2nd November (Issue 1197) - The Courier

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12 Monday 2 November 2009 THE COURIERCOMMENTOn the mike: James O’Sullivan debates in favour of lifting the tuition fee cap at last month’s Union debateStudent free for all?Simon ChildsIn early October there was a debatein Newcastle University’s Students’Union building about the future offunding for higher education. being the removal of the cap on topupfees.Those who advocate this free marketin education believe that unlessstudents start paying more, Britishuniversities will lose competitivenesswith world class institutionssuch as Harvard and Yale, wherestudents pay tens of thousands ofdollars per year for the privilege ofstudying there.The second option was the NUS‘blueprint’, under which studentswould pay a percentage of theirearnings after they graduate towardsa public fund for universities.I, and to my astonishment only twoother people voted for, was highereducation free at the point of use,funded by taxation.Newcastle students voted overwhelminglyfor the NUS blueprintoption.The premise that the NUS blueprintand free market options arebased on is that our economy is simplyunable to support higher education.It is a premise that I cannot accept.The fact is that there are hundreds ifnot thousands of different demandson government money; from thingswhich are vital to the fabric of oursociety, to things which are clearlyundeserving of taxpayers’ money.Our economy could easily afford toprovide free chocolate on the NHS.This is a genuine Monster RavingLooney Party manifesto proposal.The reason that it is not governmentpolicy is that as a society wedo not think this would be a sensibleuse of our resources, but it wouldactually be relatively cheap comparedto other areas of a government’sspending such as defence ortransport.The reason we continue to fundthese massively expensive areas isthat we feel that they are worth themoney.My point is that the issue is notwhat we can afford but, within limits,what we choose to afford.What a government spends moneyon is decided partly by the ideologyof the party in government andpartly by public opinion expressedat the ballot box.The other factor is lobby groups,from Greenpeace to the Confederationof British Industry, which seek variety of means.The principal job of the NUS is toact as the lobby group of students,lingthe virtues of higher education.Therefore if the NUS lies down andbuys the line of the Government,the Tories, and worryingly it nowseems the Lib Dems; that we cannotafford free university education; itbecomes true because even the principallobbying body which purportsto represent students does not thinkwe are worth the money.The reason people no longer believeuniversity education is worthproviding free to students supportedby taxation is because educationis now seen only as a tool withwhich to help Britain compete in theglobal economy.The notion of education as a goodin itself which civilises our societyand enriches our culture has beenWhat the major political parties say...lost.This has led to the arbitrary governmenttarget that 50% of school leaversshould go on to study at university;because our future economywill be knowledge-based.This in turn has led to over a billionpounds being spent trying tostop people from dropping out ofuniversity, because realistically,considerably less than 50% of thepopulation actually want to go touniversity.This lack of joined-up thinkingmeans that the situation we have isthis- the Government is condemningstudents who want to study tothousands of pounds of debt whileat the same time spending hugequantities of money trying to keeppeople in university who don’t evenwant to be there.Suddenly prescription chocolateon the NHS doesn’t seem like sucha bad idea.Students weren’t happy in 1997when tuition fees were introduced,so it was unthinkable that top-upfees could follow, right? university chancellors would bemarket in higher education wherestudents could leave education withnot tens, but hundreds of thousandsof pounds worth of debt?The NUS needs to shape the debateon its own terms, rather than acceptingthe ‘reasonable’ terms of debateset by politicians and chancellors.Otherwise, the boundaries of whatis reasonable and what we can orcannot afford will keep on changing,shifting further and furtheraway from the interests of students. Conservatives to be reviewed by the Governmentthis summer; decidingwhether it should be raised,scrapped or remain as it is.said that students shouldbe more demanding of theiruniversities, causing some tosee a fees rise as imminent.Conservative website assertsthat : “We recognisethat higher fees have broughtwe need to ensure that theyare providing a better studentexperience in return.”a fairer deal for part-time andmature students.Source: conservatives.comtionsif they come to power.potentially being put off goingto university by the thoughtof being saddled with £10k intuition fee debt.”Source: www.libdems.org.ukRESPONSEIn defence of socialismJames SandersonSpurred on by James Winters’ “CapitalistManifesto” in last week’sCourier, I felt compelled to write aresponse to his article.I won’t lie, I consider myself to bea socialist but I’d like to respond inas objective a way as possible on thebasis that his entire piece was uninformedand remnant of