Aung San Suu Kyi is back on trial today in Burma after a failed attempt by the UN to have her freed.
Did anyone really expect the UN to help in the slightest? Surely this is just another example of how impotent and inept it has become?
And how about this for a bit of irony, with UN Secretary General telling junta leader General Than Shwe: "I appreciate your commitment to moving your country forward."
You just couldn't make this stuff up. Meanwhile a country remains enslaved and its democratically elected leader, who has lost everything through her commitment to freeing her country, imprisoned.
Friday, 10 July 2009
The Dark Side of Journalism
It comes as a shock to nobody that the News of the World is in hot water over an alleged phone hacking operation. Such activities on behalf of the paper were exposed more than two years ago when editor Andy Coulson was forced to resign after the paper's royal editor Clive Goodman was sent to prison for four months for illegal phone tapping. The paper is also so obsessed by celebrity scandals (obsessions with the private lives of the likes of David Beckham, David Blunkett and Sven Goran Eriksson have been par for the course over the past few years) that it does not come as a surprise that the paper would go to extreme lengths to dig dirt on prominent public figures.
But the scandal leaves a bad taste in my mouth for two reasons. First is the great disservice that the News of the World has done to journalism. Often journalists are unpopular, yet I feel this unpopularity is unfair given the great service that most journalists provide to the public. A free and active media is an essential part of any democracy. Yet when journalists entirely lacking in morals employ the likes of Glen Mulcaire to illegally dig up dirt, trust in the profession diminishes and every other journalist, however honest or fair they may be, is tarred by the same brush. Honesty and integrity within the world of journalism are essential if the reputation of the profession is to be upheld and journalists are to be able to do their job properly, and the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Piers Morgan and Andy Coulson (not that they'll care) besmirch the reputations of journalists everywhere.
The second reason why this story is important is that it has exposed the hypocrisy of the Tory party. For all the party's complaints about the role of Alistair Campbell within New Labour, David Cameron was remarkably keen to hire Andy Coulson, damaged reputation and all, in the first place, and even more keen to stand beside him as more allegations regarding his crooked past emerge. What what Cameron be saying if it was Campbell who was facing such allegations? Would he be arguing that "everyone deserves a second chance"? Of course not. This issue has emerged not long after Damian McBride, an advisor to the Prime Minister, was forced to resign after a failed smear campaign. McBride's actions were despicable, and Cameron correctly demanded that he be removed from his job and questioned the morals of a government that allowed such people to operate within it. What, then, does his continued dalliance with Coulson say about his own party? With backbenchers expressing discomfort over Coulson's role, the next few days are sure to be interesting.
The phone hacking scandal has damaged the reputation of journalists and also, though perhaps to a lesser extent, the reputation of the Conservative Party and its leader. To my mind, it would be a great shame if excellent and honest journalists, of whom there are many, had their reputations damaged by poor standards at an appalling paper, as not all journalists are as bad as each other. Cameron's hypocrisy, however, shows that the same cannot be said for the politicians.
But the scandal leaves a bad taste in my mouth for two reasons. First is the great disservice that the News of the World has done to journalism. Often journalists are unpopular, yet I feel this unpopularity is unfair given the great service that most journalists provide to the public. A free and active media is an essential part of any democracy. Yet when journalists entirely lacking in morals employ the likes of Glen Mulcaire to illegally dig up dirt, trust in the profession diminishes and every other journalist, however honest or fair they may be, is tarred by the same brush. Honesty and integrity within the world of journalism are essential if the reputation of the profession is to be upheld and journalists are to be able to do their job properly, and the likes of Rupert Murdoch, Piers Morgan and Andy Coulson (not that they'll care) besmirch the reputations of journalists everywhere.
