Nick, Vince and Simon met behind the bicycle shed to discuss the problem now facing their gang.
Several months ago, the gang had agreed to help the Prefects tidy up the mess in the Sixth Form Common Room.
This wasn’t popular with many of the gang members because the Prefects were a very snooty bunch who liked to look down on people who were not Prefects. It was widely believed across the whole school that the Prefects thought they should have special privileges just because their parents were rich.
But it was certainly true that the common room was in a mess and it did seem like the grown up thing to out help tidy up, so the gang had agreed to lend a hand.
The reason for the bad mess was the Social Committee had thrown a massive party. Many in the school had enjoyed the party until it was discovered how much it had cost. What made it worse was when it was discovered that some of the Social Committee (and ironically some of the prefects too) had used the budget to buy their favourite CD’s and taken them home with them. Worst of all the A-Level Business Studies class has borrowed from the teachers to pay for the party, but had bet the whole lot on the horses, and lost it. Now the teachers were asking for their money back, and blaming the whole school. The Business Studies class said they would move to another school if they were asked to pay it back.
There were rumours about bad the situation was before Nick and his gang offered to help tidy up, but none of them had known how bleak the situation was. It still seemed like the grown-up thing to do but the trouble was now Nick’s Gang were the most unpopular students in the school.
The prefects were doing fine. Most of the school didn’t like them to start with, and the one’s that did thought it right the whole school should suffer for the actions of the prefects, and many of their supporters worked to the School Newspaper and they would put out messages saying the mess wasn’t the prefects fault.
The Business studies class were happy because although they weren’t popular (which they never expected to be anyway) they were beginning to realise they had got away with it.
The Social Committee were happy too. They’d taken themselves off to the pub after the party, and only started coming back after the dust settled. Many of them worked for the school magazine, so they could put out the message that it was Nick’s gang who were the real Meanies for not letting the school have any more parties until the mess was cleared up. Who had organised the mess was already being forgotten.
A story has been placed in the Magazine that Nick and the Head Prefect were buddies because they lived on the same street. Admittedly this was on the richer side of town, so now no one listened to Nick when he said he was just trying to do the right thing.
Then, during the lunchtime just passed, Unready Eddy the new chair of the Social Committee had addressed a group of Nick’s gang suggesting they all left the gang and worked for the Social Committee, so that more fun could be had as soon as possible, never mind the cost, and wasn’t that Nick a meanie!
Nick, Vince and Simon, who had been least keen on joining the prefects anyway, read the list of options they had written out. It was not an encouraging list.
To be continued… well maybe.
Sunday 16 January 2011
Thursday 9 December 2010
On Student fees... again
After my minor rant on the artifice of my favoured grocer, I return again to the topic of the day, and of my post before last….
The policy has passed, my party is spilt, the media will have a field day. The NUS leader has passed his comment – quoted on the BBC website – that students had "won the arguments and the battle for public opinion".
I am far from certain he is correct in that. I speak to a good many people who don’t see why students should have their education paid for out of the public purse. While I personally believe education should be free up to the age 21, parties who disagreed with that position got over 50% the vote in May. I’ve not seen any recent polls specifically on what the public think on the issue. The Liberal Democrat rating in polls is halved, but they had most to lose as much of their May vote was drawn from the groups most affected – University staff as well as students.
There is a debate to be had about how public education is financed. By framing their arguments in terms of who has let them down, the NUS have failed to put forward the arguments that support their position – Why should the country fund their education?
There is a positive answer to that question - Because having a populated educated to their full potential benefits the economy and benefits everyone. So, go out and sell that view, rather than acting as if it is simply a ‘right’.
I am no salesman, but I understand that if you are trying to sell something to someone – and win the argument ‘buy from me’ – you need to explain why it’s in the other person’s interest.
If anyone should be able to win a debate, it should be our Student population, from whom the next generation of politicians will most likely be drawn. But destroy the Liberal Democrats now, and the question of funding Education fairly will be off the agenda for more than a generation.
The policy has passed, my party is spilt, the media will have a field day. The NUS leader has passed his comment – quoted on the BBC website – that students had "won the arguments and the battle for public opinion".
I am far from certain he is correct in that. I speak to a good many people who don’t see why students should have their education paid for out of the public purse. While I personally believe education should be free up to the age 21, parties who disagreed with that position got over 50% the vote in May. I’ve not seen any recent polls specifically on what the public think on the issue. The Liberal Democrat rating in polls is halved, but they had most to lose as much of their May vote was drawn from the groups most affected – University staff as well as students.
