Tag: Britain

UK Has 6 Universities in Top Global Ranking

According to the most recent global table, the UK now has six universities in a top world ranking.

In the World University rankings it has emerged that, unsurprisingly, Oxbridge continues to remain in the top 10 (with graduates from there deemed to be “the world’s most employable”), along with Imperial and UCL, with Edinburgh and King’s College London holding a place in the top 20. In the context of the global ranking, Cambridge holds third place, beaten only by Harvard in second place and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in first place.

The type of subject also has a bearing on an institution’s position in the table; Oxford and Cambridge are the best subjects for seven key subjects, and according to the BBC website, “Oxford came top for English language and literature, philosophy, modern languages and geography in the QS World University Rankings by subject… Cambridge was first for maths, linguistics and history.” So while the UK is evidently the best place in the world for subjects such as English literature and geography, American universities such as MIT are clearly the places to go when it comes to the best education in technology.

However, many academics and educational spokespeople maintain that – with the detrimental effects on UK educational spending brought on by the recession, rising student fees and fewer applicants to university – the UK must increase funding in its education in order to remain at the top of the table.

Given the relative small size of the country, the UK has consistently proven that it can produce graduates whose education is highly valued in the global marketplace; the great influx of foreign students to the UK to seek a British degree is sufficient evidence of its great value.

A spokesperson for the Russell Group – an organisation of prestigious UK universities – has emphasised the importance of keeping the doors to UK higher education open, saying “If our universities are to compete in the future they need the government to provide light-touch regulation and continued investment, and to be welcoming to genuine international students.”. With international fees being several times higher for foreign students than for UK students, this is likely to be a challenge.

A university minister has remained cautiously optimistic about the future of the UK’s position in the world’s university ranking; “Our reforms to undergraduate finance have put universities on a sustainable financial footing and sharpened incentives to deliver a world-class student experience.”

 

Margaret Thatcher is gone, but she’ll never be forgotten

I was going to write my weekly blog this week about the crisis in North Korea and what steps we could take in the West to actually stop some kind of nuclear madness in the Far East. However, when the news broke at lunchtime about the death of Baroness Thatcher it seems churlish not to add to the masses of views being expressed, but try and do so from a slightly different angle.

Let me start by stating the obvious, so as not to give the wrong impression. It is a sad occasion when any human being dies, whatever you think of them personally or in their political, professional or personal life. In this occasion two children have lost a mother. That does not, however, mean that we have to pretend that we liked everything about someone or agreed with everything that they did in political and public life. I also make a declaration that I was only born in 1986, and therefore have no recollection of anything Mrs Thatcher did while in office. I grew up in a household where she was referred to in glowing terms as the saviour of the nation by some, and simply as ‘milk-snatcher’ by others.

There are those who adore Thatcher, and will be affected by her passing in a real way. Those who got rich on the back of the deregulation of the banks in the 1980s and those who paid for the shares in many of the privatised companies she created from the old nationalised telecoms, water and gas companies, among others. There will be those who love her because she defeated socialism in Britain, changed the Labour Party into an essentially right-of-centre party and smashed the Trade Union movement beyond all recognition.

Then there those who will be far from mourning the passing today. These will be the people who may well take to the Internet behind their pretend identities and say some pretty nasty things and most other people will call them names. Some of these people will have (what they think are at least) valid reasons for their comments. Whether they were miners, public servants, trade unionists or believers in nationalised utilities. The sentiments will be shared by many, especially in the northern cities and the rural areas that formally relied on mining.

It’s hard to explain to someone who was either totally in love or totally hated Thatcher that she did some good things and some bad things. She will most likely be remembered for two key events which are seen very differently depending on how you see them. The first event is the Falklands War, with supporters believing it was Britain defending the Empire and coming to aid of those poor Islanders who had been overrun by the Argentines.  Those against point to the chronic waste of money and human life involved in retaking an ultimately pointless piece of land 8000 miles away, most of all the sinking of the Belgrano as it sailed away from the UK fleet.

