I read an article the other day through my handy little BBC News application on my phone about a 15-year-old boy who got a standing ovation from the National Union of Teachers after he basically slammed the government's decision to axe the EMA - otherwise known as Labour's financial plan to pay teenagers to go to college.
When the EMA was introduced back in 2005, I was simply astounded at the government's blatant call to pay students to stay in education after 16. This was even before I found out (to my incredulity) that I wasn't eligible. It was, to me, a totally ridiculous idea that sounded too good to be true for the hundreds of students who would, in my experience, not turn up to their lessons and then beg their teachers to mark them present because otherwise they wouldn't "receive the financial support that their education requires". *Rolls eyes*.
Now, by this stage you're probably thinking that I'm just a stuck-up rich boy who thinks that you shouldn't need support to be able to continue your education into college. Not true. My incredulity at not being eligible for EMA is actually, I believe, well-founded. My Dad worked an averagely-paid job as a town clerk, and my Mum moved between jobs as a carer and pharmaceutical dispenser. I didn't receive a penny. Friends, whose parents ran successful local businesses, received £20 a week and saved it for their annual trips to Switzerland.
I agree with Joe Cotton on the principle point that he was making. He urges the NUT to do all they can to keep education affordable and accessible. Fair enough. But the whole concept of EMA was flawed from the beginning. The process by which the Department of Education processed eligibility was too simple, and did not take into consideration family savings or assets; doled out money as cash directly to the students; and was, in my opinion, far too high for something claimed to be simply "education maintenance". I agree with the principle point being made: some students who want to go to college can't afford to. Fair enough. But - and I know this might sound a little counter-productive and slightly strange - the system was too easy. Too simple. There should have been better measures in place and a more concise eligibility test enabled for the scheme. And they shouldn't have been doling out cash. It was like being paid to be educated. It was... well, rather crass.
I don't know what the Conservatives have planned, but the allowance in the first place should have been more streamlined at school level. Instead of handing out pay packets, the schools should have handed out free dinner cards to the eligible, and given those with EMA the books relevant to their courses through their teachers. Or made the allowance tokens for certain purchases at stationary shops, like WH Smith.
Joe Cotton has a point. At a time when everything seems to be getting sacrificed in the name of the "financial crisis", is there not one department in government that's not putting a limb on the chopping block? Let's save the EMA, but do it differently. Like my view of AV, a financial situation is not a reason to suspend logic (or, in the case of an electoral system, democracy).
If you're on twitter, and want to subscribe to somebody who tweets once in a blue moon, follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Stokes Croft and the Road of Glass
Seeing as I spent most of my day cooped up in my house doing really unimportant stuff that included not watching the news, I didn’t hear of the Mad Max inspired events taking place just down the road (said road being just over two miles long) until tonight. Anybody living in Bristol will know what I’m talking about, and now that you know I live in Bristol, everybody else should know too.
In the late evening and very early hours of Thursday 21st April and Friday 22nd April respectively, the attempted purge of a Tesco Express from the streets of Stokes Croft ended in a miserable failure. Although I don’t expect the store to be opening tomorrow, it nevertheless survived judging by both the amateur recordings and media footage taken of the night. Almost ironically, the sign at the very least stayed completely intact, which surprised me because whilst time usually wears off a few random letters, several firebombs, flying debris and battering rams could not shift a single one. Even the panel on which the sign was emblazoned still looked rather shiny. I mean, come on, if you’re going to kick off like that I expect to be reading “Te-co”, “-esco”, or just “o” – as in, the realisation that maybe this could have been predicted by the oracles I presume the all-powerful Mr Philip Clarke has at his disposal.
In the events of the night, I have to side with the police in their reaction. I know we only have their word for this, but it seems fairly reasonable: they received tip offs from numerous independent sources that there was going to be a violent reaction on the night in question, and that dangerous objects were being made for the event – a fact made all the more real when they started throwing the buggers. As far as I’m concerned, the police reacted correctly. They deployed in response to sources verifying the creation of firebombs, and then called in more forces from other stations when they felt the violence could escalate. I mean, come on, this is Stokes Croft; it has an existing precedence for this sort of thing. And considering what they were protesting against, I think the police reacted properly.