There is a debate to be had about how public education is financed. By framing their arguments in terms of who has let them down, the NUS have failed to put forward the arguments that support their position – Why should the country fund their education?
There is a positive answer to that question - Because having a populated educated to their full potential benefits the economy and benefits everyone. So, go out and sell that view, rather than acting as if it is simply a ‘right’.
I am no salesman, but I understand that if you are trying to sell something to someone – and win the argument ‘buy from me’ – you need to explain why it’s in the other person’s interest.
If anyone should be able to win a debate, it should be our Student population, from whom the next generation of politicians will most likely be drawn. But destroy the Liberal Democrats now, and the question of funding Education fairly will be off the agenda for more than a generation.
On Signage
As I was walking to the bus stop these evening, groceries in hand, my eye was drawn to a sign tied to a lamp sort. If the pedestrian light had not been against me, I probably would not have read this notice, and then I would not have walked on considering how curious it was.
The sign had been placed there by Morrisons, and constituted a public announcement that they had applied to the local council to amend the license under which they sell alcohol. Thus stated, very mundane. What I found a curious is a sign was not prepared to explain the exact nature of the amendment requested. For this the casual passerby had to ring the phone number supplied or visit the website. The final paragraph was a reminder that any dishonesty or deceitfulness involved in giving a viewpoint against the store would be severely frowned upon, with legal action hinted at.
There must be a legal requirement for a business to publicise any applied for changes in the area of booze merchandising. At the time I found the positioning of the notice strange, but on consideration I guess just outside the company's grounds could be aimed at local residents who do not use the shop. However the size (just an A4 sheet of paper) and the tone - giving so little information but with a veiled threat to any opposition - made me feel that this was an attempt to comply with the law in a way that was so grudging as to be outside the spirit.
The sign had been placed there by Morrisons, and constituted a public announcement that they had applied to the local council to amend the license under which they sell alcohol. Thus stated, very mundane. What I found a curious is a sign was not prepared to explain the exact nature of the amendment requested. For this the casual passerby had to ring the phone number supplied or visit the website. The final paragraph was a reminder that any dishonesty or deceitfulness involved in giving a viewpoint against the store would be severely frowned upon, with legal action hinted at.
There must be a legal requirement for a business to publicise any applied for changes in the area of booze merchandising. At the time I found the positioning of the notice strange, but on consideration I guess just outside the company's grounds could be aimed at local residents who do not use the shop. However the size (just an A4 sheet of paper) and the tone - giving so little information but with a veiled threat to any opposition - made me feel that this was an attempt to comply with the law in a way that was so grudging as to be outside the spirit.
Sunday 28 November 2010
My friendly advice to students
Returning to my blog this weekend was something of a shock. I knew that I'd not make any contribution, for a while, but was I really that interested in the fate of John Terry in the England captaincy?
The gap in time, about which I have not written, covers the general election and the World Cup, two events I would normally comment freely on. Given that a blog is intended to have some immediacy. There is no question of backtracking, but the outcome of the first of those events doesn't directly read into my subject of the day.
The party that the political party of which I am a member and semi-detached activist now forms part of the government. This has led them, quite naturally, into the direct firing line of the media and anybody else who chooses to comment on politics. This is a brave but not safe position to be in without natural supporters in the media, which the Lib Dems do not have.
There is much that I could say about that predicament. But the real purpose of my posting today regards the matter in which they are in the greatest difficulty – student university fees.
Briefly, my position is this. In the 1980s. I received 4 years of university education. Not only did I not have to pay a penny towards the fees, but I received a maintenance grant. More pertinently, all the politicians in Parliament who have a university education were recipients of the same state paid benefit. I have concluded for some time that I am a member of the most selfish generation this country has seen.
Both the Conservative party and the Labour Party politicians believe that students should pay for their education (even though they didn't). The Liberal Democrats do not. That was the position of the party at the election, and that is still the position now.
But here's the thing.
The Liberal Democrats did not win the general election.
The Liberal Democrat politicians have been restating this rather obvious fact throughout the current debate, but without natural friends in the media to help foghorn this point, it is not one that is being heard.
The party found themselves in a position where they had some influence, but that is not the same as being in a position to put into practice everything in a party's manifesto.
The leaders of my party had a choice between two alternatives; enact some of their manifesto where agreement could be found with the largest party, or back off and put into practice none of their policies. As a Liberal Democrat member I would have regarded the latter is a far greater betrayal of the effort I put in general election, and of my vote.
In the case of university fees, the party's policy was the outlier - the party’s coalition negotiators they were not going to get agreement from either of the two possible coalition partners whose policies were similarly different to their own.