The second reason why this story is important is that it has exposed the hypocrisy of the Tory party. For all the party's complaints about the role of Alistair Campbell within New Labour, David Cameron was remarkably keen to hire Andy Coulson, damaged reputation and all, in the first place, and even more keen to stand beside him as more allegations regarding his crooked past emerge. What what Cameron be saying if it was Campbell who was facing such allegations? Would he be arguing that "everyone deserves a second chance"? Of course not. This issue has emerged not long after Damian McBride, an advisor to the Prime Minister, was forced to resign after a failed smear campaign. McBride's actions were despicable, and Cameron correctly demanded that he be removed from his job and questioned the morals of a government that allowed such people to operate within it. What, then, does his continued dalliance with Coulson say about his own party? With backbenchers expressing discomfort over Coulson's role, the next few days are sure to be interesting.
The phone hacking scandal has damaged the reputation of journalists and also, though perhaps to a lesser extent, the reputation of the Conservative Party and its leader. To my mind, it would be a great shame if excellent and honest journalists, of whom there are many, had their reputations damaged by poor standards at an appalling paper, as not all journalists are as bad as each other. Cameron's hypocrisy, however, shows that the same cannot be said for the politicians.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
End Elitist Education
It emerged yesterday that the government is considering "no fee degrees", a scheme whereby students in this country would pay no tuition fees but also be ineligible for any sort of financial support from the government. The plan would primarily benefit students who choose to remain living at home with their parents, as well as students continuing their education beyond their initial degree.
I choose to ignore the obvious point that students remaining at home during their time at university miss out on vital aspects of university life, such as the process of leaving home, making new friends and living an independent life away from the watchful eyes of their next of kin. This point is crucial, yet I believe it to be relatively insignificant when we consider the larger issue- the elitism that has becoming noticeably predominant in Britain's education system.
It is my position, and that of many on the left, that education should be a right rather than a privilege, and therefore New Labour's introduction of tuition fees was one of Blair and Brown's greatest betrayals. Student loans make the fees slightly more bearable, but in some cases they are not enough, and most students still leave university with crippling amounts of debt. Saddling the future of this country with such debt is criminal enough as it is to my mind, but leaving poorer students who have shown great ability and work ethic to better themselves in such a sorry financial state is unforgivable. Young people seeking to further their minds and their experiences should, in my opinion, not have to pay for it, particularly under a so-called 'labour' government. The same goes for private schools. Privately-educated myself, I run the risk of being labelled a 'champagne socialist' here, but in the interest of fair play it seems to me that one child should not be entitled to a better education than another simply because their parents earn more money.
The latest review of the university system looks set to increase the levels of elitism that are already evident. The debate regarding tuition fees is not over whether they should be disposed of, but rather whether the fixed cap on fees should be raised or, god forbid, removed completely. Such a move would only serve to make the best universities less accessible to less privileged young people. The "no fees" system being mooted currently would make it easier for poorer young people to study at university, but at the same time deny them the chance to leave the communities in which they grew up. Also, in spite of the government's arguments to the contrary, I find it impossible to believe that such a scheme would not simply lead to a system whereby those entering higher education through receive a lower quality education and a less valuable degree.
I am in agreement with James Greenhalgh of the UK Youth Parliament, who argues: "It is frightening to think how many students would end up choosing a local university, regardless of whether it is the right option for them, because they want to avoid paying tuition fees." Rather than allowing a gulf to open up between those able or willing to pay and those who are not, why not revert back to a completely fair system where anyone who wants a university education can get one, funded by the government, regardless of their wealth or social status. Those who argue that there simply isn't the money for that are either blind or stupid. Our government spends lots more money on fair more useless things every year. Some people argue that too many people are going to university, especially in times of job sparsity such as today. Many even refer to current levels of university applications as a 'crisis'. I don't buy these arguments. Young people wishing to educate themselves is something that should be encouraged, especially in a recession. They should be encouraged by a free and universal education system with the potential to benefit each and every young person in exactly the same way. It is these values, my values, which make it so depressing to note that current rethinks of the way people are educated in this country will serve only to alter, and most likely further entrench, Britain's elitist education system, with the real shame being that it was Tony Blair and his 'labour' government that took perhaps the most decisive step.
I choose to ignore the obvious point that students remaining at home during their time at university miss out on vital aspects of university life, such as the process of leaving home, making new friends and living an independent life away from the watchful eyes of their next of kin. This point is crucial, yet I believe it to be relatively insignificant when we consider the larger issue- the elitism that has becoming noticeably predominant in Britain's education system.
