Been off the pace with the blog of late, so here's a quick note to stop it getting any worse.
The AV vote is getting devilishly close. I went into this whole thing as a neutral. I've listened hard (even more so than usual ;;) to both campaigns and have, at different points, both agreed and disagreed with each side. But I'm still none the wiser.
It's one of those issues that just doesn't bite at you. True, there are many of those. But this is one that is supposed to matter. Yet when you hear the argument from one side, you find yourself agreeing with it - even though you did the same when you heard the other side's a moment earlier.
As a Labour member I'm hastened to toe the party line. Sorry, Ed's line. But it's a referendum, which means party shouldn't matter. There lies the dilemma: you want to put your own stamp on it, but if you haven't got the ink, you can't write owt.
The solution is a difficult one. Whilst abstaining is the obvious choice, it's a lazy one. The question, then, is how best to make your vote count. If the answer to that is, “go with the guy you like or against the guy you don't”, then Cameron's 'No' will win; no matter how much you try, everyone remembers that Clegg is behind AV.
Maybe the answer should be: well, think harder - if you're poor at taking a stance on voting reform, then think about what it is you do want. Then, figure out how you can use the referendum as a buy-in to getting that - and not just by going with the side your party's leader is supporting, but by seeing the more intricate consequences of each outcome and what they mean to you.
This is the advice I will be giving myself (loner) before I vote. If I still can't decide, then I'll admit patheticness.
Meanwhile, I'll be campaigning (online, obviously) for a Labour victory in Leicester on the same day. If I end up voting 'No' on AV, this'll be the compromise for me going against Ed.
Happy Easter.
Thursday, 21 April 2011
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Tuition Fees
I woke up this morning to an email from The University of Nottingham, where I graduated from last year.
I spent three years there. At times I was well out of my comfort zone, given the backgrounds - and personalities - of many of my peers.
Most of the time, though, I was grateful - grateful of the opportunity I had in front of me, to be a (hold your breath) working class student receiving a top class education, and grateful for the prospects that that would bring.
But after reading the email this morning I fear there will be too few like me who will be able to share this gratitude. Because where I was asked to pay just over three grand a year for that education and that opportunity, my successors - if there are any - will pay nine. In simpler terms, Uni Nottingham have gone all out on the tutition fees front.
I've been slightly quiet on this debate so far. And actually, I'm not as hard on this policy as I am on some of the others coming out of the Coalition; I do, for example, appreciate the changes to the pay-back element of the new student loans, and yes, it was Labour who first introduced top-up fees.
Unfortunately, however, those considering whether to go to Unviersity aren't able to see things in the same way - and when you've got 9 grand/year in your way, it's no surprise why. I wouldn't like to say this with complete conviction, but I am quite sure that if my younger self had been faced with the prospect of (at the very least) a 27 grand debt, he would have spent less time trying to meet the AAB entry requirement, and more time scanning through the Mercury's job page.
The point is that no matter how many caveats you drop into this policy to help prospective students from poorer backgrounds into University, ultimately they will only see one thing: the debt.
There's no chance for a U-turn on this, and probably not even a "pause, listen and reflect". But there is an opportunity to quench the deterrent, and that task shouldn't be a difficult one...
In any email they send out from now, Nottingham University (and the others) need to hammer home to the undecideds what a degree can do for them - and not just in jobs (crucial as that is), but all the rest that goes with too. Only then will they begin to comprehend why they are being ripped off.
I spent three years there. At times I was well out of my comfort zone, given the backgrounds - and personalities - of many of my peers.
Most of the time, though, I was grateful - grateful of the opportunity I had in front of me, to be a (hold your breath) working class student receiving a top class education, and grateful for the prospects that that would bring.
But after reading the email this morning I fear there will be too few like me who will be able to share this gratitude. Because where I was asked to pay just over three grand a year for that education and that opportunity, my successors - if there are any - will pay nine. In simpler terms, Uni Nottingham have gone all out on the tutition fees front.