I imagine that was the calculation that was included in the pre-election documentation of which student leaders have made an issue. This does not mean Nick Clegg and his colleagues were looking for the first opportunity to dump the policy on student fees; it just means that they could see the reality of the situation. I accept that the pledge that Liberal Democrat candidates signed now looks like a poor piece of public relations, but I'm certain that when the signatures were made, they were done so with sincerity.
The fact is the argument against university fees was lost at the general election. Parties who supported fees gained more votes and more seats than parties who did not.
The Liberal Democrat leadership were faced with an argument that they could not win in Parliament, even as members of the coalition. I confess that I have not studied the proposal in detail, but from what I have read it seems that the Lib Dem influence has led to a deal that is better for students than would have been achieved without that influence.
Use of partial influence may be a new idea in the UK, but it is part and parcel of coalition government. The electorate did not give the Liberal Democrats the power to enact their policies so it makes no sense to target that Party for their failure to do so.
For those who share my support of the policy that student fees should be phased out, I have this advice :-
Win the argument; don't berate those who would support you. The only way that we are going to reach a fair deal for university students in England and Wales is to increase the number of MPs who hold that position. An attack on the Liberal Democrat party is counter-productive to that aim.
The gap in time, about which I have not written, covers the general election and the World Cup, two events I would normally comment freely on. Given that a blog is intended to have some immediacy. There is no question of backtracking, but the outcome of the first of those events doesn't directly read into my subject of the day.
The party that the political party of which I am a member and semi-detached activist now forms part of the government. This has led them, quite naturally, into the direct firing line of the media and anybody else who chooses to comment on politics. This is a brave but not safe position to be in without natural supporters in the media, which the Lib Dems do not have.
There is much that I could say about that predicament. But the real purpose of my posting today regards the matter in which they are in the greatest difficulty – student university fees.
Briefly, my position is this. In the 1980s. I received 4 years of university education. Not only did I not have to pay a penny towards the fees, but I received a maintenance grant. More pertinently, all the politicians in Parliament who have a university education were recipients of the same state paid benefit. I have concluded for some time that I am a member of the most selfish generation this country has seen.
Both the Conservative party and the Labour Party politicians believe that students should pay for their education (even though they didn't). The Liberal Democrats do not. That was the position of the party at the election, and that is still the position now.
But here's the thing.
The Liberal Democrats did not win the general election.
The Liberal Democrat politicians have been restating this rather obvious fact throughout the current debate, but without natural friends in the media to help foghorn this point, it is not one that is being heard.
The party found themselves in a position where they had some influence, but that is not the same as being in a position to put into practice everything in a party's manifesto.
The leaders of my party had a choice between two alternatives; enact some of their manifesto where agreement could be found with the largest party, or back off and put into practice none of their policies. As a Liberal Democrat member I would have regarded the latter is a far greater betrayal of the effort I put in general election, and of my vote.
In the case of university fees, the party's policy was the outlier - the party’s coalition negotiators they were not going to get agreement from either of the two possible coalition partners whose policies were similarly different to their own.
I imagine that was the calculation that was included in the pre-election documentation of which student leaders have made an issue. This does not mean Nick Clegg and his colleagues were looking for the first opportunity to dump the policy on student fees; it just means that they could see the reality of the situation. I accept that the pledge that Liberal Democrat candidates signed now looks like a poor piece of public relations, but I'm certain that when the signatures were made, they were done so with sincerity.
The fact is the argument against university fees was lost at the general election. Parties who supported fees gained more votes and more seats than parties who did not.
The Liberal Democrat leadership were faced with an argument that they could not win in Parliament, even as members of the coalition. I confess that I have not studied the proposal in detail, but from what I have read it seems that the Lib Dem influence has led to a deal that is better for students than would have been achieved without that influence.
Use of partial influence may be a new idea in the UK, but it is part and parcel of coalition government. The electorate did not give the Liberal Democrats the power to enact their policies so it makes no sense to target that Party for their failure to do so.
For those who share my support of the policy that student fees should be phased out, I have this advice :-
Win the argument; don't berate those who would support you. The only way that we are going to reach a fair deal for university students in England and Wales is to increase the number of MPs who hold that position. An attack on the Liberal Democrat party is counter-productive to that aim.
Saturday 27 November 2010
Saturday 6 February 2010
Was John Terry 'sacked'?
This entry will be short because I don't quite share the 'fascination' that most of the media display on the recent Goings-On in the life of the now former england captain.
And I mean 'Display'... No one can know if any journalist cares about any subjeect passed whether it will sell 'The Paper'..
For me the only people who should care are the people involved - John Terry's wife, Wayne Bridge maybe.