somethingyou’d read in some of the less reputablepapers.In his analysis of socialism, Jamescompletely overlooked the internationalistoutlook of many socialistsand by doing so fails to understandone of Marx’s key concepts of internationalunity.His analysis of how great life is underan international capitalist systemonly seems to take into accountthe lives we live here in the West.What about the 923 million peoplethat the UN says are starving andthe 36 million people who die fromhunger every year?I’m sure these people would loveto sit around eating McDonald’s, listeningto their iPods or travelling onboard a Boeing plane.The problem is though, not onlydo these people not have the choiceto do any of these things, but theireconomies are being underminedby an economic system that is by itsvery nature imperialistic, exploitativeand is above the laws of the internationalcommunity.Shell for example is robbing Nigeriaof its natural resources andleaving the local people with nothingother than empty pockets andan ecological disaster wherever itoperates.It is common knowledge that thisis happening so why haven’t Shellbeing brought to justice?You need to lookoutside the box and startcomparing how we liverelative to the rest of theworldJust because I’m not staring prematuredeath in the face as the re- Jesmond, it doesn’t mean that capitalismis great. You need to lookoutside the box and start comparinghow we live relative to the rest ofthe world, not just the rest of the UKor the West.The next big issue I have withJames’ assessment regards beingable to make a lot of money if youwant to. This is ridiculous.I don’t know where you come fromor from what sort of backgroundbut I would like to see you try to sellthe notion of hard work being theanswer to the problems of the estimated12.7 million people in the UKwho live in relative poverty.It’s also no coincidence that themost physically demanding jobshappen to be the lowest paid andthere are a lot of people out therethat work a damn sight harderthan you or I will ever work in ourlifetimes just to put food in theirmouths.You and I are both lucky enough tobe at a good university where hardwork will hopefully pay off.But what about the people whoaren’t in our position? Not everyschool gives its students the chancesthat they deserve and a lot of peopledo not have the luxury of being ableto attend the best schools.Even then, those who work hardmay not be able to attend the universitiesof their choice, if at all, despitebursaries, grants and the studentloan because of their family’sYes, we do have a decision to workhard or not, but if we choose to workhard, that choice will never guar- and on that basis his argument isI’d also like to draw James’s attentionto the fact that there are peoplewho work 18-hour days in conditionsremnant to the 1850’s.These people work in places calledsweatshops. There might be veryfew of these in the UK but I can assureyou that they exist throughoutmost of the developing world.The people that work in themare often faced with no alternativeemployment and as a result theyare exploited and denied a decentwage, reasonable hours, unionisingrights and safe conditions.I agree we’d be hard pushed to these conditions on a large scale butthat’s beside the point.You don’t need to look far to seeit, and it doesn’t take a genius to seethat cheap and dispensable labourand the abuses that go with it fuelthe capitalist system. Doesn’t soundso great to me. that in no way can tax be consideredtheft.Part of me doesn’t even want towarrant this statement with a response,but if it wasn’t for taxesmost of this country would not havereceived an education: primary; secondary;further or higher.Large swathes of the populationwould be denied health care. Elderlypeople would not be entitled toa basic state pension or winter fuelallowance.The list goes on. It’s easy to resenttax and it does go on things that arequestionable (Trident anyone?) butfor someone who is berating othersfor their lack of humanity for wearingChe Guevara t-shirts, I’d suggesthe thinks about the basic thingsthat taxation entitles those at thebottom to and how not having taxationwould harm those people.Finally, as he was interested toknow how many people have diedas a result of Marx’s ideas I’ll attemptto tell you.It’s estimated that between 56-62million people died in the USSR,around 100,000 people have diedunder Castro in Cuba and an estimated29 million perished underMao.None of this is forgivable or can beany self-respecting socialist whowould be willing to do so. mericalterms it’s not hard to seethat the current capitalist hegemonyis putting more people at risk ofdeath and harm in the Third Worldand developing countries than anyof the communist or socialist nationshave done.That doesn’t absolve the atrocitiesthat took place in the Siberian gu-uresinto the bigger picture.I am a socialist and I don’t wantto relocate to North Korea anytimesoon, believe me, and neither do Iwant to live in a cave. I want everyoneto have the same opportunitiesas me but not at the expense of thehundreds of millions of people wholive in abject poverty.it is our duty to make them becausewe can afford to.We’ve had capitalism and we’veall got blood on our hands becauseof it; let’s move on to somethingfairer and maybe one day we can beforgiven for our own atrocities.