Secondly there is a miners’ strike. It was either the crushing of the over-powerful unions and the enforcement of the law in the place of an illegal strike or the once and for all blow against the working class, to exert the authority of the state over the working man. It was all about showing them who was in charge. It is hard to find anyone who would hold an opinion which falls somewhere between this two positions.

What is not in doubt, however, is that she continues to cast a shadow over both the country and the political system. Liberal economics and the rampant deregulation of the UK economy laid the foundations for the economic crash which occurred in 2008, with the consequences we live in now. She also instilled a small state ideology in the Tory party which is partly leading to the wild slashing of the state we see today. Most importantly for the political system, her election views in 1983 and 1987 changed the Labour Party into one which is now almost indistinguishable from the people in her own party who Thatcher called ‘wets’. Ed Miliband is even trying to rebrand his party as ‘One Nation’.

But now that she is dead, why have we gone so loopy for the afternoon? Complete suspension of usual TV and radio programmes. No other news stories for the entire afternoon. These may be expected given the stature of the woman and the fact that there isn’t anything else massively dominating the news agenda today. But is it really necessary for David Cameron to return back from his European tour? What exactly is he going to do when he arrives back in the UK?

Then there is the Labour Party, who haven’t helped their critics who say they have become too much like the Tories in recent years. No one would expect them to say anything other than that they are sad; it should be possible that they don’t say anything at all. The fact that they have also decided not to continue to campaign for the local elections in May will do nothing to appeal to the people who they seek to represent, especially as much of this campaigning would have been in the communities that still bare many of the scars of the Thatcher years.

I’ll end with the words of Tony Benn, one of Thatcher’s fiercest critics during the 1980s and unafraid to speak his mind on all occasions. Refusing to jump on the bandwagon of the love-in this afternoon, Benn said that he “couldn’t think of one thing she did which he agreed with.” He did mention, in as close to a tribute as he would ever be likely to get, that “she did what she said she would do given the chance, always said what she meant and meant what she said” and perhaps that is the best way that she could be remembered. She might not be the last conviction politicians, but most of those who have followed appear to be following her own convictions.

Is This (The Beginning Of) The End Of Prohibition?

Speaking as someone who knows next to nothing about the American lawmaking process – and can therefore be naively optimistic – I’ve had my mental fingers crossed ever since I heard that Colorado and Washington have both voted to legalise cannabis for recreational use. (NB Mental fingers: those things you cross when you really, really want something to happen but you don’t want to have to stop typing.)

Potheads in the two states have been celebrating well in advance of any consent from the Department of Justice, with plans already in place to direct tax money from legal sale of the drug into the construction of schools (oh, to be young enough to enrol in the first real High School) and a range of health programmes including drug and alcohol treatment.

Oregon just lost out on legalising weed – although, with arguably the most liberal initiative of the three states (they wanted unlimited personal amounts and growing privileges), but by far the smallest campaign budget, this outcome is perhaps understandable. Maybe next time, Oregon. I’ve got my mental fingers crossed for you, ‘n all.

Another good piece of pot-related news came in the form of the Mayor of Amsterdam’s announcement (to admittedly negligible surprise) that foreign tourists will not be banned from using the city’s coffee shops. Wasn’t that a lot of worry for nothing – cannabis café owners fretting over the loss of tourism, the Mayor facing the prospect of the city descending into a miasma of dodgy street dealers and shoddy merchandise, not to mention us lot sitting worriedly on the couch in front of the laptop, trying to work out how to fit in another jaunt to Holland before the law came into effect. Worry over, anyway.

All this liberalism has been making me feel just a little bit as though I’m living in some kind of backwater, conservative commune, rather than one of the world’s most awesome global cities. While we’ve been resting back in our creaking leather armchairs, passing the brandy and gently chuckling at the antics of our younger cousin, America’s been getting on with surpassing us in some pretty damn important arenas. Britain upgrades cannabis to Class B, America legalises it first for medicinal and then recreational use. America gets Obamacare, while in Britain we’re in danger of losing our internationally-lauded NHS to the fickle whims of privatisation. Our PM reveals himself to be an immoral wheeler-dealer of war machines to the Middle East, while in America a genius businessman fights to use his enormous wealth to develop clean energy for all. Oh wait, that was Iron Man. But you get the point.

