As the start of the University term approaches, we've already had two major stories on higher education funding and neither of them have been particularly nice. Firstly, the Liberal Democrats have annoucned that they will probably scrap their core policy of scrapping tuition fees (http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Speech%3a_Liberal_Democrat_Leader_Nick_Clegg_delivers_his_rally_speech&pPK=a6eb332d-764d-46b1-bae8-4dc28d49649c), atleast for the time being (aka forever). Whilst this in itself is enough to make the student Liberals wonder why they bother, the most irrational news was - as usual - yet to come!
That wonderful organisation the CBI ("Confederation of British Industry" for those who weren't sure) - whos main members are, on the whole, not industrial companies but fat-cat bankers and service providers - are telling us that we (students) don't pay enough. They say we need to pay more money and get less financial support if British Universities are to remain the successful world-leaders that they already are. They also (quietly in the footnotes) say that businesses should provide a bit more sponsorship and a few more bursaries (the number of which you can count on one hand, with spare fingers).
Sorry but, am I the only person who has woken up in some alternate reality where students and their parents are all unable to get out of bed without a ladder because of the huge piles of £50 notes they have instead of a mattress? Because that seems to be the general idea to me, and it's total, complete and utter crap. As a student I get pretty much the full grant and loans because of my parents low financial status, which totals approximately £6,300 to last me the 36 weeks per year at university and whilst I am at home over the holidays. That works out at a sum of £175 per week to live on.
Why don't the CBI buisinesses instead, give out LOTS (not one or two) more scholarships to students who agree to be contracted to them after university, and why don't they take some of their sickeningly huge profits and invest in Universities charitably (although due to the gravity of the situation I am grudgingly open to the prospect of this being on a loan or exchange - but not PURCHASE - basis)? The answer is they won't because they don't want to. They all weren't charged tuition fees when they were at University and lived off generous grants, bursaries and scholarships. Why should these greedy fat-cats give anything back? This is capitalism at its most decadent!
Now, when one considers that my (very cheap!) acommodation is £68 per week, and I spend approximately another £40 on food, clothes and non inclusive bills (phone, TV etc), this leaves me a total of £72 per week on which to live. Doesn't sound too bad does it?! Now add up the cost of books (minimum £300 per academic year, robbing bleeders!), learning materials and photocopying/printing, travel and transport, hidden costs of getting medical care etc, this totals another (based on last years receipts) about £15, leaving me a grand total of £57 per week what you might call 'disposible income'.
Take this away and I have no ability to exist beyond university. I cannot socialise with my friends, I cannot afford to even FIND a job (the lack of which is another problem in the current climate which compounds student poverty). The whole point of University is to make a better future for yourself, and for the society in which you live, isn't it? Stripping students of this help, especially when the vast majority of whom have no other financial support (including like me little or none from my parents, who are themselves struggling), is not only lunacy. It is plain wrong.
When you take the basic state pension (£95.25 per week for a single person) and add all the other benefits - fuel allowences, pension credit etc, you find that students are only on marginally more than pensioners, and this is arguably made up by the costs of healthcare and housing and such.
No one would ever dare to advocate cutting the state pension or benefits to the elderly, and quite rightly so! So why is it so easy - and almost desireable - to turn on students who are in a similar financial position. This will continue as long as students don't take a stand and fight for what we need. This will continue as long as we allow imbeciles like Wes Streeting and the NUS to 'defend' us so meekly, only to roll over when something of their political persuasion comes along in an effort to further their own selfish careerist desires.
This will even contunue if we pretend that the NUS's right-wing undemocratic "funding blueprint" will save us with things like graduate taxes. Why should someone who goes to a decent main-stream university and get a job earning £50-80k a year at their peak pay the same as an OxBridge graduate who leaves university and gets a top rung job earning hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds per year? Especially when they have had ten times the amount of help and resources in terms of their university and (mostly, but not universally) class background, with infinately better job prospects despite being no better or more intelligent that you or I.
To quote Danny from 'Brassed Off' in a slightly different context: "The point is - if this lot (students) were seals or whales, you'd all be up in bloody arms. But their not, are they, no, no they're not. They're just ordinary common-or-garden honest, decent human beings."
It's time we stood up and were counted. We are the future of Britain, and the future of humanity. Let's go out and be vocal about where the CBI can put its proposals!
Monday, 21 September 2009
Thursday, 3 September 2009
NHS job cuts? Oh hell no!
Article this morning about a proposal by a team of "management consulatants" to cut the number of jobs in the NHS by 10% (or 137,000 jobs by 2014) to save the UK £20billion. But these jobs aren't office staff, pen pushers and filing clerks, these jobs are to be cut mainly from front-line services - Doctors, Nurses and the like. Quite rightly, the government has rejected these "short sighted" (Dr Mark Porter, BMA) proposals out of hand.