It is my position, and that of many on the left, that education should be a right rather than a privilege, and therefore New Labour's introduction of tuition fees was one of Blair and Brown's greatest betrayals. Student loans make the fees slightly more bearable, but in some cases they are not enough, and most students still leave university with crippling amounts of debt. Saddling the future of this country with such debt is criminal enough as it is to my mind, but leaving poorer students who have shown great ability and work ethic to better themselves in such a sorry financial state is unforgivable. Young people seeking to further their minds and their experiences should, in my opinion, not have to pay for it, particularly under a so-called 'labour' government. The same goes for private schools. Privately-educated myself, I run the risk of being labelled a 'champagne socialist' here, but in the interest of fair play it seems to me that one child should not be entitled to a better education than another simply because their parents earn more money.
The latest review of the university system looks set to increase the levels of elitism that are already evident. The debate regarding tuition fees is not over whether they should be disposed of, but rather whether the fixed cap on fees should be raised or, god forbid, removed completely. Such a move would only serve to make the best universities less accessible to less privileged young people. The "no fees" system being mooted currently would make it easier for poorer young people to study at university, but at the same time deny them the chance to leave the communities in which they grew up. Also, in spite of the government's arguments to the contrary, I find it impossible to believe that such a scheme would not simply lead to a system whereby those entering higher education through receive a lower quality education and a less valuable degree.
I am in agreement with James Greenhalgh of the UK Youth Parliament, who argues: "It is frightening to think how many students would end up choosing a local university, regardless of whether it is the right option for them, because they want to avoid paying tuition fees." Rather than allowing a gulf to open up between those able or willing to pay and those who are not, why not revert back to a completely fair system where anyone who wants a university education can get one, funded by the government, regardless of their wealth or social status. Those who argue that there simply isn't the money for that are either blind or stupid. Our government spends lots more money on fair more useless things every year. Some people argue that too many people are going to university, especially in times of job sparsity such as today. Many even refer to current levels of university applications as a 'crisis'. I don't buy these arguments. Young people wishing to educate themselves is something that should be encouraged, especially in a recession. They should be encouraged by a free and universal education system with the potential to benefit each and every young person in exactly the same way. It is these values, my values, which make it so depressing to note that current rethinks of the way people are educated in this country will serve only to alter, and most likely further entrench, Britain's elitist education system, with the real shame being that it was Tony Blair and his 'labour' government that took perhaps the most decisive step.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Are we approaching the time of the Liberal Democrat?
Much has been written about the impending fall of the Labour Party and the seemingly inevitable rise to power of David Cameron's Tories. The press focus on the death throes of Labour while questioning what exactly a Conservative government would do. Analysts debate whether next year's election will be about spending vs cuts, as Brown would have it, or honesty vs dishonesty, as Cameron would). Yet, though the polls show a significant lead for the Conservative Party, a Cameron premiership is by no means inevitable.
Current polls suggest that the Tories hold a lead of ten points, or thereabouts, over Labour. Should these polls prove correct, then Cameron's party would indeed be the strongest in Parliament. Yet the party is by no means guaranteed a majority. Labour ministers are by all accounts seriously contemplating the possibility of a hung Parliament, a scenario which would result in Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power. The possibility of a so-called 'progressive alliance', such as the one that Tony Blair unsuccessfully attempted to build after the Labour victory in 1997, would then rear its head. The difference between 1997 and 2010, however, is that Labour would need Lib Dem support to stay in power. In order to guarantee this, they would have to give in to some long-term Lib Dem demands, most notably proportional representation.
A Tory victory, it seems, is very likely, though a year is a long time in politics and there is no real evidence that the unpopularity of Labour necessarily means popularity for Cameron, Osborne et al. There is no positive aura around the Tories now of the sort that surrounded New Labour pre-1997. Smaller parties could yet gain more than one might expect, and we saw the signs of this at the recent local and European elections. Even if the Tories do win, however, an absolute majority is by no means guaranteed, and the Liberal Democrats would then find themselves in a pivotal position to determine the course of British politics. One should not rule out a Tory-Liberal agreement, but the smart money would be on a progressive alliance between Brown (if he survives) and Clegg. With both Brown and Cameron still not at all certain of their own power within both the country and their respective parties, it could just be that Nick Clegg, a figure so seemingly powerless that he is for the most part neglected by the media and by the leaders of the two major parties, becomes the most powerful man in the country come May next year.