Despite this, I have difficulty pinning all the blame on the protesters, although they should take most of the credit for the damage caused and the disturbance created. My housemate, who has to travel through Stokes Croft to get to work, did so early on yesterday morning and described the scene from the Polish Church down to the Canteen as “a sea of glass”. He thought it a wonder his tyres weren’t punctured. Whilst he has a knack for exaggerating things, and he admits he was quite tired (it was about five in the morning), I imagine it wasn’t too far from the truth. On his way back from work at approximately half past four in the afternoon, they were still clearing up the mess and this time was forced to take a detour. The reason I find it hard to pin the blame on the protesters is because I can’t help but feel that Tesco really should have seen this coming.
I used to work for Tesco not that long ago, and was having a conversation one day with a colleague who thought all the people protesting the (at the time proposal-stage) store rather odd; it provides stable jobs, affordable food and drink, and actually makes the place look kind of nice whilst the shop front is new. Stokes Croft – and forgive me all those who think otherwise – is a dive, a complete waste of space that is desperately trying to be artistic and cool but is actually failing miserably. I come from a town that succeeded in being Bohemian, so I have a good frame of reference, and I can tell you that Stokes Croft is not what it is trying to be. I have respect for Totnes. I don’t have respect for Stokes Croft. Just because it has one Banksy scribbled on the side of a building (a building two of my current housemates once lived in – and even they hated the area) doesn’t mean it’s effing… erm… [insert cool, arty farty type location here].
I’m not saying Stokes Croft needs the Tesco Express. I’m saying it’s not worth setting fire to things about. Sure, you want to express yourself (no pun intend… actually, yes there was) but it’s no use causing massive damage to private property and then not expect an army of police officers merging into phalanx formation and shouting “This… Is… BRISTOL!!!” at the top of their voices. I mean, I don’t know if they did that, but it’s how I’m picturing it in my head.
Heh. Awesome.
Protest is fine. But there’s a thick line drawn in permanent marker that distinguishes “peaceful protest” from “rioting with fire at night”. Stick to the former, and you may actually get your message across. At the very least you’ll be able to show your distaste regardless of feelings of resentment or allegiance from authority and you may even get support from influential groups or persons. Don’t let that one idiot with a Molotov cocktail cross that thick line, because all you’ll get is resentment from persons with an objective view. All I have is two words for those people turning over the big white trailer on Cheltenham Road, smashing their way into the Tesco Express, throwing homemade firebombs at the police and the PRSC members supporting them:
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Alternative Vote and the Annoyed Blogger
So, I'm annoyed. That's right.
I've just read an MSN article titled "AV Referendum: The Celebrity Backers", as I was marginally interested to see who's backing AV and who isn't. We all know the "Yes" proponents: Stephen Fry, Colin Firth, Joanna Lumley, etc., but I was curious to know who have said "No", as you don't really hear a lot about them in general media. The first on the list was Sky Sports presenter and former English cricket captain David Gower. I was in a rather blase and passive mood today, but then I read his reasoning for voting "No" and it got my blood boiling a little, something I'm not particularly proud of. This is his quote:
"I'm used to a system in sport, in cricket specifically, where if you win, you win; it's as simple as that. If you're first, if you've got more runs, you win the game. I can't see why politics should be any different. You want the best to be at the top, and if they are the best, they will win. This whole proposed system of AV is, I think, the equivalent of what we would say in cricket or what we would call in cricket the 'googley' - a ball designed to deceive, designed to confuse a batsman. If you don't read it, you don't understand it, you can't play it."
First of all, I was annoyed at the fact that he had the balls (geddit?) to make a direct comparison between sport and politics. Then I was annoyed at the other "No" candidates who consistently made exactly the same point. There may be some similarities, and some sporting metaphors may be able to transfer over into the political arena, but not this. There is no way that you can make that kind of direct comparison between the process of winning in sport and the process of winning in a democratic election. Here's why:
1. Sport is about winning between two sides, politics isn't. Generally, sporting events and competitions are about two people/teams competing against one another, and the concept of straight, uncomplicated scoring works in this event. In two-party political systems, this works, because people can only ever vote for one or the other, and so you can directly gauge the proportions of support for either party. However, we do not have a two-party system. Every constituency in the UK has at least three MPs running for Parliament (that I'm aware of - let me know if your constituency doesn't) and so this complicates the issue of proportionality, and makes the ability to gauge the population's choice for representation more difficult. This is where a system like AV or STV (Single Transferable Vote) comes in, and frankly, the former's a lot simpler than the latter.