Now, in general, I'm against cutting any jobs, full stop. I'm especially against cutting the numbers of Doctors, and in particular nurses in the NHS. But on the other hand I accept that the NHS is a huge, cumbersome organisation which has a lot of waste that needs to be addessed. Particularly the fact that the NHS is a very top-heavy organisation with an abundance of "managers" (who don't seem to do much management), "advisors" (whose advice is usually pretty crap) and other such staff. Now, whilst I appreciate that there are intracacies of their jobs which help to provide valuble and important services, their is an abundance of waste. How the NHS can justify paying a "manager" a salary of £40,000 per year plus to do a common sense job, whilst a newly qualified nurse earns only £16-18,000 per annum, is beyond me.
There is a perfect opportunity to save money here, simply by cutting the ridiculous salaries of "managers" and higher staff such as Managing Directors (over a quarter of who earn more than £100,000 per annum!). These are people on enourmous salaries with ridiculous benefits (expensive company cars etc), who contribute very little and take a hell of a lot. Now some people would whinge about private business and how much their MDs earn, and how much bankers get in bonuses etc - but it's a simple matter of fact: If they don't want a reduced salary, they can leave the organisation so that someone who is just as skilled can take their place, because let's be fair, these people have no specialist skills or knowledge (other than experience, which as the recent banking crisis has shown is relatively worthless), and so can be easily and effectively replaced, even if only by their "underlings". The savings we are talking about are large, and the number of job losses are minimal - so it's a win-win scenario.
Secondly, the NHS needs to be diverse in ways of saving money. Drug companies such as Glaxo-Smith-Klein make enourmous sums of money charging the NHS for simple drugs that they could produce themselves, and the NHS seems to have little interest or investment in Research and Development beyond what is developed by private industry. Simple drugs and anaesthetics etc could quite easily be produced by hospitals at much lower costs than purchasing them from expensive drug companies, meaning not only could money be saved, but more expensive drugs (for cancer etc) could be made available to a greater proportion of the population, if the project was managed efficiently.
There are lots of other ways the NHS coiuld save money, and I'm not going to sit and list them all here. Let's hope that the government choose to do so in a way that doesn't make thousands of people unemployed or diminish the important service the NHS provides. We'll see enough of that when the Tories get in.
Now, in general, I'm against cutting any jobs, full stop. I'm especially against cutting the numbers of Doctors, and in particular nurses in the NHS. But on the other hand I accept that the NHS is a huge, cumbersome organisation which has a lot of waste that needs to be addessed. Particularly the fact that the NHS is a very top-heavy organisation with an abundance of "managers" (who don't seem to do much management), "advisors" (whose advice is usually pretty crap) and other such staff. Now, whilst I appreciate that there are intracacies of their jobs which help to provide valuble and important services, their is an abundance of waste. How the NHS can justify paying a "manager" a salary of £40,000 per year plus to do a common sense job, whilst a newly qualified nurse earns only £16-18,000 per annum, is beyond me.
There is a perfect opportunity to save money here, simply by cutting the ridiculous salaries of "managers" and higher staff such as Managing Directors (over a quarter of who earn more than £100,000 per annum!). These are people on enourmous salaries with ridiculous benefits (expensive company cars etc), who contribute very little and take a hell of a lot. Now some people would whinge about private business and how much their MDs earn, and how much bankers get in bonuses etc - but it's a simple matter of fact: If they don't want a reduced salary, they can leave the organisation so that someone who is just as skilled can take their place, because let's be fair, these people have no specialist skills or knowledge (other than experience, which as the recent banking crisis has shown is relatively worthless), and so can be easily and effectively replaced, even if only by their "underlings". The savings we are talking about are large, and the number of job losses are minimal - so it's a win-win scenario.
Secondly, the NHS needs to be diverse in ways of saving money. Drug companies such as Glaxo-Smith-Klein make enourmous sums of money charging the NHS for simple drugs that they could produce themselves, and the NHS seems to have little interest or investment in Research and Development beyond what is developed by private industry. Simple drugs and anaesthetics etc could quite easily be produced by hospitals at much lower costs than purchasing them from expensive drug companies, meaning not only could money be saved, but more expensive drugs (for cancer etc) could be made available to a greater proportion of the population, if the project was managed efficiently.
There are lots of other ways the NHS coiuld save money, and I'm not going to sit and list them all here. Let's hope that the government choose to do so in a way that doesn't make thousands of people unemployed or diminish the important service the NHS provides. We'll see enough of that when the Tories get in.