THE COURIER Monday 2 November 2009 13COMMENTYESLaura HeadsTo many the mere phrase, ‘TonyBlair as European President’ is oneof fear and apprehension; but reallywhen more attention is paid, it becomesclear to see that this is not thecase at all.In fact Tony Blair is up for a muchsmaller role than the media has ledus to believe.Although it can be argued thatTony Blair will have a majorly in-case; he will be president of the EuropeanCouncil, only one part of theEU body; the advisory part.It was set up to dictate the generalpolitical strategy of the EuropeanUnion, and it is this which TonyBlair has been put in the frame torun.In general its meetings are heldmuch less frequently than the other institutions such as the Parliament,meeting around every six months,with the aim of only increasing thatto every three or four.It’s easy to see why Blairshould win hands downIf we are to believe what the mediahas told us about his job role,then advising Europe on its politicalstanding is of vast importance; androle than Tony Blair.Despite being known as a Eurosceptic,this can actually be seen asa good thing; his views will help toground the European Union andDear Editor,Over the last ten years there has beenan increase of 12,000 in the numberof full time university students inthe city, but a very much smallerincrease in the amount of purposebuilt student accommodation.The consequence of this is that exorbitantrents are now being chargedfor rooms in shared student houses,whilst second and third year studentsdo not have the possibility ofstaying in purpose built accommodation.The City Council policy on studenthousing seeks to address theseDear Editor,problems by encouraging the constructionof between 5000 and 6000new bed spaces for students.These will all have en-suite units.By increasing the supply of bedspaces in this way, rents will fall tohouses and second and third yearstudents will regain the possibilityof staying in purpose built accommodation.Of course the landlords are stronglyopposed to the construction of will fall. There is no plan to removestudents from Jesmond, and indeedthe City Council does not have thelegal power to determine wherestudents or any other adults shouldlive. This is simply a scare story putout by the landlords.stop them from jumping into decisionswith both feet.Not only that, but his history ofdisagreement with Europe (thinkIraq) is also, surprisingly, a goodthing; it will lead to longer debatesand as a result an all round betterdecision.This has got to be better for theEU, and ultimately the UK, as beingbrutally realistic, decisions based onwhat the French and other countriesthat are part of mainland EuropewayLet’s consider the alternate options;Jean-Claude Juncker, PrimeMinister of Luxembourg, and JanPeter Balkenende, Prime Minister ofthe Netherlands, are two Prime Ministersrenowned for being ‘yes men’;quiet and completely non-confron- want in a President of the EU.The President of Ireland, MaryMcAleese, the last person who hasbeen suggested, is, despite her title,someone who has no experience ofrunning a country; she is effectivelythe equivalent of the British monarchy.Faced with the choice of someonewho knows what they’re doing orsomeone who doesn’t, I know whoI would pick.Pitted against these it is easy to seewhy Tony Blair should win handsdown. His charisma and strength asa leader are something any leader ofEurope needs.Ultimately, it can be argued it boilsdown to the fact that people knowwho Tony Blair is; ask any ordinaryAmerican to tell you who Jean-Claude Juncker is and it is almostguaranteed that they wouldn’t beable to answer you.Ask them who Tony Blair is, andunless they’ve been living under arock for the last ten years they’re goingto know.Letters to the EditorIncreasing numbersneed more housingBlair for EU President?Finally the new accommodationcannot be described as ghettos.There are numerous different sitesacross the City centre which stu-All the new bed spaces which havebeen completed so far (700 since thepolicy was agreed, with 1000 underconstruction ) have been greatlyoversubscribed.RON ARMSTRONGCouncillor for North JesmondBNP coverage“missed the point”Whilst I understand the tight deadlinesbetween the broadcasting ofthe BNP edition of Question Timeand the publication of your own paper;I feel that The Courier writers’comments on the programme lastweek somewhat missed the point.Your writers argued for and againstpanel using interesting and valid argumentsconcerning the way Britainis viewed abroad and the resultingdetrimental effect the programmemay have had on the BNP.However, both neglected to mentionthe absolutely critical issue,that, as much as we dislike it, Nickyou and me, and that is the right offree speech.Regardless of what he was sayingNORoss DentTo a startling degree, the race forEU President is turning into a racebetween Tony Blair... and everyoneelse.This is surprising and disappointingto Europhiles, who are aghastat the thought of anyone from Britainlanding the job; given that asa country we shun the single currency,refuse to join the borderlessspecial rebate from the EU budget.This unwillingness to compromiseprecludes deeper integration whichthe Lisbon Treaty tries to achieve,and from which the job of Presidentis created.Indeed, rather than move Europeanintegration forward, the formerUK prime minister set a series ofso-called red lines during the Lisbonnegotiations, with the intent ofblocking any progress on social issuesand tax harmonisation, as wellas common defence and foreignpolicy.Across much of Europe, moreover,Mr Blair is remembered for splittingthe EU with his uncritical supportfor the Iraq war