Friday 29 October 2010
*rolls eyes*
I was on the bus the other day and there was a girl who said "There's nothing worth going further north of here for". Yep, anything north of Coventry is absolute wasteland. She did however, highlight how she does think Edinburgh is worth going to, as they have a massive ski-slope, and Newcastle (?!) as they have "fit geordie accents."
Sunday 24 October 2010
Things that are embarrassing: #1
You listen to crap early 2000s pop music with flatmates one evening, later on you update your iPod, forgetting that everything on the 'Recently Played' playlist will be synced on to it.
The next day your iPod is on shuffle, you get into the Library lift, you're listening to a lovely acoustic song by Laura Marling and that song finishes, the next song comes on very loudly and everyone in the lift can hear it. One person even giggles. Everybody in the packed lift stares at you.
This is the song.
I should have just died. Right there.
Thursday 21 October 2010
The French.
This is boring if you don't care about French History, pensions or the British tutting about things.
In my seminar for Creating Social Europe this morning we were discussing the rise of Trade Unionism (and all the other things that came with Trade Unionism) in Britain, France and Germany. I find France's case particularly interesting, I'll give you a bit of background before I make my actual blog point.
They first began with the mutual (mutuelle if y'all want to get all French) in the Second Empire under Napoleon III in 1852. They were created to encourage stabilisation under a new regime, as the Second Republic had only lasted 4 years, obviously Napoleon III would rather his Empire lasted a teeny bit longer than the pitiful 4 years. By introducing mutuals there was some (although mutuals were hardly fabulous) form of social welfare, albeit limited in many ways (it was restricted to the Petit-bourgeoisie, particular crafts and it barely had any presence in rural France, oh and women were pretty much ignored...). The mutual supported the family, benefits were given to families, and were based on family need. Family was massively important (remember this for later), one of the main mantras of the Second Empire was that money should not be given from the rich to poor, but from the celibate to the family. This is to do with the Church often being the only form welfare for families, those who are celibate should promote and help the family and France's dwindling birth rate. In France there is something you don't really see here in Britain, intergenerational solidarity. Léon Bourgeois argued that people had a social debt, this is acquired due to your incapability to care for yourself when you are born, therefore you are cared for by family, friends and society. This debt is then repaid back when you are an adult, for example, in caring for elders.
Right, now that's out the way, here is my actual point...
In the past few weeks many people I know have gone to France for their year abroad (as they're doing language degrees). There have been many statuses on Facebook written about the strikes in France, and from a British perspective the strikes could be seen to be for a silly reason. They're raising the pension age from 60 to 62, doesn't seem like a big deal really. George Osborne revealed a much bigger rise in the pension age (particularly for women) yesterday in the Spending Review. He said that the pension age for men and women in this country will be 66 by 2020. Right ok. We've accepted this change, which will affect millions, and just said "Oh, ok, bit annoying, but I suppose it's fair". I'm not arguing that the retirement age shouldn't go up, it should, we're living longer, it makes sense (as long as pensions etc are not compromised). What I'm trying to get at is the difference in how we reacted, and the way the French reacted.
The reaction is so vastly different across the Channel. Anyone who says that the French are being ridiculous as "it's only two years" needs to understand that it isn't necessarily the increase that they're striking against. They're striking to prove a point, that they are a republic and that it isn't an autocracy, it's a democracy and President Sazkozy has no right to implement such a change in the law. Oh, and all the stuff I said before, about the intergenerational solidarity, do you see what I mean? The people striking are the young, students, adults, it isn't just a load of almost-retired oldies, it's everyone. There is something to be said for a load of people that go out on strike when the piece of legislation they're arguing against won't affect some of them for 40 years.
In my seminar for Creating Social Europe this morning we were discussing the rise of Trade Unionism (and all the other things that came with Trade Unionism) in Britain, France and Germany. I find France's case particularly interesting, I'll give you a bit of background before I make my actual blog point.
They first began with the mutual (mutuelle if y'all want to get all French) in the Second Empire under Napoleon III in 1852. They were created to encourage stabilisation under a new regime, as the Second Republic had only lasted 4 years, obviously Napoleon III would rather his Empire lasted a teeny bit longer than the pitiful 4 years. By introducing mutuals there was some (although mutuals were hardly fabulous) form of social welfare, albeit limited in many ways (it was restricted to the Petit-bourgeoisie, particular crafts and it barely had any presence in rural France, oh and women were pretty much ignored...). The mutual supported the family, benefits were given to families, and were based on family need. Family was massively important (remember this for later), one of the main mantras of the Second Empire was that money should not be given from the rich to poor, but from the celibate to the family. This is to do with the Church often being the only form welfare for families, those who are celibate should promote and help the family and France's dwindling birth rate. In France there is something you don't really see here in Britain, intergenerational solidarity. Léon Bourgeois argued that people had a social debt, this is acquired due to your incapability to care for yourself when you are born, therefore you are cared for by family, friends and society. This debt is then repaid back when you are an adult, for example, in caring for elders.
Right, now that's out the way, here is my actual point...