Monday, 31 August 2009
Why the fight for a minimum wage is not over yet.
Reading a couple of articles this morning about the minimum wage, and particularly about the history of opposition to it and how it was eventually brought about. Thoroughly interesting and somewhat humerous at points - predictions of 2million more unemployed spring to mind - but it got me thinking; has the minimum wage been a total success? I'm afraid the answer is no.
The minimum wage unfortunately exists on a premise of discrimination: The idea that a worker under the age of 22 is worth less than a worker over the age of 22. The minimum wage, whilst a brilliant concept and a practical success, should be equalised and extended to all people over the age of 16. I believe it is a travesty that I could get a job - hypothetically at my age a skilled job or trade - and still earn less than someone twice my age who qualified at the same time as me. Even in unskilled jobs such as retail, I could be employed as a checkout operator with two people in their forties and get paid 96p less. That is despite the fact that I am doing exactly the same job, paying the same rates of national insurance and the same percentage of tax, and potentially paying university fees of £5,000 per annum upwards! In the same vein, a school leaver or college student will earn £1.24 per hour less than me for working on the same checkout!
Is this right and fair? I don't think so. That is why we mustn't get complacent. There is still a long way to go regarding a minimum wage for all!
The minimum wage unfortunately exists on a premise of discrimination: The idea that a worker under the age of 22 is worth less than a worker over the age of 22. The minimum wage, whilst a brilliant concept and a practical success, should be equalised and extended to all people over the age of 16. I believe it is a travesty that I could get a job - hypothetically at my age a skilled job or trade - and still earn less than someone twice my age who qualified at the same time as me. Even in unskilled jobs such as retail, I could be employed as a checkout operator with two people in their forties and get paid 96p less. That is despite the fact that I am doing exactly the same job, paying the same rates of national insurance and the same percentage of tax, and potentially paying university fees of £5,000 per annum upwards! In the same vein, a school leaver or college student will earn £1.24 per hour less than me for working on the same checkout!
Is this right and fair? I don't think so. That is why we mustn't get complacent. There is still a long way to go regarding a minimum wage for all!
Saturday, 29 August 2009
Why I think the BBC is better than Murdoch.
James Murdoch (36), leader of numerous media outlets spanning multiple countries, and son of multi-billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch, has been giving the annual MacTaggart lecture to fellow media bosses in Edinburgh, and he's thrown what some of us might call a bit of a "paddy".
"Is Murdoch concerned at the lack of action being taken over climate change?"
No.
"Is he worried about the increasing gap in wealth and opportunity between the poorest and the richest?"
No.
"So what exactly is Mr. Murdoch getting so worried and angry about?"
He's worried about the "chilling" scope and expansion of state media, particularly the BBC, and how it is "damaging" corporate broadcasters (and conveniently but inevitably hitting them in that most painful spot - the wallet - at the same time). Hes worried that the BBC is too strong for other (private) broadcasters to survive (and make big fat profits in the process), and that's why his group are going to start charging for their internet services.
Now, I happen to quite like the BBC, and use its facilities for keeping up to date with the headlines and the sport on a regular basis, through it's website, on the television, and on the radio. I think it's a pretty good service.
Now I do sympathise with Murdoch on one level - the liscence fee is ridiculous. It's expensive, it takes no account of how much or how little BBC television you use, and it just keeps going up! I don't object to paying for the services the BBC provide, but I do think they are over-priced. I also like to have a little whinge now and again when I have to pay the BBC in order to be able to watch ITV, and Channels 4 and 5 - it's a bit of a crazy anachronism and I don't object to proposals to give them (and ONLY them Mr. Cameron) a slice of the liscence fee to be spent on their News and informative programmes that are in the public interest. But what I detest so vehemently, is when fat cats like Murdoch and Branson charge me between £15-30 per month EXTRA to watch digital television (actually when my parents do, I use FreeView muhahaha). and THEN have the audacity to complain that they are unable to compete with the BBC. At the lower and extremely conservative (small c) estimate of £15 per month, that means that it costs me £180 per year to watch satelite/cable TV. This is approximately 25% MORE than the liscence fee AND their channels are riddled with shockingly bad adverts which levy them even more money!
Now, with all this extra money you'd think the quality of their television would be vastly superior to terrestrial television, and let's be honest, it worse in every possible way except for variety of channels! If I turn on my parents TV, and their digital TV, what do I get? I get the BSkyB channels which, whilst they do have some programmes I watch, I would say I use less than frequently. Then there are a select dozen or so other channels I watch when there is something on I want to see (Dave, G.O.L.D, ITV2,3,4, etc). Finally, there are the billion or so channels I don't watch, and I bet only niche parts of the populations do (Cookery channels, The God channel, Al-Jazeera TV, Discovery Channel etc). The only other channels I would ever use (Movies and Sky Sports or Sentanta which is now defunct) cost me a shed-load extra! (another £108 a year to be exact!).