The counter argument is that John Terry is a role model? But is he? He is a football player and I'm sure many young players want to play like him, but expecting professional sportmen to be the paragons of virtue is unrealistic - Quite the reverse in fact. The pedestals on which we place our sporting heroes is always likely to make them thing they are a case apart, that the standards 'lesser mortals' live by don't apply to them.. A more extreme case is Marlon King, who even stated to his victim that he was 'worth more' than her.
Another line from the reports is that Terry has been 'Sacked'.
No he hasn't. He is still earning a salary from Chelsea far in excess than I'll ever earn. Playing for England isn't a job, its an honour and its awarded each time a match is coming up; Being captain of that team is just a further role decided after the team is picked. Unlike a Cricket captain, is prefers no particular responsibility to team selection or tactics. A football captain just has to gee the players up a bit.
So it is that I've no strong interest in who is the England football captain - and I am an (armchair/barstool) fan of the England team. The fall out is now we have a captian who a relatively short time ago thought he was above the sports drug testing rules. Progress, eh?
And I mean 'Display'... No one can know if any journalist cares about any subjeect passed whether it will sell 'The Paper'..
For me the only people who should care are the people involved - John Terry's wife, Wayne Bridge maybe.
The counter argument is that John Terry is a role model? But is he? He is a football player and I'm sure many young players want to play like him, but expecting professional sportmen to be the paragons of virtue is unrealistic - Quite the reverse in fact. The pedestals on which we place our sporting heroes is always likely to make them thing they are a case apart, that the standards 'lesser mortals' live by don't apply to them.. A more extreme case is Marlon King, who even stated to his victim that he was 'worth more' than her.
Another line from the reports is that Terry has been 'Sacked'.
No he hasn't. He is still earning a salary from Chelsea far in excess than I'll ever earn. Playing for England isn't a job, its an honour and its awarded each time a match is coming up; Being captain of that team is just a further role decided after the team is picked. Unlike a Cricket captain, is prefers no particular responsibility to team selection or tactics. A football captain just has to gee the players up a bit.
So it is that I've no strong interest in who is the England football captain - and I am an (armchair/barstool) fan of the England team. The fall out is now we have a captian who a relatively short time ago thought he was above the sports drug testing rules. Progress, eh?
Saturday 30 January 2010
The most insensitive decision from a sporting body I have ever seen
The CAF (African Football Federation) have banned Togo for to African Nations Cups and fined their Football Association - This is for bowing to their governments pressure and withdrawing from the recent tournement. Gvernment intervention is against FIFA rules... OK, but come on guys. This team were a VICTIM of an attack. EVEN if one of your rules was broken, the circumstances are very exceptional.
I propose a petition to be signed by as many football supporters accross the world to request in the following terms that the CAF reconsider this decision.
If this is a petition you stand behind, please copyy it into an e-mail and mail with your comments to
ReverseTogoBan@Googlemail.com
If anyone lauches a better circulated petition of similar sentiment I would add my name to it.
****
We, the undersigned, believe that the decision to punish the Togo Football Team for withdrawing from the recent Cup of Nations to be a highly insensitive one that shows no respect to natural justice.
We understand that the reason for the ban and fine is the interference of the Togo government which did breach CAF regulations, but we believe that given the exceptional circumstances of the attack on the Togo Team bus, and the responsibility of the Togo government to the safety of its people, that the breach of the regulations on this occasion was wholly understandable.
We also note the failure of the CAF to provide adequate security to a team partaking in their tournament.
We call on the CAF to reverse this decision immediately, with a statement apologising to the dead and Injured for the insensitivity shown in making this ruling in the first place.
I propose a petition to be signed by as many football supporters accross the world to request in the following terms that the CAF reconsider this decision.
If this is a petition you stand behind, please copyy it into an e-mail and mail with your comments to
ReverseTogoBan@Googlemail.com
If anyone lauches a better circulated petition of similar sentiment I would add my name to it.
****
We, the undersigned, believe that the decision to punish the Togo Football Team for withdrawing from the recent Cup of Nations to be a highly insensitive one that shows no respect to natural justice.
We understand that the reason for the ban and fine is the interference of the Togo government which did breach CAF regulations, but we believe that given the exceptional circumstances of the attack on the Togo Team bus, and the responsibility of the Togo government to the safety of its people, that the breach of the regulations on this occasion was wholly understandable.
We also note the failure of the CAF to provide adequate security to a team partaking in their tournament.
We call on the CAF to reverse this decision immediately, with a statement apologising to the dead and Injured for the insensitivity shown in making this ruling in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)