Current polls suggest that the Tories hold a lead of ten points, or thereabouts, over Labour. Should these polls prove correct, then Cameron's party would indeed be the strongest in Parliament. Yet the party is by no means guaranteed a majority. Labour ministers are by all accounts seriously contemplating the possibility of a hung Parliament, a scenario which would result in Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power. The possibility of a so-called 'progressive alliance', such as the one that Tony Blair unsuccessfully attempted to build after the Labour victory in 1997, would then rear its head. The difference between 1997 and 2010, however, is that Labour would need Lib Dem support to stay in power. In order to guarantee this, they would have to give in to some long-term Lib Dem demands, most notably proportional representation.
A Tory victory, it seems, is very likely, though a year is a long time in politics and there is no real evidence that the unpopularity of Labour necessarily means popularity for Cameron, Osborne et al. There is no positive aura around the Tories now of the sort that surrounded New Labour pre-1997. Smaller parties could yet gain more than one might expect, and we saw the signs of this at the recent local and European elections. Even if the Tories do win, however, an absolute majority is by no means guaranteed, and the Liberal Democrats would then find themselves in a pivotal position to determine the course of British politics. One should not rule out a Tory-Liberal agreement, but the smart money would be on a progressive alliance between Brown (if he survives) and Clegg. With both Brown and Cameron still not at all certain of their own power within both the country and their respective parties, it could just be that Nick Clegg, a figure so seemingly powerless that he is for the most part neglected by the media and by the leaders of the two major parties, becomes the most powerful man in the country come May next year.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Show them how you feel
I have never been to a protest. There is no footage anywhere of me marching with a banner demanding an end to war, nuclear weapons and child poverty. This is not because I don't want an end to these things, but rather a lack of opportunity and poor geographical positioning. London might occasionally overheat in the glow of a demonstration, but York and Southampton are hardly political hotbeds.
As soon as I get to the capital, however, I intend to take advantage of the right to protest. People just don't do it enough these days. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are pivotal aspects of our democracy, and opportunities to loudly express discontent should be cherished. As long as any demonstration remains non-violent, I see no reason why they should not be encouraged. When MPs are not speaking for the people, and not acting in a way the people like, then the people must take some kind of direct action themselves. Protests have been known to have positive effects, notably with the poll tax in the 1990s, though it is regrettable that violence occurred in this case.
People don't seem too bothered about protesting or demonstrating these days. This situation developed due to a number of reasons. The great demonstrations of the 1960s, in reality, achieved very little. Anti-war and nuclear disarmament campaigns have generally been met by deaf ears in the corridors of Whitehall. Disillusionment with the political system may also play a part in people becoming estranged from taking part in the process in any way at all, and the recent expenses revelations will only exacerbate that situation. Fear might also play a part, with the police response to the demonstrations earlier this year perhaps discouraging people from taking part. I also blame Margaret Thatcher, as I am inclined to do with a lot of things. In declaring the 'end of society' and the era of individualism, Thatcher initiated an era of selfishness, where the majority of people do not care about issues unless they are directly affected by it. In this world where everybody is out for what they can get, regardless of other people, demonstrating over more distant issues becomes less important.
I stand by the importance of demonstrations. People have a right to gather and speak out, especially in days such as these where members of Parliament seem wholly incapable of representing the views of the people. In a political system where the creep to the right has been severe, demonstrations and rallies should become a particularly important tool for the Left as they seek to get their views across. People's disillusionment from politics should also encourage them to demonstrate. If politics is not doing it for you, don't retreat. Do something about it. And let's declare an end to this horrendous Thatcherite consensus. Our world is wholly unequal and getting worse. The recent economic crisis has shown the dark side of neo-liberalism. While we're at it, let's bring society back. Look around, and see that people are worse off than ourselves. Rather than thanking our lucky stars that we are not as unfortunate as others, let's take it upon ourselves to go outside and tell our government what we think. I'm almost certain they aren't listening, but if the clamour is big enough and loud enough something might get through. We owe it to ourselves and to our society, our global society, to try and make ourselves heard.