I've been slightly quiet on this debate so far. And actually, I'm not as hard on this policy as I am on some of the others coming out of the Coalition; I do, for example, appreciate the changes to the pay-back element of the new student loans, and yes, it was Labour who first introduced top-up fees.
Unfortunately, however, those considering whether to go to Unviersity aren't able to see things in the same way - and when you've got 9 grand/year in your way, it's no surprise why. I wouldn't like to say this with complete conviction, but I am quite sure that if my younger self had been faced with the prospect of (at the very least) a 27 grand debt, he would have spent less time trying to meet the AAB entry requirement, and more time scanning through the Mercury's job page.
The point is that no matter how many caveats you drop into this policy to help prospective students from poorer backgrounds into University, ultimately they will only see one thing: the debt.
There's no chance for a U-turn on this, and probably not even a "pause, listen and reflect". But there is an opportunity to quench the deterrent, and that task shouldn't be a difficult one...
In any email they send out from now, Nottingham University (and the others) need to hammer home to the undecideds what a degree can do for them - and not just in jobs (crucial as that is), but all the rest that goes with too. Only then will they begin to comprehend why they are being ripped off.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Maggie's Dream
Take a look at this brilliant example of Modern Conservatism.
I've recently visited Bexhill - Greg Barker territory - and from what I remember, it's a place dependent on local business; the café I bought my coffee from, for instance, was the sort where asking for a receipt was almost criminal, and where, by the counter, they sold locally produced jam.
But God help them. Barker's actually been MP there since 2001 - but luckily for Bexhill they've had a Labour Government for most of that time. Now, though, there's no such safety net. Instead, Greg - whose background is glazed in everything City/Corporate/International - has the sort of recklessly liberal/liberally reckless Tory Government that Margaret Thatcher could only have dreamed of. His words (partly); not mine.
As his "Government gets off the back of business" the fickle Bexhillians [sic] will think their MP and his coalition chums are doing good - their interpretation being: their letting local businesses thrive. But they'd be wrong.
Bexhill is hanging by its fingernails to Seaside England. Without a Government pinning them down, the big guns won't think twice before pushing them over the edge.
I've recently visited Bexhill - Greg Barker territory - and from what I remember, it's a place dependent on local business; the café I bought my coffee from, for instance, was the sort where asking for a receipt was almost criminal, and where, by the counter, they sold locally produced jam.
But God help them. Barker's actually been MP there since 2001 - but luckily for Bexhill they've had a Labour Government for most of that time. Now, though, there's no such safety net. Instead, Greg - whose background is glazed in everything City/Corporate/International - has the sort of recklessly liberal/liberally reckless Tory Government that Margaret Thatcher could only have dreamed of. His words (partly); not mine.
As his "Government gets off the back of business" the fickle Bexhillians [sic] will think their MP and his coalition chums are doing good - their interpretation being: their letting local businesses thrive. But they'd be wrong.
Bexhill is hanging by its fingernails to Seaside England. Without a Government pinning them down, the big guns won't think twice before pushing them over the edge.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Torn on the Platform
Once I make it down to a tube platform my eyes look straight to the departures board. I process the time until the next train and find a decent place to stand. The next stage is waiting - but the form it takes varies: I might take notice of an ad, should it catch my eye; or I might play my favourite Blackberry game, Brickbreaker; or, if I'm feeling really adventurous, I will consider changing my position. These sorts of things are perfect for a ***STAND BACK TRAIN APPROACHING*** type of wait.
But get on the Victoria Line at [at least] 23:30 on a Sunday night and you'll see that these are rare. Last night, for example, I waited 10 minutes. Same process still: Eyes - Proccess - Brickbreaker; but then boredom. The point is, the remedies listed above can only go so far as an effective treatment. So what's the missing ingredient?