As for newspapers and such, (Murdoch's real pot of gold) I tend to read the Guardian or his own Times, as well as the Daily Mirror on occasion. I also sometimes read foreign newspapers, Germany's Bilde or Der Spiegel when I'm feeling particularly adventurous. Now, to be honest, most of these newspapers are pretty expensive (with the exception of the crappy tabloids) for what you get, and they tend to be filled with sensationalist nonsense and biased half-truths rather than news, which for me has helped feed the 'me me ME' Americanised culture we seem to have in the UK and helped degrade the community spirit and left-leaning common concensus which the oldies tell us "made Britain great" in the rough period 1945-1979. If your papers start reporting actual news that people wanted to hear rather than celebrity gossip and mindless drivvel then more people might buy them beyond the mindless few and the sadly growing under-class of people with no prospects and little respect for the law or their fellow people.
But I will save the essay on the balance between the right's and responsibilities of the media for another day.
In contrast to this madness and mayhem, the BBC liscence fee runs five resonably good television channels (BBC 1, 2, 3, 4 and BBC News 24 at my count!) as well as at least half a dozen radio stations and the BBC website. Now granted not everyone uses all of these services, but everyone can use these services if they wish, and some of them (radio and websites) without paying a penny of the liscence fee!
As that orange fellow off the antiques programmes would say, "Now that's the REAL deal!"
Perhaps if Murdoch and his fellows took a leaf out of the BBC's book rather than slating it because it's hitting his profits, his sales and the quality of his media outlets would drastically improve.
"Is Murdoch concerned at the lack of action being taken over climate change?"
No.
"Is he worried about the increasing gap in wealth and opportunity between the poorest and the richest?"
No.
"So what exactly is Mr. Murdoch getting so worried and angry about?"
He's worried about the "chilling" scope and expansion of state media, particularly the BBC, and how it is "damaging" corporate broadcasters (and conveniently but inevitably hitting them in that most painful spot - the wallet - at the same time). Hes worried that the BBC is too strong for other (private) broadcasters to survive (and make big fat profits in the process), and that's why his group are going to start charging for their internet services.
Now, I happen to quite like the BBC, and use its facilities for keeping up to date with the headlines and the sport on a regular basis, through it's website, on the television, and on the radio. I think it's a pretty good service.
Now I do sympathise with Murdoch on one level - the liscence fee is ridiculous. It's expensive, it takes no account of how much or how little BBC television you use, and it just keeps going up! I don't object to paying for the services the BBC provide, but I do think they are over-priced. I also like to have a little whinge now and again when I have to pay the BBC in order to be able to watch ITV, and Channels 4 and 5 - it's a bit of a crazy anachronism and I don't object to proposals to give them (and ONLY them Mr. Cameron) a slice of the liscence fee to be spent on their News and informative programmes that are in the public interest. But what I detest so vehemently, is when fat cats like Murdoch and Branson charge me between £15-30 per month EXTRA to watch digital television (actually when my parents do, I use FreeView muhahaha). and THEN have the audacity to complain that they are unable to compete with the BBC. At the lower and extremely conservative (small c) estimate of £15 per month, that means that it costs me £180 per year to watch satelite/cable TV. This is approximately 25% MORE than the liscence fee AND their channels are riddled with shockingly bad adverts which levy them even more money!
Now, with all this extra money you'd think the quality of their television would be vastly superior to terrestrial television, and let's be honest, it worse in every possible way except for variety of channels! If I turn on my parents TV, and their digital TV, what do I get? I get the BSkyB channels which, whilst they do have some programmes I watch, I would say I use less than frequently. Then there are a select dozen or so other channels I watch when there is something on I want to see (Dave, G.O.L.D, ITV2,3,4, etc). Finally, there are the billion or so channels I don't watch, and I bet only niche parts of the populations do (Cookery channels, The God channel, Al-Jazeera TV, Discovery Channel etc). The only other channels I would ever use (Movies and Sky Sports or Sentanta which is now defunct) cost me a shed-load extra! (another £108 a year to be exact!).