2. The conceptual base of sport is entertainment, the conceptual base of politics is governance. I know this sounds a lot like "sport doesn't mean anything", but that's not what I'm saying - I think entertainment is very important, considering I want to go into the film industry. Regardless, whatever happens in sport does not necessarily have a direct impact on your life, no matter how much you think that is the case. Politics, on the other hand, can have very real implications, and choosing who is running the country is important not just to have somebody there, but also to make sure that whoever is in office truly represents the mood of the nation to other countries in a diplomatic sense. Foreign relations is just one example of many that can be made regarding this idea of "proper representation". When a football team wins a match, it's not about "representing", it's about "winning". And it's the inverse of that that should be involved in politics. A local candidate should not consider gaining a seat in the House of Commons "winning", but the right to represent.
Democracy is a problem in this country, more than I think its population realises. I am not Monarchist or Republican, but don't forget that we are still one of only a handful of nations left on the planet whose Head of State is chosen by birthright and not the will of its people; we are technically "subjects" after all, not "citizens", our democratic system is there at the behest of Her Royal Highness.
My point is that we should grasp where we can our ability to change this country's political scene, and one of the most vital ways we can do that is through the way that we elect our politicians. Is your constituency overloaded with people voting for various independent candidates but it's always a Conservative or Labour victory, because they receive the most collaborative votes, regardless of percentage? You can change that. Imagine if we found ourselves in a position where independent MPs held the majority. The Queen would have no choice but to declare a non-partisan house. Imagine an executive made up of people who wanted to do those jobs, rather than being forced into it by a media mogul-backed party chairman.
It was interesting to see that all the "No" voters in this article were sportsmen. I don't want to deride their opinion in any way, but I can't help but feel that they really do not understand the massive differences between the way politics should be run and the way a sporting event should be run.
I understand that there are other things to spend our money on, but I'll refer you to my previous blog. The soldier that needs equipment may be a valid argument to stop us spending millions on a new voting system (I'm not sure why it's going to cost us so much to change the frakkin' form) but he should receive new equipment regardless of the political scenario. Besides, it's a somewhat unrelated issue.
Below is the link to the article:
http://news.uk.msnaspx?cp-documentid=157030641
Here are the wikipedia articles for AV and STV, the latter being the system originally promoted by the Liberal Democrats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
I've just read an MSN article titled "AV Referendum: The Celebrity Backers", as I was marginally interested to see who's backing AV and who isn't. We all know the "Yes" proponents: Stephen Fry, Colin Firth, Joanna Lumley, etc., but I was curious to know who have said "No", as you don't really hear a lot about them in general media. The first on the list was Sky Sports presenter and former English cricket captain David Gower. I was in a rather blase and passive mood today, but then I read his reasoning for voting "No" and it got my blood boiling a little, something I'm not particularly proud of. This is his quote:
"I'm used to a system in sport, in cricket specifically, where if you win, you win; it's as simple as that. If you're first, if you've got more runs, you win the game. I can't see why politics should be any different. You want the best to be at the top, and if they are the best, they will win. This whole proposed system of AV is, I think, the equivalent of what we would say in cricket or what we would call in cricket the 'googley' - a ball designed to deceive, designed to confuse a batsman. If you don't read it, you don't understand it, you can't play it."
First of all, I was annoyed at the fact that he had the balls (geddit?) to make a direct comparison between sport and politics. Then I was annoyed at the other "No" candidates who consistently made exactly the same point. There may be some similarities, and some sporting metaphors may be able to transfer over into the political arena, but not this. There is no way that you can make that kind of direct comparison between the process of winning in sport and the process of winning in a democratic election. Here's why:
1. Sport is about winning between two sides, politics isn't. Generally, sporting events and competitions are about two people/teams competing against one another, and the concept of straight, uncomplicated scoring works in this event. In two-party political systems, this works, because people can only ever vote for one or the other, and so you can directly gauge the proportions of support for either party. However, we do not have a two-party system. Every constituency in the UK has at least three MPs running for Parliament (that I'm aware of - let me know if your constituency doesn't) and so this complicates the issue of proportionality, and makes the ability to gauge the population's choice for representation more difficult. This is where a system like AV or STV (Single Transferable Vote) comes in, and frankly, the former's a lot simpler than the latter.