So keep signing those petitions, and get yourself out on the streets next time an event is organised to promote a cause you're passionate about. I'll see you there.
As soon as I get to the capital, however, I intend to take advantage of the right to protest. People just don't do it enough these days. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are pivotal aspects of our democracy, and opportunities to loudly express discontent should be cherished. As long as any demonstration remains non-violent, I see no reason why they should not be encouraged. When MPs are not speaking for the people, and not acting in a way the people like, then the people must take some kind of direct action themselves. Protests have been known to have positive effects, notably with the poll tax in the 1990s, though it is regrettable that violence occurred in this case.
People don't seem too bothered about protesting or demonstrating these days. This situation developed due to a number of reasons. The great demonstrations of the 1960s, in reality, achieved very little. Anti-war and nuclear disarmament campaigns have generally been met by deaf ears in the corridors of Whitehall. Disillusionment with the political system may also play a part in people becoming estranged from taking part in the process in any way at all, and the recent expenses revelations will only exacerbate that situation. Fear might also play a part, with the police response to the demonstrations earlier this year perhaps discouraging people from taking part. I also blame Margaret Thatcher, as I am inclined to do with a lot of things. In declaring the 'end of society' and the era of individualism, Thatcher initiated an era of selfishness, where the majority of people do not care about issues unless they are directly affected by it. In this world where everybody is out for what they can get, regardless of other people, demonstrating over more distant issues becomes less important.
I stand by the importance of demonstrations. People have a right to gather and speak out, especially in days such as these where members of Parliament seem wholly incapable of representing the views of the people. In a political system where the creep to the right has been severe, demonstrations and rallies should become a particularly important tool for the Left as they seek to get their views across. People's disillusionment from politics should also encourage them to demonstrate. If politics is not doing it for you, don't retreat. Do something about it. And let's declare an end to this horrendous Thatcherite consensus. Our world is wholly unequal and getting worse. The recent economic crisis has shown the dark side of neo-liberalism. While we're at it, let's bring society back. Look around, and see that people are worse off than ourselves. Rather than thanking our lucky stars that we are not as unfortunate as others, let's take it upon ourselves to go outside and tell our government what we think. I'm almost certain they aren't listening, but if the clamour is big enough and loud enough something might get through. We owe it to ourselves and to our society, our global society, to try and make ourselves heard.
So keep signing those petitions, and get yourself out on the streets next time an event is organised to promote a cause you're passionate about. I'll see you there.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Revision is cheating
Apparently they make University kids do exams these days. As if it isn't stressful enough wondering where your next meal, drink or sexual partner is coming from.
For my part, I try not to get too stressed about exams. I work for them, yes, but not to excess, and once they're over I forget about them. Life's too short to worry too much about stuff like that, and there's more pot luck to these kind of situations. You're in the hands of the examiner, you might not like the questions, it might be too hot, you might need a wee. Do what you have to do, prepare a bit, but for heaven's sake don't give yourself a coronary. Just bash out a bit of revision, bullshit a bit, and hope for the best.
And no matter how badly it goes, you can always look forward to the celebrations afterwards and the fact that life will always give you another bite of the cherry.
For my part, I try not to get too stressed about exams. I work for them, yes, but not to excess, and once they're over I forget about them. Life's too short to worry too much about stuff like that, and there's more pot luck to these kind of situations. You're in the hands of the examiner, you might not like the questions, it might be too hot, you might need a wee. Do what you have to do, prepare a bit, but for heaven's sake don't give yourself a coronary. Just bash out a bit of revision, bullshit a bit, and hope for the best.
And no matter how badly it goes, you can always look forward to the celebrations afterwards and the fact that life will always give you another bite of the cherry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