As for newspapers and such, (Murdoch's real pot of gold) I tend to read the Guardian or his own Times, as well as the Daily Mirror on occasion. I also sometimes read foreign newspapers, Germany's Bilde or Der Spiegel when I'm feeling particularly adventurous. Now, to be honest, most of these newspapers are pretty expensive (with the exception of the crappy tabloids) for what you get, and they tend to be filled with sensationalist nonsense and biased half-truths rather than news, which for me has helped feed the 'me me ME' Americanised culture we seem to have in the UK and helped degrade the community spirit and left-leaning common concensus which the oldies tell us "made Britain great" in the rough period 1945-1979. If your papers start reporting actual news that people wanted to hear rather than celebrity gossip and mindless drivvel then more people might buy them beyond the mindless few and the sadly growing under-class of people with no prospects and little respect for the law or their fellow people.
But I will save the essay on the balance between the right's and responsibilities of the media for another day.
In contrast to this madness and mayhem, the BBC liscence fee runs five resonably good television channels (BBC 1, 2, 3, 4 and BBC News 24 at my count!) as well as at least half a dozen radio stations and the BBC website. Now granted not everyone uses all of these services, but everyone can use these services if they wish, and some of them (radio and websites) without paying a penny of the liscence fee!
As that orange fellow off the antiques programmes would say, "Now that's the REAL deal!"
Perhaps if Murdoch and his fellows took a leaf out of the BBC's book rather than slating it because it's hitting his profits, his sales and the quality of his media outlets would drastically improve.
Friday, 28 August 2009
Are you serious: easyCouncils?
I read an interesting article in the Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/27/tory-borough-barnet-budget-airline) about the Tory run Barnett council who have announced they are to attempt to adopt the business model of low-budget airlines such as easyJet and Ryanair in a bid to cut 'excessive' costs. Now, despite my political persuasion being of the left, I'm quite open to saving money, cutting waste, and increasing efficiency when it is needed and when it does not make ordinary people worse off.
There are multiple ways Barnet council propose to cut costs - and they're the predictably Tory ways. There is great talk of 'out-sourcing' (privatising to you and me) certain services in order to cut Barnet's '3,500 strong directly employed workforce'. Other ideas include things such as reducing the size of waste bins to 'minimise the cost of rubbish collection'. Another great idea is allowing people to pay "a small fee" (or effectively a tax) in order to have their requests for planning permission resolved more quickly. Other proposals include giving older people more of 'a say' in how money on their care is spent, which is either a democratic thing to do or a way of deflecting blame when things inevitably go bottoms up, depending on how you look at it!
Now, these proposals are a dangerous example of cost cutting through attacking public services rather than making services cheaper, faster, and more efficient. I detest privatisation because with it always comes the usual collapse of customer services and huge profits for fat cats instead of modest profits for the government which can then be re-invested in the business. I am not so naive as to propose nationalisation is a perfect answer - but let's be fair - the quality of customer service is pretty similar regardless of whether I'm talking to the council services or a private company, despite what the Tories repeatedly say. The methods of business I prefer are pretty obvious - nationalisation, co-operatives and small businesses in a mixed economy, working together to cut costs just like the Italian textile industry has successfully had to do in the face of competition from the might of Chinese cheap labour. These Tory proposals of more and more privatisation will only lead to a degrading of public services which will cost less but be of lower quality. This will only hurt the ordinary people who need those services.
The idea of cutting down the size of your bin in order to save on the cost of rubbish collection is an interesting one - but again it is only going to hit working families harder. Coming from a household of five where our rubbish collection for a standard sized wheelie bin comes once every two weeks, I can say that this is totally undesireable. Whilst the system we currently have in Doncaster is just about (but barely) manageable, I know that we could not manage if our bin was half or even three quarters of the size it is now. Perhaps a better proposal would have been to have different sized bins for different sized houses? As a household of one inevitably creates less rubbish than a house of five, and so a smaller bin would reduce the costs of land fill - as this is the only area in which money can feasibly be saved. It doesn't matter if you have 1,000 big bins or 1,000 small ones, they still have to be collected in the same way using the same routes, which costs the same amount each week or fortnight.
The other main proposals I have mentioned are simply ridiculous! Why should a wealthy housing company be able to pay a tax to rush through his planning proposals ahead of a single or small group of individuals running a small business or a family who needs more space for their children who cannot afford even such a 'modest fee'? A money making machine under the auspices of Tory cost-cutting and saving money? Who'd have thought it?
Another aim is giving people more of a choice in public services - with the example of old peoples services. Democratic and noble? I think not. Cutting services to the point where old people have to make a choice between two or three rubbish options allows the council to cut costs and deflect the blame for poor choices onto the people, rather than taking criticism themselves. Whilst is is a seemingly noble idea, it is easily open to abuse. The council should be making these bold steps themselves and making the decisions they were elected to make - and making sure they are good decisions.
It seems the Tory Barnet council has missed an opportunity to make real savings which do as little damage to services as possible, in favour of bigger savings through a gimmick in which the only losers are the people of Barnet.