In the past few weeks many people I know have gone to France for their year abroad (as they're doing language degrees). There have been many statuses on Facebook written about the strikes in France, and from a British perspective the strikes could be seen to be for a silly reason. They're raising the pension age from 60 to 62, doesn't seem like a big deal really. George Osborne revealed a much bigger rise in the pension age (particularly for women) yesterday in the Spending Review. He said that the pension age for men and women in this country will be 66 by 2020. Right ok. We've accepted this change, which will affect millions, and just said "Oh, ok, bit annoying, but I suppose it's fair". I'm not arguing that the retirement age shouldn't go up, it should, we're living longer, it makes sense (as long as pensions etc are not compromised). What I'm trying to get at is the difference in how we reacted, and the way the French reacted.
The reaction is so vastly different across the Channel. Anyone who says that the French are being ridiculous as "it's only two years" needs to understand that it isn't necessarily the increase that they're striking against. They're striking to prove a point, that they are a republic and that it isn't an autocracy, it's a democracy and President Sazkozy has no right to implement such a change in the law. Oh, and all the stuff I said before, about the intergenerational solidarity, do you see what I mean? The people striking are the young, students, adults, it isn't just a load of almost-retired oldies, it's everyone. There is something to be said for a load of people that go out on strike when the piece of legislation they're arguing against won't affect some of them for 40 years.
Britain could probably do with scaring some politicians a bit, they get it far too easy in this country. I'm not saying we should be more like the French, *insert French joke about their army/food/Frenchmen here*, but you must get the idea. We tolerate so much, just look at the cuts the Coalition announced yesterday, it really is ridiculous.
Grrrrr.
Sunday 17 October 2010
I am disappoint.
Genuinely haven't found time to blog about anything. Despite having a list of things I want to vent about. I know you're all very disappointed. Anyway, go read some better stuff.
Here're some things I've starred on Google Reader in the past week.
Laurie Penny: 'The Sexy Way to Die'
Why cis attendees of Reclaim The Night are letting trans women down.
The Trouble with Hooters
Labour's universal discomfort
The social cost of variable tuition fees
Pictures of David Miliband looking stupid
Cameron cuts back on the truth
And the biggest news of all.
Sauron in bid to lead Tea Party Movement
Here're some things I've starred on Google Reader in the past week.
Laurie Penny: 'The Sexy Way to Die'
Why cis attendees of Reclaim The Night are letting trans women down.
The Trouble with Hooters
Labour's universal discomfort
The social cost of variable tuition fees
Pictures of David Miliband looking stupid
Cameron cuts back on the truth
And the biggest news of all.
Sauron in bid to lead Tea Party Movement
I fucking love xkcd
Monday 11 October 2010
Tuition fees ramble.
All the news can talk about at the moment is tuition fees (and the Commonwealth games, but I have no interest in that). This is due, as many of you may know, to the release of Lord Browne's report tomorrow and the whole 'Vince Cable doesn't want a graduate tax' thing that's been going on. I originally wrote "I'm not going to rant on", but that didn't happen. Never mind.
A lot of this rambling is heavily influenced by the fact I volunteer for Aim Higher in partnership with Warwick Volunteers, and therefore work with under-privileged children every week. I probably appear a little mental, sorry for that, but when you hear the kids reasons for not wanting to go to uni/further education, the importance of money isn't as high as the media like to portray. Oh and, I hate using the word 'poor', but seen as that's what the media have gone with, I'm using it, for consistency and such (not that the media is very consistent on a lot of things *rolls eyes*)
Couple of points I just want to clear up first.
Obviously higher tuition fees will put off some poorer people from going to university. But people seem to forget that those who are from poorer backgrounds get a lot of bursaries, and the maintenance grant. The people at uni who have less money are not the 'working class', it's those from middle income families. Students that are from families who earn middle incomes do not qualify for bursaries because their parents earn too much, yet their parents do not have the spare money to help their children through university. I know this isn't the main issue, but I do think it's important and often overlooked.
Right, obviously the tuition fees is main thing people are talking about, but
a) You don't pay that 'til after university.
b) You don't pay it until you're earning £15,000 or more
c) The rate at which you pay back your student loan is 9% of your total earnings. That's it. 9%.
Most people who are at uni now, who will finish in the next couple years, will owe around £20,000. I think that's how much I'll owe anyway, I think most people are around that or a few thousand more. So obviously tuition fees shouldn't go up, because being 21 with £20,000 of debt (and rising) is hardly the most amazing way to start your working life...The media are focusing largely on the fact it will put poorer students off, and yeah, fair enough, it will, but in all honesty, it's going to put everyone off who doesn't have parents that can fund you through uni. It's going to put poor people off AND a lot of middle income earners off. But those with middle incomes are more likely to suffer during there time at university.
Oh and other things I think I'll mention
Bassiicaalllyyy, it's a mess and I don't want our system to end up like America's. End.
