Pull up the ladder....
Thursday, 27 November 2003 01:56![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apollaI woke up this morning much much earlier than usual. At half ten. I put the telly on and discovered after watching a bit of Stingray on 2 that the State Opening of Parliament was on BBC1.
The State Opening of Parliament is the bit where Black Rod has to go knock on the door of the House of Commons to ask them to come listen to the Queen give her sppech in the House of Lords. It's steeped in history and all that stuff- there were heralds and train-bearers and the Crown arrived before the Queen and there's tons of mini-processions within the whole palaver. So far so good, except for Huw Edwards' really fucking annoying commentary- he's annoying at the best of times but when he's patronising and scrambling for things to say while a procession takes its sweet time, he's unbearable. But I decide to flick between it and Stingray cos I might see something interesting that way.
The Queen's Speech is not written by her. Basically the Prime Minister and the government write it and make her say it all. It's them basically saying what they're going to do over the next year- bills that will be passed and so on and so forth.
Why do I care? Read on MacDuff.
Aside from not putting the ban on fox-hunting in there (a matter on which I have no real interest or opinion) the speech also mentioned, as we knew it would, student tuition fees. Basically the Queen said that 'upfront tuition fees will be abolished.' Cause for celebration, no? NO. It's the upfront bit that is important. Basically the Labour government has decided that taking a grand a year from students isn't enough. No, now we're not going to pay just over a thousand pounds a year. Instead we'll pay more than that. It's called top-up fees or something. It will apparently help people from underprivileged backgrounds.
Of course, people from underprivileged backgrounds could go to university when there were no tuition fees and instead of the frankly insulting student loans, they got grants that meant that instead of spending 3+ years terrified about debt and overdrafts sutdents worried about their work and the non-academic but no less important elements of student life. It used to be a running joke that students just drank all day. Now they do it because the life of a student is, unless you're very rich, a frankly depressing thing to behold.
At this point I hear all you Americans crying out that you pay far more than a thousand pounds a year in tuition fees. And you're right. I know exactly how much you guys have to pay. I know that you guys also have generally great facilities on campus as a result. One statistic on telly I saw the other day compared Bath Uni. to the U of Virginia. Virginia has five millions books in its libraries, Bath only a fifth of that. Go to the library at St. Peter's Campus, Sunderland- not really many books at all. That said, most American universities, especially the state universities are a great deal larger than ours. In this country a university of nine, ten thousand is considered big. In America that's a relatively small university, even by private standards. We don't have private universities either.
You see, I totally get why universities in this country need more money. I'm not quibbling that- I've spent too many hours in cramped little computer rooms with out-of-date computers hoping that the printer is working. I've spent too many hours looking for books that they don't have (OK, minutes looking, I'll be honest).
I'll give you a comparison. When I did a paper on Jim Morrison in California with Natasha, we found quite a few biographies of Jim, a lot more related books and I got out the Angie Bowie book about her husband's shenanigans when they were married. Did Lancaster have useful books like that when I returned there to do my dissertation on Jimmy? Did they fuck. UCIrvine, btw are not especially known for their music history or anything, it's not like I just happened to be at a uni that specialised. They just had them. I know British universities need a truckload more money each if they're to have a hope of competing in the increasingly global Higher Education market.
But, and this is a big 'but': Why should it be at the expense of the students? Education should not be given only to the highest bidders, but to the people who deserve it. Higher Education was once the domain only of the rich and privileged and it was the change in that that made a real, lasting difference to our society, far more than rock and roll music or youthful demonstrations. I am truly sickened that it is a Labour government that threw tuition fees at us, that it is a Labour government that wants to strangle students even more. Labour once stood for the working man, the underprivileged and those who wouldn't have had a voice otherwise. Now Labour stands for itself and those who don't need help.
I am reminded of an episode of the West Wing I saw just yesterday in which Sam Seaborn is talking about education. He said (I paraphrase) that education should cost the people nothing and the government a ton, just like national defence. Whether it is in America or England, schools or universities, he is right.