2. The conceptual base of sport is entertainment, the conceptual base of politics is governance. I know this sounds a lot like "sport doesn't mean anything", but that's not what I'm saying - I think entertainment is very important, considering I want to go into the film industry. Regardless, whatever happens in sport does not necessarily have a direct impact on your life, no matter how much you think that is the case. Politics, on the other hand, can have very real implications, and choosing who is running the country is important not just to have somebody there, but also to make sure that whoever is in office truly represents the mood of the nation to other countries in a diplomatic sense. Foreign relations is just one example of many that can be made regarding this idea of "proper representation". When a football team wins a match, it's not about "representing", it's about "winning". And it's the inverse of that that should be involved in politics. A local candidate should not consider gaining a seat in the House of Commons "winning", but the right to represent.
Democracy is a problem in this country, more than I think its population realises. I am not Monarchist or Republican, but don't forget that we are still one of only a handful of nations left on the planet whose Head of State is chosen by birthright and not the will of its people; we are technically "subjects" after all, not "citizens", our democratic system is there at the behest of Her Royal Highness.
My point is that we should grasp where we can our ability to change this country's political scene, and one of the most vital ways we can do that is through the way that we elect our politicians. Is your constituency overloaded with people voting for various independent candidates but it's always a Conservative or Labour victory, because they receive the most collaborative votes, regardless of percentage? You can change that. Imagine if we found ourselves in a position where independent MPs held the majority. The Queen would have no choice but to declare a non-partisan house. Imagine an executive made up of people who wanted to do those jobs, rather than being forced into it by a media mogul-backed party chairman.
It was interesting to see that all the "No" voters in this article were sportsmen. I don't want to deride their opinion in any way, but I can't help but feel that they really do not understand the massive differences between the way politics should be run and the way a sporting event should be run.
I understand that there are other things to spend our money on, but I'll refer you to my previous blog. The soldier that needs equipment may be a valid argument to stop us spending millions on a new voting system (I'm not sure why it's going to cost us so much to change the frakkin' form) but he should receive new equipment regardless of the political scenario. Besides, it's a somewhat unrelated issue.
Below is the link to the article:
http://news.uk.msnaspx?cp-documentid=157030641
Here are the wikipedia articles for AV and STV, the latter being the system originally promoted by the Liberal Democrats:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Vote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Johann Hari is a Geni... Actually, Let's Not Go Overboard
So, Stephen Fry has once again directed me towards a Johann Hari article today. This one, however, was rather more to my liking. You can read it here:
http://www.johannhari.com/2011/03
I know I've been critical of Hari in the past (and trust me, I still think his interview/debate manner leaves much to be desired), but that's not to say I don't sometimes agree with his political ideologies.
Anybody who reads my blogs (which, according to the website, is nobody, so thanks very much (who am I talking to?)), you'll know that my very first blog was about the cuts, and perhaps more importantly, I didn't really come to any personal conclusion as to whether the cuts should be imposed or not. After reading Johann Hari's article, I find myself agreeing with the basic premise. Remarkably, it ties in rather well to the comments I made about Margaret Thatcher in another previous post, and her hardline but misdirected approach to trying to alleviate the country's financial problems.
Hari's basic conclusion is to not make any cuts at all. Nor should we overspend. In the 2011 Budget, this country will borrow approximately £146 billion, and it is proposed that the amount borrowed will continously fall over the course of the next five years to around £20 billion by the 2015/16 budget. It will certainly spike the interest of the media as to how the government can afford to effectively scrap £126 billion worth of services. Whilst I was initially cautiously happy about the slow decrease in the treasury's reliance on the Bank of England, and subsequently the taxpayer, you have to wonder just how bad it will get before it gets better. Predictably, the loss of services, jobs (rising the unemployment level and causing the government to borrow again in order to sustain the JSA - it's like a effin' roundabout), and so forth will cause the next elected government (hard to say who if AV goes through) to start borrowing again to fulfil their mandate. To put it simply, it doesn't matter how hard Osborne tries, he's never going to get the country out of its debt to the banks, unless he can solidly explain to the public why they should not borrow money; pay off their mortgages as quickly as possible; stop claiming welfare; and also continuously re-elect the current government by voting for their local Conservative MP for the next two general elections. Good luck Georgie.
