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.

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.