The thing is, you see, while this new scheme might well help the underprivileged, it will cripple the vast majority of people in this country who are part of the vast middle class. We are not poor- many of us have cable and broadband and DVD players- but paying out three thousand pounds a year simply for tuition fees will genuinely cripple many families financially. See, these families have enough money to not qualify for the means-testing thing they have going now, but it's not really enough to take a thousand pounds year out of without leaving a sizeable dent. It's better for Americans in this sense because the system is so entrenched that as soon as the child is even born, the parents know they must save and save for the college fund. That isn't part of our country's mindset because our parents got their education for free. It's not like Tony and his cretinous friends are saying 'this will start in 2008', they're saying it's going to happen now, as happened to an entire year's worth of students who found out really very suddenly that they had to find a grand. I was lucky- my parents had a couple of years warning. Hell, I was lucky that my parents were prepared to pay my fees. This will cripple some families who may well end up having to choose which child to send to university. And that is a crime I cannot forgive. We should all have the opportunity to Higher Education just like the morons running our government did.
I don't claim to have the answer to this problem. I don't have enough information or numbers or clever advisors to help me. I do know that we can do it because we did it for decades. We can do it, we'd just rather fight someone else's war when we don't want to, we'd rather let hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flood the country and give them money. For the record, I have no problem with asylum seekers- I feel that anyone who is willing to risk all just to get here must have a reason. I just don't understand why we give them the kind of financial benefit/welfare that no other country does. But that's an entirely different issue on which I am not sufficiently aware of the details to truly comment on.
Oh, and before I forget, the people currently running our country didn't have to pay a penny to go to university- they are of the post-war generations who got their university education free of charge. They got what they wanted, now they are pulling up the ladder on us. But I'm all right Jack, as they used to say. Fuck the rest of us.
It's enough to drive me into politics just to get rid of these bastards, who aside from the tuition fee fiasco also want to, wait for it, introduce a national identity card.
*Big Brother paging Mr Blair, Big Brother paging Mr Blunkett.*
The people of Britain didn't really mind ID cards during the war when there was a legitimate reason to know who was who. But we have historically not been fond of this particular concept- it has I believe, been done before. Historically ID cards are one step below having to wear certain coloured shirts in the camp so the guards know whether you're Jewish, Catholic, socialist, a political prisoner or just there because someone in the government felt like it. Think I'm exaggerating? I don't. ID cards will not stop crime or anything like that because the people who do that sort of thing will simply forge ID cards as they do passports and benefit forms and whatever else it is they forge. All that ID cards will do is infringe upon the basic human rights and freedoms of ordinary, law-abiding people. But Tony doesn't care. David Blunkett doesn't care. I'm all right Jack.
On Monday while I was tidying up, I was watching this thing on BBC1 about Oliver Cromwell. Now most people who know me know that I'm not a fan of the man. In fact, I think he was an utter bastard. That said, I've never been entirely sure why I hate him so much. I mean, I'm not a Royalist, although I find the idea of killing one's King fairly rephrensible. It's not even just the massacre of the Irish at Drogheda that gets me, although I've never really been fond of the brutal massacre of people whose only real crime is paying the Pope attention. I mean, that's been my big reason, but there are other people who have slaughtered Irish- not least the Irish themselves.
No, the reason, I realised on Monday, was that the fucker was such a hypocrite. This is the man who fought a Civil War to get rid of the King, who incited friend to fight friend and dragged us into war for years. Then you know what he did? Once he'd got rid of Charles I (hardly a good King, let's face it, but still) you know what he did? He called himself Lord Protector and made himself a dictator on a par with Charles or any previous monarch! You know the big beef they had with Charlie dismissing parliament (and just not calling it at all)? Cromwell did the exact same thing! The bastard even named his son his hereditary heir as Lord Protector. And you know what? He did such a fucking awful job that they begged Charles II to come back from exile in Europe.
I have no issue with the Civil War in terms of the effect it had, namely a constitutional monarchy that no longer held complete power over the people. If the crown had remained autocratic and all powerful, it wouldn't exist today and if it did, I'd be calling for revolution right about now. But Oliver Cromwell was not the only person who wanted the king's head. He was not the only person calling for change. In fact, he kinda just leapt on the bandwagon towards the end and when he got to be in charge, threw some of the original guys in prison just like Charlie did. Above all things, the anti-papist, intolerant son of a whore was a hypocrite. And that is why I hate him so. At least I know why now.
I really wish I could be in a more Thanksgiving mood for you American people, but as long as this government continues to go on its merry way as it has been doing so since 1997, absolutely disregarding the reasons for which it was elected in the first place, I cannot honestly give thanks. And I don't like corn on the cob or pumpkin pie (the literal sort) especially.