Wi-Fi. Above the London Underground you'll find people going through the same process as those beneath. The difference is that Wi-Fi is the get-out-clause. Yes, the process is exclusive to each person, but the principle remains constant. The London Cabbie, for instance: pickup - traffic jam - RAC traffic app [sic]. With Wi-Fi, people are hard pushed to reach boredom.
So what I often wonder is how much wi-fi would help a tube journey. We're going to find out. For the past 6 months, Charing Cross commuters have been given Wi-Fi access on the Northern and Bakerloo platforms. This trial period has gone well, and now TfL will install 120 Wi-Fi connections in stations across the network in time for the Olympics.
The cognitive process I outlined above showed Wi-Fi to be the hero-in-waiting. Why? Well, being underground isn't pretty; being cut-off from the world above isn't any better. Wi-Fi solves this. It connects users to each other, meeting the ever-increasing demand for real-time information (careful, dictionary). Commuters on the underground are the worst for this sort of demand - give them an iPhone with signal and you'll find their Metros and Kindles at your feet, not in your face.
An air of caution, though: the commuter would love an underground Wi-Fi network; but a terrrorist would go mental for it (yes, literally). That technology allows a bloke to blow up half the Circle Line from his armchair is a pain in the arse. But it'd be more annoying for a Wi-Fi rollout to be stopped by a fear of these maniacs - without encroaching on the political element of this blog, there are far more effective ways to stop terrorists doing what they love to do.
There's some assurance, anyway, in that (initially) it's a platform-only job, leaving the trains to ride along as they are. But Wi-Fi is infectious - the trains can run, but they can't hide. The outcome, hopefully, will be a happier, more fulfilled tube network.
It'll be a great day when I can tweet about the moron who wouldn't move down the carriage - or RT the poor sod who couldn't get on because of him!
But get on the Victoria Line at [at least] 23:30 on a Sunday night and you'll see that these are rare. Last night, for example, I waited 10 minutes. Same process still: Eyes - Proccess - Brickbreaker; but then boredom. The point is, the remedies listed above can only go so far as an effective treatment. So what's the missing ingredient?
Wi-Fi. Above the London Underground you'll find people going through the same process as those beneath. The difference is that Wi-Fi is the get-out-clause. Yes, the process is exclusive to each person, but the principle remains constant. The London Cabbie, for instance: pickup - traffic jam - RAC traffic app [sic]. With Wi-Fi, people are hard pushed to reach boredom.
So what I often wonder is how much wi-fi would help a tube journey. We're going to find out. For the past 6 months, Charing Cross commuters have been given Wi-Fi access on the Northern and Bakerloo platforms. This trial period has gone well, and now TfL will install 120 Wi-Fi connections in stations across the network in time for the Olympics.
The cognitive process I outlined above showed Wi-Fi to be the hero-in-waiting. Why? Well, being underground isn't pretty; being cut-off from the world above isn't any better. Wi-Fi solves this. It connects users to each other, meeting the ever-increasing demand for real-time information (careful, dictionary). Commuters on the underground are the worst for this sort of demand - give them an iPhone with signal and you'll find their Metros and Kindles at your feet, not in your face.
An air of caution, though: the commuter would love an underground Wi-Fi network; but a terrrorist would go mental for it (yes, literally). That technology allows a bloke to blow up half the Circle Line from his armchair is a pain in the arse. But it'd be more annoying for a Wi-Fi rollout to be stopped by a fear of these maniacs - without encroaching on the political element of this blog, there are far more effective ways to stop terrorists doing what they love to do.
There's some assurance, anyway, in that (initially) it's a platform-only job, leaving the trains to ride along as they are. But Wi-Fi is infectious - the trains can run, but they can't hide. The outcome, hopefully, will be a happier, more fulfilled tube network.
It'll be a great day when I can tweet about the moron who wouldn't move down the carriage - or RT the poor sod who couldn't get on because of him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)