There are multiple ways Barnet council propose to cut costs - and they're the predictably Tory ways. There is great talk of 'out-sourcing' (privatising to you and me) certain services in order to cut Barnet's '3,500 strong directly employed workforce'. Other ideas include things such as reducing the size of waste bins to 'minimise the cost of rubbish collection'. Another great idea is allowing people to pay "a small fee" (or effectively a tax) in order to have their requests for planning permission resolved more quickly. Other proposals include giving older people more of 'a say' in how money on their care is spent, which is either a democratic thing to do or a way of deflecting blame when things inevitably go bottoms up, depending on how you look at it!
Now, these proposals are a dangerous example of cost cutting through attacking public services rather than making services cheaper, faster, and more efficient. I detest privatisation because with it always comes the usual collapse of customer services and huge profits for fat cats instead of modest profits for the government which can then be re-invested in the business. I am not so naive as to propose nationalisation is a perfect answer - but let's be fair - the quality of customer service is pretty similar regardless of whether I'm talking to the council services or a private company, despite what the Tories repeatedly say. The methods of business I prefer are pretty obvious - nationalisation, co-operatives and small businesses in a mixed economy, working together to cut costs just like the Italian textile industry has successfully had to do in the face of competition from the might of Chinese cheap labour. These Tory proposals of more and more privatisation will only lead to a degrading of public services which will cost less but be of lower quality. This will only hurt the ordinary people who need those services.
The idea of cutting down the size of your bin in order to save on the cost of rubbish collection is an interesting one - but again it is only going to hit working families harder. Coming from a household of five where our rubbish collection for a standard sized wheelie bin comes once every two weeks, I can say that this is totally undesireable. Whilst the system we currently have in Doncaster is just about (but barely) manageable, I know that we could not manage if our bin was half or even three quarters of the size it is now. Perhaps a better proposal would have been to have different sized bins for different sized houses? As a household of one inevitably creates less rubbish than a house of five, and so a smaller bin would reduce the costs of land fill - as this is the only area in which money can feasibly be saved. It doesn't matter if you have 1,000 big bins or 1,000 small ones, they still have to be collected in the same way using the same routes, which costs the same amount each week or fortnight.
The other main proposals I have mentioned are simply ridiculous! Why should a wealthy housing company be able to pay a tax to rush through his planning proposals ahead of a single or small group of individuals running a small business or a family who needs more space for their children who cannot afford even such a 'modest fee'? A money making machine under the auspices of Tory cost-cutting and saving money? Who'd have thought it?
Another aim is giving people more of a choice in public services - with the example of old peoples services. Democratic and noble? I think not. Cutting services to the point where old people have to make a choice between two or three rubbish options allows the council to cut costs and deflect the blame for poor choices onto the people, rather than taking criticism themselves. Whilst is is a seemingly noble idea, it is easily open to abuse. The council should be making these bold steps themselves and making the decisions they were elected to make - and making sure they are good decisions.
It seems the Tory Barnet council has missed an opportunity to make real savings which do as little damage to services as possible, in favour of bigger savings through a gimmick in which the only losers are the people of Barnet.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Congratulations on GCSE results!
Today GCSE results came out for all those young people who have been worked so hard and put in so much ffort over the past two years. I want to say congratulations to you all, I know it was not that long ago that I got mine, and despite what the old-folk would like you to think, GCSE's are hard work even for the most intellegent. It takes discipline and skill to develop multiple subjects to the standard of A*-C, especially if you came from a relavtively poor school like I did, and for that you should be applauded.
With 67.1% of all entries awarded an A*-C grade, young people have shown that they are not a mass of 'hoodies' who simply roam the streets stabbing people, and are quite capable of working hard and achieveing the goals that they want for themselves and that society (for better or for worse) expects of them.
With the usual mudslinging of how exams are now so easy, or the newer and more trendy questions of, as former chief inspector of schools Mike Tomlinson seems to imply, whether GCSEs are worthless or not, it seems like we are getting to a point where people almost want young people to fail. It saddens and somewhat sickens me to imagine that there are people out there, some even sat in parliament, that have little better to do that knock people down so early in life.
I'd be interested to see how far this impacts on the psyche of young people. Young people who struggle academically at school seem to make up the majority of thonse who become involved with crime or struggle to hold down jobs later in life. I wonder whether this endless speculation of whether GCSE's are worth the paper they are written on is part of the reason why many decent hard working young people have little faith in themselves or their ability, and low expectations for themselves throughout life? It's a contagious downward spiral, if young people are devalued and somewhat de-humanised by the whole process, then that affects both how they see others around them, and more importantly how other people see them.