The State Opening of Parliament is the bit where Black Rod has to go knock on the door of the House of Commons to ask them to come listen to the Queen give her sppech in the House of Lords. It's steeped in history and all that stuff- there were heralds and train-bearers and the Crown arrived before the Queen and there's tons of mini-processions within the whole palaver. So far so good, except for Huw Edwards' really fucking annoying commentary- he's annoying at the best of times but when he's patronising and scrambling for things to say while a procession takes its sweet time, he's unbearable. But I decide to flick between it and Stingray cos I might see something interesting that way.
The Queen's Speech is not written by her. Basically the Prime Minister and the government write it and make her say it all. It's them basically saying what they're going to do over the next year- bills that will be passed and so on and so forth.
Why do I care? Read on MacDuff.
Aside from not putting the ban on fox-hunting in there (a matter on which I have no real interest or opinion) the speech also mentioned, as we knew it would, student tuition fees. Basically the Queen said that 'upfront tuition fees will be abolished.' Cause for celebration, no? NO. It's the upfront bit that is important. Basically the Labour government has decided that taking a grand a year from students isn't enough. No, now we're not going to pay just over a thousand pounds a year. Instead we'll pay more than that. It's called top-up fees or something. It will apparently help people from underprivileged backgrounds.
Of course, people from underprivileged backgrounds could go to university when there were no tuition fees and instead of the frankly insulting student loans, they got grants that meant that instead of spending 3+ years terrified about debt and overdrafts sutdents worried about their work and the non-academic but no less important elements of student life. It used to be a running joke that students just drank all day. Now they do it because the life of a student is, unless you're very rich, a frankly depressing thing to behold.
At this point I hear all you Americans crying out that you pay far more than a thousand pounds a year in tuition fees. And you're right. I know exactly how much you guys have to pay. I know that you guys also have generally great facilities on campus as a result. One statistic on telly I saw the other day compared Bath Uni. to the U of Virginia. Virginia has five millions books in its libraries, Bath only a fifth of that. Go to the library at St. Peter's Campus, Sunderland- not really many books at all. That said, most American universities, especially the state universities are a great deal larger than ours. In this country a university of nine, ten thousand is considered big. In America that's a relatively small university, even by private standards. We don't have private universities either.
You see, I totally get why universities in this country need more money. I'm not quibbling that- I've spent too many hours in cramped little computer rooms with out-of-date computers hoping that the printer is working. I've spent too many hours looking for books that they don't have (OK, minutes looking, I'll be honest).
I'll give you a comparison. When I did a paper on Jim Morrison in California with Natasha, we found quite a few biographies of Jim, a lot more related books and I got out the Angie Bowie book about her husband's shenanigans when they were married. Did Lancaster have useful books like that when I returned there to do my dissertation on Jimmy? Did they fuck. UCIrvine, btw are not especially known for their music history or anything, it's not like I just happened to be at a uni that specialised. They just had them. I know British universities need a truckload more money each if they're to have a hope of competing in the increasingly global Higher Education market.
But, and this is a big 'but': Why should it be at the expense of the students? Education should not be given only to the highest bidders, but to the people who deserve it. Higher Education was once the domain only of the rich and privileged and it was the change in that that made a real, lasting difference to our society, far more than rock and roll music or youthful demonstrations. I am truly sickened that it is a Labour government that threw tuition fees at us, that it is a Labour government that wants to strangle students even more. Labour once stood for the working man, the underprivileged and those who wouldn't have had a voice otherwise. Now Labour stands for itself and those who don't need help.
I am reminded of an episode of the West Wing I saw just yesterday in which Sam Seaborn is talking about education. He said (I paraphrase) that education should cost the people nothing and the government a ton, just like national defence. Whether it is in America or England, schools or universities, he is right.
