are told to forsake a certain degree of our autonomy for protection, but the reasons for state involvement evolve into something entirely different from those originally proposed. Take CCTV: we were told upon its introduction it would be used to catch perpetrators of violent crimes such as murder or rape. Yet its use has evolved massively beyond that and is now used to tackle the innocuous offences of disallowed parking and the discarding of litter in public places. As CCTV is now used to generate revenue, it is no wonder now that the United Kingdom has the highest number of CCTV cameras per capita.

Joe Armitage: The cheap populism and economic illiteracy of UKIP

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives. He’s also on a gap year interning for a Conservative MP. Follow him on Twitter.

UKIP are the only party you can trust with the economy, we are told. However, one quick glance at their rather paltry and vague manifesto suggests otherwise. It really is little wonder why the party has such a seemingly poor grasp of economics: their previous leader Lord Pearson didn’t even know the difference between millions and billions. UKIP’s 2010 manifesto is truly baffling. However, unlike the Labour Party’s, it specifies specific expenditure and tax cut. The only downside is that those specifications do not add up whatsoever and would, ironically, result in the United Kingdom plummeting into a state comparable to Greece’s.

UKIP are all for a small state, bar the excessively oversized military. Nigel Farage’s party would increase military expenditure by 40% - a mere £18bn. The country’s deficit would widen and the sovereign debt would continue to spiral out of control, but at least we’ll have copious tanks and a few aircraft carriers to fight a war we are not in. For a decade, UKIP will also spend £3bn per annum on flood defences. Presumably these defences will also fend off immigrants, for there would be a two year immigration freeze and then only 50,000 lucky souls would be permitted to enter thereafter. In 2035 one third of the UK’s population will be over the age of 65. I am sure at this point the adversity to immigration will be regretted upon realising generous pensions and free healthcare cannot be sustained with such a small workforce.

Joe Armitage: The NIMBYs are wrong. Young people need more housing. We want more homes to buy.

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives. He’s also on a gap year interning for a Conservative MP. Follow him on Twitter.

Property is a key tenet of our ideology. We encourage respect for other people’s property, since a country of property owners understands the preciousness of a home. It is also a sign of individuality, allowing people to leave their mark on the world by expressing their own tastes both internally and externally. Most importantly, however, it allows people to feel both rooted and belonging in society. In recent decades, however, property ownership has been afforded to too few, and I believe the Right to Buy needs reviving.
 
Many people wrongly believe Beveridge coined the phrase “From cradle to grave” but it was, in fact, Sir Winston Churchill. I too believe in this concept but it shouldn’t be through hand-outs but hand-ups. There is no better way to alleviate the financial difficulty of a person than to subsidise their purchase of a social house.
 

Joe Armitage: On entrepreneurship and tax cuts, David Cameron is another Margaret Thatcher

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives. He’s also on a gap year interning for a Conservative MP. Follow him on Twitter.

On the one hand, some people claim that David Cameron and Margaret Thatcher are cut from the same cloth. The Leader of the Opposition even went so far as to say Cameron was a “Child of Thatcher.” On the other, there are those within the Conservative Party who believe that David Cameron is not a conservative, that his policies are centrist and that he has abandoned conservatism: this, to me, is nonsense. The policies of the Coalition Government have produced encouraging results such as job and business creation, but they’ve also brought about an atmosphere which fosters growth, and it’s inevitable that the green shoots will appear.

Ed Miliband recently told the Daily Telegraph that “Thatcher created an era of aspiration". It’s true, she did - but I also believe in decades to come, it will be said of Mr Cameron that he, too, is responsible for creation an era of aspiration. When you look at the mission of Lady Thatcher’s government and compare that mission to that of David Cameron’s government, there are many similarities. The Coalition is dedicated to promoting hard work, self-determination and expunging Britain’s dependency culture. That is also true of Lady Thatcher’s aim of self-reliance, individualism and rolling back the state in accordance with negative freedom.

Joe Armitage: There is a better and conservative approach to Lords reform — a Local Authority Lords

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives. He’s also on a gap year interning for a Conservative MP. Follow him on Twitter.

All three of the UK’s major political parties acknowledge a need for Lords reform but specific reforms are rather lackluster and the current proposals have now, of course, been sent packing. Jesse Norman’s alternative of mass membership organisations electing their own peers isn’t realistic and will be seen as 21st century feudalism. There is, however, a better, more conservative alternative yet to be explored. In 1919, the German Bundesrat comprising of 69 indirectly elected representatives of Germany’s 16 states, replaced appointed and hereditary peers of the Prussian House of Lords. Similarly, prior to 1911 the Senate of the United States comprised of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof – many US conservatives want to see that process revived.

Joe Armitage: The Chancellor needs to address the inter-generational inequality the gilded baby boomers will soon cause

Joe Armitage is Chairman of Medway Conservative Future and Deputy Chairman (Political), Rochester East Conservatives.

Us youthful blighters face exorbitant university fees, a property ladder too arduous to climb, and a family too expensive to have. Meanwhile, the gilded baby boomer generation fret about the interest rates on their bundles of cash, keep a close eye on the Teletext share index and swan off on cruises around the world.

Inter-generational inequality is stark. Of the UK’s £6.7 trillion total wealth tied up in housing, pensions and liquid assets, a staggering 52% belongs to those aged 45-65 – the baby boomers. Never again will such a large cohort be able to accumulate so much wealth on the back of mass inflation and such a drastic increase in life expectancy. The state cost of looking after these generations is enormous; Treasury projections indicate 25% of our GDP will be spent on education, health and social care by 2050, an increase of almost 5% from the current 20.1%. The question is, should us younger people have to foot the bill for a generation that had it so much better than we will and if not, what are the solutions to such a massive problem politicians seem to avoid like the plague.

One of the answers needn’t involve taxing us younger generations and is something conservatives cherish: the family. Most cultures outside Britain believe if you care for your children when they are young, they will care for you when you are old. Unfortunately, inter-generational interaction in the UK is lamentable: 42% of people agree there are not enough opportunities for younger people to meet and work together; this compares with just 24% for Spain and 26% for Germany.