A lot of this rambling is heavily influenced by the fact I volunteer for Aim Higher in partnership with Warwick Volunteers, and therefore work with under-privileged children every week. I probably appear a little mental, sorry for that, but when you hear the kids reasons for not wanting to go to uni/further education, the importance of money isn't as high as the media like to portray. Oh and, I hate using the word 'poor', but seen as that's what the media have gone with, I'm using it, for consistency and such (not that the media is very consistent on a lot of things *rolls eyes*)
Couple of points I just want to clear up first.
- Firstly, I totally understand why people are bothered about higher tuition fees putting off poorer students, obviously it's really important, for the sake of social mobility and such, that poorer students have the opportunity to get a university education.
- Secondly, it makes sense that we pay tuition fees, higher education is expensive and if the government want so many people to enter higher education, it doesn't come cheap. However, tuition fees are largely subsidised by the government anyway. The £3290 that students pay isn't the entire fee. It's quite shocking how many students think that is the entire cost of them going to uni.
- Thirdly, if we're going to make students in England pay full fees (/any fees at all), we should probably extend this to everyone in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, right? Equality and all that...
Obviously higher tuition fees will put off some poorer people from going to university. But people seem to forget that those who are from poorer backgrounds get a lot of bursaries, and the maintenance grant. The people at uni who have less money are not the 'working class', it's those from middle income families. Students that are from families who earn middle incomes do not qualify for bursaries because their parents earn too much, yet their parents do not have the spare money to help their children through university. I know this isn't the main issue, but I do think it's important and often overlooked.
Right, obviously the tuition fees is main thing people are talking about, but
a) You don't pay that 'til after university.
b) You don't pay it until you're earning £15,000 or more
c) The rate at which you pay back your student loan is 9% of your total earnings. That's it. 9%.
Most people who are at uni now, who will finish in the next couple years, will owe around £20,000. I think that's how much I'll owe anyway, I think most people are around that or a few thousand more. So obviously tuition fees shouldn't go up, because being 21 with £20,000 of debt (and rising) is hardly the most amazing way to start your working life...The media are focusing largely on the fact it will put poorer students off, and yeah, fair enough, it will, but in all honesty, it's going to put everyone off who doesn't have parents that can fund you through uni. It's going to put poor people off AND a lot of middle income earners off. But those with middle incomes are more likely to suffer during there time at university.
Oh and other things I think I'll mention
- Higher education isn't the be-all-and-end-all. Why is no attention focused on apprenticeships etc.?
- I think having a society that focuses mainly on academic achievement isn't healthy.
- What should be tackled is the reasons why a lot children don't want to do any form of education after secondary school. I know there are connexions advisers and people like me who volunteer and teach people about other options after school (besides going straight into employment), but they aren't present in every school. AND if the Tories get their way, then ConneXions advisers will be cut from some areas where they are needed.
Bassiicaalllyyy, it's a mess and I don't want our system to end up like America's. End.
Sunday 10 October 2010
It never ennnddsss.
The Conservative Party Conference this week was genuinely the final nail in my conference coffin. My Google Reader is at 900 [Edit: by the time I finished this blog it was at 937, may have to dedicate a day to reading all that]. I feel like my brain is smushed with so much political blaaahh. I'm not complaining, I obviously like politics, or I wouldn't follow a million (/185, according to the reader) blogs. Not all of those blogs are political, I'm not that insane. (If anyone wanted a really good insight in to my brain then my Google Reader would be the best way in.)
Now the Shadow Cabinet has been announced, Lord Browne's report is coming out and then the Spending Review is in like, 9 days. These are the events I actually care about, there's a load of other stuff happening too. Blah.
Looking forward to Ed Miliband at PMQs (ok, not looking forward in the same way I would look forward to a holiday, but ya know...excited to see. Is excited too enthusiastic? You know what I mean.) Though it'll be his first and therefore probably a bit painful. Poor Mili-E. Although, saying that, his performance on The Politics Show was brilliant. I love when he says "come off it". He's such a joy. Hopefully he'll stick to acting human-like, it's going well so far.
Now the Shadow Cabinet has been announced, Lord Browne's report is coming out and then the Spending Review is in like, 9 days. These are the events I actually care about, there's a load of other stuff happening too. Blah.
Looking forward to Ed Miliband at PMQs (ok, not looking forward in the same way I would look forward to a holiday, but ya know...excited to see. Is excited too enthusiastic? You know what I mean.) Though it'll be his first and therefore probably a bit painful. Poor Mili-E. Although, saying that, his performance on The Politics Show was brilliant. I love when he says "come off it". He's such a joy. Hopefully he'll stick to acting human-like, it's going well so far.
(If you can spot in this blog where there should be a "That's what she said", then you can have a prize).
Sunday 3 October 2010
Yo, Feminists!
On Saturday 23rd October, the LFN are holding a feminist one-day conference.
Speakers include: Helena Kennedy, Natasha Walter, Ceri Goddard, Nadje Al-Ali, Beverley Beech, Naana Otoo-Oyortey, Rebecca Mott, Leila Alikarami, Ann Rossiter, Finn Mackay, Heidi Mirza, Cynthia Cockburn, Rahila Gupta, Vera Baird, Pragna Patel and more.
EXCITED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)