But anyway, back to America. What does this legalisation of pot mean for them? Well, I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice is going to roll over on this one, if its initial, tight-lipped “no comment” reaction is anything to go by. Presumably it will cite precedent, and complain of the difficulties in managing a country in which some states allow the use of a drug while other states battle smuggling issues and criminal activity. Or perhaps it will just bring its big federal boot down and yell “I said NO!” Which would be a shame because, as some have already pointed out, this could be a great opportunity to start to address the longstanding conflict between state and federal laws. It seems bizarre that you can do something that’s both legal and illegal at the same time. Personally, I see this as a case of political and legislative stagnation rather than mere precedent, but surely even two states deciding to legalise cannabis evidences a sea change worthy of review on a federal level? At any rate, the Department of Justice needs to make a decision soon – it would be a phenomenal waste of resources if Washington and Colorado got too far into their implementation and were then told it’d all been for nothing.

A much more immediate issue is, of course, the impact of legalisation on drug cartels. Make something legal, regulate it, keep the quality to a certain standard, make it easily obtainable… why would anyone choose instead to buy off some shifty dealer who may well be bulking out the product with sugar or sand in order to turn a profit – someone who, in turn, has to handle the paranoid people one level up, who sometimes deal in much nastier things than weed and occasionally wave a gun in their face? It’s a no-brainer. Obviously the lords aren’t going to be too happy about it, but any savvy street dealer or home grower with half a brain should be looking to capitalise on the change in law and set up shop legitimately. More money, less risk. Another no-brainer.

Ok, so I’m over-simplifying. There are many knots to be massaged out of this legislation, including how to test for “drug-drivers” without accidentally penalising medical marijuana users (though, to be fair, if you have enough in your system to be considered too impaired to drive, you probably shouldn’t be driving). But this has got medical marijuana users understandably worried – will the tests be good enough, will they be fair? It’s something that needs to be worked out and set in place beforehand in order to avoid wrongful arrests, but it shouldn’t be a permanent barrier to legalisation. Calm down, guys. Put your feet up and have a smoke, why not?

Surprising enough as is opposition to legalisation from those who can already buy and smoke legally, it’s as nothing when compared to the support from anti-drugs campaigners. Funny what the promise of funding for rehab programmes can do to a person’s views – but I guess it’s no weirder than a government taxing alcohol and tobacco and then pushing tax money into a healthcare system that provides treatment for diseases caused by the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. Funny old world, eh? I’m not even going to mention the utter hypocrisy of a system that’s been benefiting from the abuse of certain substances while punishing the use of others. Or add my voice to the millions of those yelling that “the war on drugs isn’t working”. The evidence speaks for itself.

Whatever the outcome in the US, full credit to this significant minority of America that has had an attack of rationality and accepted that the legalisation – and, therefore, regulation – of marijuana is the only way forward in the so-called “war on drugs”. You can’t stop people experimenting with drugs – human beings have been getting high for millennia – but you can do your utmost to ensure that personal risk is minimised, in this case by taking power away from criminals and regulating your product for quality. Oh, and did we forget it can be taxed, just like alcohol and tobacco? Legalised weed is an untapped, potentially hugely lucrative source of revenue for an ailing economy. I wholeheartedly wish that British politicians would stop pandering to the sensationalist media and recognise when to act for the benefit of the people. We’ve got Tories running the show now, for god’s sake – surely they of all people should be able to spot when they’re missing out on a fantastic business opportunity?

The French do politics the ‘British way’, they’re just better at it.

Following the first round of Presidential Elections in France, the world has been bowled over by the once called ‘cowardly’ and ‘inefficent’ people that apparently live there. But stereotypers and column cartoonists might have to put their pencils on hold for what looks like a seismic shift in the way the Frenchies do things: they’re doing it British style.