Quite simply, Hari is right. He mentions in his blog that South Korea is probably the nation recovering the best from this disaster, because they have succumbed to their inevitable fate and decided to just stimulate their economy with bailout procedures. Yes, this means more debt, but it's something that is hard to control, and further shows the world just how much they rely on bankers to keep nations afloat. In the case of South Korea - and subsequently how every other country should respond - is like a metaphor for the cake sitting in your fridge that you really shouldn't eat. But, as soon as you take one bite, it's ruined, so you might as well finish it off.
Mmm, cake.
Like I think I mentioned before, the only way that we're going to get out of this brutal cycle is to change the entire economic structure. Having an economic society based entirely on credit and the concept of continuous borrowing is only going to worsen the situation. You need to change it around. Put financial authority back into the treasury. Operate on real money again, though I'm not necessarily advocating the return of the Gold Standard. My friend said we should once, and I looked it up. I don't think he fully understood what the Gold Standard was.
Anyway, that's my point. Check out Hari's blog if you haven't already, because it's pretty good, and he draws influences and points from some proper economists and analysts - not that I'm saying he isn't one, but the key to a good argument is heavy referencing.
And yes, I'm still trying to come up with a better metaphor than the cake.
If you're a twitterer/tweeter/twitteringer/nerd, then follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie
http://www.johannhari.com/2011/03
I know I've been critical of Hari in the past (and trust me, I still think his interview/debate manner leaves much to be desired), but that's not to say I don't sometimes agree with his political ideologies.
Anybody who reads my blogs (which, according to the website, is nobody, so thanks very much (who am I talking to?)), you'll know that my very first blog was about the cuts, and perhaps more importantly, I didn't really come to any personal conclusion as to whether the cuts should be imposed or not. After reading Johann Hari's article, I find myself agreeing with the basic premise. Remarkably, it ties in rather well to the comments I made about Margaret Thatcher in another previous post, and her hardline but misdirected approach to trying to alleviate the country's financial problems.
Hari's basic conclusion is to not make any cuts at all. Nor should we overspend. In the 2011 Budget, this country will borrow approximately £146 billion, and it is proposed that the amount borrowed will continously fall over the course of the next five years to around £20 billion by the 2015/16 budget. It will certainly spike the interest of the media as to how the government can afford to effectively scrap £126 billion worth of services. Whilst I was initially cautiously happy about the slow decrease in the treasury's reliance on the Bank of England, and subsequently the taxpayer, you have to wonder just how bad it will get before it gets better. Predictably, the loss of services, jobs (rising the unemployment level and causing the government to borrow again in order to sustain the JSA - it's like a effin' roundabout), and so forth will cause the next elected government (hard to say who if AV goes through) to start borrowing again to fulfil their mandate. To put it simply, it doesn't matter how hard Osborne tries, he's never going to get the country out of its debt to the banks, unless he can solidly explain to the public why they should not borrow money; pay off their mortgages as quickly as possible; stop claiming welfare; and also continuously re-elect the current government by voting for their local Conservative MP for the next two general elections. Good luck Georgie.
Quite simply, Hari is right. He mentions in his blog that South Korea is probably the nation recovering the best from this disaster, because they have succumbed to their inevitable fate and decided to just stimulate their economy with bailout procedures. Yes, this means more debt, but it's something that is hard to control, and further shows the world just how much they rely on bankers to keep nations afloat. In the case of South Korea - and subsequently how every other country should respond - is like a metaphor for the cake sitting in your fridge that you really shouldn't eat. But, as soon as you take one bite, it's ruined, so you might as well finish it off.
Mmm, cake.
Like I think I mentioned before, the only way that we're going to get out of this brutal cycle is to change the entire economic structure. Having an economic society based entirely on credit and the concept of continuous borrowing is only going to worsen the situation. You need to change it around. Put financial authority back into the treasury. Operate on real money again, though I'm not necessarily advocating the return of the Gold Standard. My friend said we should once, and I looked it up. I don't think he fully understood what the Gold Standard was.
Anyway, that's my point. Check out Hari's blog if you haven't already, because it's pretty good, and he draws influences and points from some proper economists and analysts - not that I'm saying he isn't one, but the key to a good argument is heavy referencing.
And yes, I'm still trying to come up with a better metaphor than the cake.
If you're a twitterer/tweeter/twitteringer/nerd, then follow me:
http://twitter.com/thesteadyeddie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)