So I say, if you got good grades today, go and scream it from the roof-tops. Show the world what you can do and be thankful of the opportunities society has given you. Ignore the old folk who turn their noses up at you and your "bits of paper", and achieve everything that you can.
But for me, the key point to always remember was this: When society invests in you, it also invests in itself through the things you do and say and how you live your life. So go out, do great things, and help build a better society for us and our children.
With 67.1% of all entries awarded an A*-C grade, young people have shown that they are not a mass of 'hoodies' who simply roam the streets stabbing people, and are quite capable of working hard and achieveing the goals that they want for themselves and that society (for better or for worse) expects of them.
With the usual mudslinging of how exams are now so easy, or the newer and more trendy questions of, as former chief inspector of schools Mike Tomlinson seems to imply, whether GCSEs are worthless or not, it seems like we are getting to a point where people almost want young people to fail. It saddens and somewhat sickens me to imagine that there are people out there, some even sat in parliament, that have little better to do that knock people down so early in life.
I'd be interested to see how far this impacts on the psyche of young people. Young people who struggle academically at school seem to make up the majority of thonse who become involved with crime or struggle to hold down jobs later in life. I wonder whether this endless speculation of whether GCSE's are worth the paper they are written on is part of the reason why many decent hard working young people have little faith in themselves or their ability, and low expectations for themselves throughout life? It's a contagious downward spiral, if young people are devalued and somewhat de-humanised by the whole process, then that affects both how they see others around them, and more importantly how other people see them.
So I say, if you got good grades today, go and scream it from the roof-tops. Show the world what you can do and be thankful of the opportunities society has given you. Ignore the old folk who turn their noses up at you and your "bits of paper", and achieve everything that you can.
But for me, the key point to always remember was this: When society invests in you, it also invests in itself through the things you do and say and how you live your life. So go out, do great things, and help build a better society for us and our children.
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
There is no place in modern football for violence.
So, it's back.
Hooliganism in football is something we thought we had all but wiped out in the early 1990's, but as West Ham Utd and Millwall fans showed last night we were totally and utterly wrong. Multiple media sources annoucned that "hundreds" of fans had been involved in pitch invasions and violence, and that one man had been stabbed and taken to hospital. I hope those fans are pleased with themselves. They have taken the first step towards ruining football for the rest of us.
The media seem to be aiming the blame mainly at West Ham fan's who seemed to instigate most of the pitch invasions and - if the media are to be belived - the violence. They are calling for the FA to ban any fans found guuilty of involvement for life. The FA have announced, through 'Director of Communications" Adrian Bevington that "[The Football Association are] not going to condemn West Ham or Millwall football clubs for any of their actions - certainly not at this stage, because we don't know exactly what's been put in place." A fair but, in my opinion, slightly kop-out answer. It is the usual stuff from the FA, the 'we will investigate and take action, but don't expect us to do too much!' sort of thing we have come to expect over the years.
The FA's problem is they are stuck between a rock (clubs, leagues and players) and a hard place (fans) when it comes to this sort of thing. They tread a tight-rope line between trying to please all of the parties all of the time, and in the end simply annoying everyone and doing very little. If they swing one way they are doomed to take flak from the other, but in the end, the clubs are where the money ultimately is, and so they usually go with them. Forgetting conveniently of course that it is us fans who fill the clubs coffers.
I tend to attack the FA quite often, but I do have an opinion on where we should go from here. I doubt it will be popular, particularly with West Ham and Millwall or their fans.
Firstly, there obviously needs to be a proper criminal investigation. Anyone found guilty of the pitch invasions or the rioting should be banned from all football grounds for life, and fined or imprisoned as the law deems appropriate. The police and there seemingly non-existant efforts to stop this rioting also need to be brought under investigation by the IPCC, simply to give them a kick up the arse and make them more careful in future.
Secondly, there has to be an investigation of the clubs and what measures they put in place to stop the violence (which in fairness to the FA is what they propose), and to evaluate how ineffective they were, and what measures must be taken in future to prevent these things from, happening again.
Thirdly, and heres the bit they won't like, the punishment phase. Both of these football clubs have to be made an example of in the same way we would hope to make an example of hooligans.
The first measure would be very simple, to ban West Ham and Millwall from all competitions they would normally enter, excluding the League for five years. Without League Cup, FA Cup, Community Shield (unlikely I know!) or European football, their finances would be hit but it is also a psychological symbol to the clubs that they are not all mighty, and have a responsiblity to make sure their fans act properly. This should be given without right of appeal, as we all know appealling for clubs will always result in a punishment being overturned.