and for GeorgeBush.At home, feelings are often expressedin stronger terms, withsome believing he took us into theIraq War on the basis of a lie aboutSaddam Hussein’s weapons of massdestruction and in violation of internationallaw.Blair is admittedly an accomplishedpolitician. Unfortunately,he is an expert politician in thesense that ‘politician’ is a synonymfor ‘cheat’. One of his biggest lies as(most of which failed to make muchsense) he has the right to say it, andwe should be grateful that we livein a society where every politicalparty has the opportunity to havetheir say, allowing voters to makeup their own minds - the absolutecornerstone of our democracy.ALEX ELWICK‘The CapitalistManifesto’ ignoredcrucial aspects ofsocialismDear Editor,I am writing in to comment on JamesWinters’ article; ‘The capitalist manifesto’.I was taken aback by theferocity of the article; it makes NicFidler’s usual pro-capitalist articleslook tame. I never knew there werepeople so zealously capitalist in thecountry; it was as if I was readingthe rant of an ultra right, American,Republican loon. Nowhere in hisarticle were there comments aboutall the life saving changes socialismhas brought to this country. DrStephen Hawking recently said hewould be dead if it were not for theNHS (a product of a socialist Labourgovernment). Mr Winters says thattax is theft. I wonder how he thinksa state can run without tax. Nevermind the provision of evil socialistideas “comparable to the Nazis”, toa politician was to promise the Britishpublic in the election manifestoof 2005 a referendum on the ConstitutionalTreaty.Naturally, after regaining powerthis was reneged upon.The main argument proffered bythe yes campaign is that the positionrequires a political heavyweightwho is fairly well known. achieved remarkably little in hismuch feted appointment as Middle-East peace envoy, casting doubtover his claim to possess politicalgravitas, and showing little ability who would unite 27 countries.Further, while Blair’s possessionof Hollywood star power is indisputable,it is not clear that nationalleaders would welcome this; Merkeland Sarkozy are hardly likely toenjoy being overshadowed by thisproven Euro-sceptic.Were Blair to be given the Presidencyit is hard to see how Europe ate’sopinion of Europe is alarminglylow at the minute.If this loathed man were to beundemocratically foisted on us as how debate about our continuedmembership would reopen.important and perhaps simplestpoint; we got sick of Blair and hisempty promises and political spinafter ten years and mostly rejoicedDo we really want to see him in aposition of power again, obtainingairtime on the news to serve up anotherhollow sound bite (along withthat somewhat inane grin of his)?The European Union has a populationof almost half a billion; surelythere exists within it a better candidatefor the job than Blair?quote Winters, such as: universalhealthcare; education and old agepensions. Without tax we couldn’tafford an army, judiciary, policeforce or even a government. EvenMr Winters could not argue thatyou could buy justice, peace and securityfrom the free market.RALPH PARLOURDear Editor,After reading James Winters’ article,it is hard to know what to think.Disbelief springs to mind. I’ll startoff my article with some honesty,unlike the commentator of the misguidedarticle printed last week. cialdemocratic society. I don’t likecapitalism. I think it is unfair; it promotesinequality and ignorance, andis simply morally wrong.However, unlike the commentator,I am willing to compromise. I acceptthat capitalism is the economic systemthat creates the most wealth. Ifgiven the chance, you can make a lotof money out of capitalism.However, far too often, capitalismrefuses the chance that people sodesperately need. Social democracy,in my opinion, gives people thatchance.Back to the article. I have no problemwith a commentator who preferscapitalism to social democracyor socialism. It’s a valid argument,one I disagree with, but more thanvalid all the same.However, the writer refuses to acknowledgethat modern socialism isnot just Che Guevara, Marx or theUSSR.I don’t agree with the misguidedSources: The Independent andThe Guardianrants on Northumberland Street either;because they’re an extremistview. For the rest of us who dislikecapitalism, we have more moderateideas at heart.Without social democratic intervention,where would capitalismbe right now? Failed banks and millionswithout the savings and earningsthey’d worked so hard to keepover the years.The writer appears to appropriatelyforget that the ones who sufferunder a free market economy arethe ones who need social democracythe most.I doubt he has been in a positionto witness such suffering, but I’dlike to see him imagine it. It’s a wishI doubt will be granted however;capitalism has obviously served himwell, though how much of it is hisown hard work is open to debate. Ifear his ancestors may have been thetrue victors.I repeat that the writer’s viewson capitalism are fair. However,to compare it to such strong andancient socialist ideals show signsof weakness in support of the freemarket.No one, bar the occasional speakeron Northumberland Street, genuinelybelieves that a return to Marxismis the right way to go, so pleasedon’t suggest that all of us who believein equality and fairness are attachedto the same branch.CRAIG JOHNSONEmails in response to articlesshould be sent to the Editor ateditor.union@ncl.ac.uk
Page 3 and 4: THE COURIER Monday 2 November 2009
Page 14 and 15: 14 Monday 2 November 2009 THE COURI

2nd November (Issue 1197) - The Courier

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?