The thing is, you see, while this new scheme might well help the underprivileged, it will cripple the vast majority of people in this country who are part of the vast middle class. We are not poor- many of us have cable and broadband and DVD players- but paying out three thousand pounds a year simply for tuition fees will genuinely cripple many families financially. See, these families have enough money to not qualify for the means-testing thing they have going now, but it's not really enough to take a thousand pounds year out of without leaving a sizeable dent. It's better for Americans in this sense because the system is so entrenched that as soon as the child is even born, the parents know they must save and save for the college fund. That isn't part of our country's mindset because our parents got their education for free. It's not like Tony and his cretinous friends are saying 'this will start in 2008', they're saying it's going to happen now, as happened to an entire year's worth of students who found out really very suddenly that they had to find a grand. I was lucky- my parents had a couple of years warning. Hell, I was lucky that my parents were prepared to pay my fees. This will cripple some families who may well end up having to choose which child to send to university. And that is a crime I cannot forgive. We should all have the opportunity to Higher Education just like the morons running our government did.
I don't claim to have the answer to this problem. I don't have enough information or numbers or clever advisors to help me. I do know that we can do it because we did it for decades. We can do it, we'd just rather fight someone else's war when we don't want to, we'd rather let hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants flood the country and give them money. For the record, I have no problem with asylum seekers- I feel that anyone who is willing to risk all just to get here must have a reason. I just don't understand why we give them the kind of financial benefit/welfare that no other country does. But that's an entirely different issue on which I am not sufficiently aware of the details to truly comment on.
Oh, and before I forget, the people currently running our country didn't have to pay a penny to go to university- they are of the post-war generations who got their university education free of charge. They got what they wanted, now they are pulling up the ladder on us. But I'm all right Jack, as they used to say. Fuck the rest of us.
It's enough to drive me into politics just to get rid of these bastards, who aside from the tuition fee fiasco also want to, wait for it, introduce a national identity card.
*Big Brother paging Mr Blair, Big Brother paging Mr Blunkett.*
The people of Britain didn't really mind ID cards during the war when there was a legitimate reason to know who was who. But we have historically not been fond of this particular concept- it has I believe, been done before. Historically ID cards are one step below having to wear certain coloured shirts in the camp so the guards know whether you're Jewish, Catholic, socialist, a political prisoner or just there because someone in the government felt like it. Think I'm exaggerating? I don't. ID cards will not stop crime or anything like that because the people who do that sort of thing will simply forge ID cards as they do passports and benefit forms and whatever else it is they forge. All that ID cards will do is infringe upon the basic human rights and freedoms of ordinary, law-abiding people. But Tony doesn't care. David Blunkett doesn't care. I'm all right Jack.
On Monday while I was tidying up, I was watching this thing on BBC1 about Oliver Cromwell. Now most people who know me know that I'm not a fan of the man. In fact, I think he was an utter bastard. That said, I've never been entirely sure why I hate him so much. I mean, I'm not a Royalist, although I find the idea of killing one's King fairly rephrensible. It's not even just the massacre of the Irish at Drogheda that gets me, although I've never really been fond of the brutal massacre of people whose only real crime is paying the Pope attention. I mean, that's been my big reason, but there are other people who have slaughtered Irish- not least the Irish themselves.
No, the reason, I realised on Monday, was that the fucker was such a hypocrite. This is the man who fought a Civil War to get rid of the King, who incited friend to fight friend and dragged us into war for years. Then you know what he did? Once he'd got rid of Charles I (hardly a good King, let's face it, but still) you know what he did? He called himself Lord Protector and made himself a dictator on a par with Charles or any previous monarch! You know the big beef they had with Charlie dismissing parliament (and just not calling it at all)? Cromwell did the exact same thing! The bastard even named his son his hereditary heir as Lord Protector. And you know what? He did such a fucking awful job that they begged Charles II to come back from exile in Europe.
I have no issue with the Civil War in terms of the effect it had, namely a constitutional monarchy that no longer held complete power over the people. If the crown had remained autocratic and all powerful, it wouldn't exist today and if it did, I'd be calling for revolution right about now. But Oliver Cromwell was not the only person who wanted the king's head. He was not the only person calling for change. In fact, he kinda just leapt on the bandwagon towards the end and when he got to be in charge, threw some of the original guys in prison just like Charlie did. Above all things, the anti-papist, intolerant son of a whore was a hypocrite. And that is why I hate him so. At least I know why now.
I really wish I could be in a more Thanksgiving mood for you American people, but as long as this government continues to go on its merry way as it has been doing so since 1997, absolutely disregarding the reasons for which it was elected in the first place, I cannot honestly give thanks. And I don't like corn on the cob or pumpkin pie (the literal sort) especially.