The next measure would obviously have to involve fining the clubs. The fines should be high, but not punitive, and should be based on something that is really going to hit the clubs hard but fair. Say forcing West Ham and Millwall to give 5% of their gate receipts for the next 5 years to the FA, which can be spent on better training for stewards or to help fund the cost of policing football. The figures raised would probably not be that great, but it would hit both clubs equally in real terms. Say that a West Hame ticket costs £25, and they get an average of 30,000 a game, by my rough calculation that raises about £356,000 from West Ham over the 5 years. Its a figure that makles life difficult for them, but shouldn't threaten the club too greatly. The figure for Millwall would probably be significantly lower, but it hits them the same.
Other measures would have to depend on how bad the inquiry was, and might ban the clubs from taking away supporters to games, or force them to play matches behind closed doors. I'm not i nfavour of a points reduction though - these incidents occurred in a cup game.
Whilst I understand that these measures would not be universally popular, noone can deny that their effect would be deep and lasting, and would send a signal to clubs and to their fans that we seem to have forgotten since the early 1990's.
"Break the rules, and you will be punished."
Hooliganism in football is something we thought we had all but wiped out in the early 1990's, but as West Ham Utd and Millwall fans showed last night we were totally and utterly wrong. Multiple media sources annoucned that "hundreds" of fans had been involved in pitch invasions and violence, and that one man had been stabbed and taken to hospital. I hope those fans are pleased with themselves. They have taken the first step towards ruining football for the rest of us.
The media seem to be aiming the blame mainly at West Ham fan's who seemed to instigate most of the pitch invasions and - if the media are to be belived - the violence. They are calling for the FA to ban any fans found guuilty of involvement for life. The FA have announced, through 'Director of Communications" Adrian Bevington that "[The Football Association are] not going to condemn West Ham or Millwall football clubs for any of their actions - certainly not at this stage, because we don't know exactly what's been put in place." A fair but, in my opinion, slightly kop-out answer. It is the usual stuff from the FA, the 'we will investigate and take action, but don't expect us to do too much!' sort of thing we have come to expect over the years.
The FA's problem is they are stuck between a rock (clubs, leagues and players) and a hard place (fans) when it comes to this sort of thing. They tread a tight-rope line between trying to please all of the parties all of the time, and in the end simply annoying everyone and doing very little. If they swing one way they are doomed to take flak from the other, but in the end, the clubs are where the money ultimately is, and so they usually go with them. Forgetting conveniently of course that it is us fans who fill the clubs coffers.
I tend to attack the FA quite often, but I do have an opinion on where we should go from here. I doubt it will be popular, particularly with West Ham and Millwall or their fans.
Firstly, there obviously needs to be a proper criminal investigation. Anyone found guilty of the pitch invasions or the rioting should be banned from all football grounds for life, and fined or imprisoned as the law deems appropriate. The police and there seemingly non-existant efforts to stop this rioting also need to be brought under investigation by the IPCC, simply to give them a kick up the arse and make them more careful in future.
Secondly, there has to be an investigation of the clubs and what measures they put in place to stop the violence (which in fairness to the FA is what they propose), and to evaluate how ineffective they were, and what measures must be taken in future to prevent these things from, happening again.
Thirdly, and heres the bit they won't like, the punishment phase. Both of these football clubs have to be made an example of in the same way we would hope to make an example of hooligans.
The first measure would be very simple, to ban West Ham and Millwall from all competitions they would normally enter, excluding the League for five years. Without League Cup, FA Cup, Community Shield (unlikely I know!) or European football, their finances would be hit but it is also a psychological symbol to the clubs that they are not all mighty, and have a responsiblity to make sure their fans act properly. This should be given without right of appeal, as we all know appealling for clubs will always result in a punishment being overturned.
The next measure would obviously have to involve fining the clubs. The fines should be high, but not punitive, and should be based on something that is really going to hit the clubs hard but fair. Say forcing West Ham and Millwall to give 5% of their gate receipts for the next 5 years to the FA, which can be spent on better training for stewards or to help fund the cost of policing football. The figures raised would probably not be that great, but it would hit both clubs equally in real terms. Say that a West Hame ticket costs £25, and they get an average of 30,000 a game, by my rough calculation that raises about £356,000 from West Ham over the 5 years. Its a figure that makles life difficult for them, but shouldn't threaten the club too greatly. The figure for Millwall would probably be significantly lower, but it hits them the same.
Other measures would have to depend on how bad the inquiry was, and might ban the clubs from taking away supporters to games, or force them to play matches behind closed doors. I'm not i nfavour of a points reduction though - these incidents occurred in a cup game.
Whilst I understand that these measures would not be universally popular, noone can deny that their effect would be deep and lasting, and would send a signal to clubs and to their fans that we seem to have forgotten since the early 1990's.
"Break the rules, and you will be punished."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)