By far the most extraordinary thing for most in this election is the rise of the third place far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, a curvaceous blonde bombshell who, considering her National Front’s previous fascist personality, has done well in crafting a modern identity for a political movement that epitomises the growing angst amongst the French electorate. Walking clear from a crossfire that’s already claimed the economic lives of Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland, the French emerge only to see their next door neighbour, Germany, a dustpan and brush in one hand, and a cheque in the other, clearing up a slaughter that at one time threatened to engulf the entire continent. Surprisingly enough, they don’t feel too strongly about following suit, on either side.

Marine Le Pen embodies this Euro-backlash, and a way of thinking that once championed French leadership on the continent is now waiting for the first bus out of town. It’s an alien concept to most Britons, who were never bowled away by the idea of a partnership with European Nations – but who ironically have relished its benefits the most enthusiastically, namely the holidays. “The European countries which did not enter the euro display higher performances than countries in the eurozone for ten years” she says, quoting Eurostat data, “The United Kingdom is not in the eurozone and does not have the least desire to be in it. UK does not tolerate this kind of taking away of its freedom.” Le Pen envisages a France where they can set their own interest rates, have their own currency, control immigration (as opposed to the free movement Schengen-Area) and limit its imports – it’s Nationalism, the kind that tells you it’s ‘for France’ followed by a murmured ‘…just only the white ones’.

Because the fact is, Le Pen’s national front is a lot like the BNP (coincidentally also once called The National Front). It screams national sovereignty as its pillar, despises immigration, supranational organisations, interventionism and is a tad nostalgic – not to mention the small problem of a membership that pans the width of a prison cell. Anyone from closet racists, islamophobics to outright fascists have set their sights on Le Pen as the future of France, and although the party’s mantra isn’t evil in its entirety, France risks political radicalism if incumbent centre-right Sarkozy can’t emulate similar policies to quell his people’s dissatisfaction. Sarkozy and socialist Hollande know the political prize is the votes of the far-right, something that could easily deal the deadly blow to their presidential rival. The question is, who’s willing to appease the most?

UK political extremism is pathetic in comparison. The BNP has more or less flatlined since it first took the national stage, commanding only 1.9% of the 2010 general election ballot, whereas Le Pen has managed a seismic 18.1% – just 9% below the President’s UPM Party. It’s not particularly a good thing by any measure when the far-right emerges so triumphantly as it has in France, but at least we showed them just how bigoted you really can be.

 

Why Britain is Not a Democracy

Democracy is viewed by many people as a positive political system. Many also believe that Britain upholds our democracy. But what exactly is democracy? And is Britain really up to the high standards that democracy demands?

Democracy is most commonly seen as a government in which the people have the supreme power. This is usually applied through their elected agents, otherwise known as MPs, under a free electoral system. But this definition is vague and questionable, despite being highly praised with positive connotations. Indeed, it has been speculated that democracy is not bound to any one definition. This was pointed out by George Orwell, who was quoted as saying, “The defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.”

It can even be argued that ‘democracy’ is just used in place of ‘free’ when describing a country’s status; countries which aren’t free are ‘undemocratic’, although ‘undemocratic’ is vague in itself as something which is undemocratic could simply be another political system. The question of whether these ‘undemocratic’ countries have a fair political system never comes into play. After all, how could it possibly be fair when it’s not democratic?

This stems from the idea that democracy is having a vote, not whether your vote makes a difference. In other words, an elected dictatorship. Walter Winchell agreed with this, saying, “too many people expect wonders from democracy, when the most wonderful thing of all is just having it”. If holding elections were what constituted a working democracy, then Britain would be just that. But this can be compared to China’s political system in which there are eight parties (other than the CPC) that you can vote for but, essentially, they all stand for the same points.

But if democracy is more about the freedom of the people and whether their vote matters at all in the long-run, then it can be argued that the UK is falling below the democratic standards with almost four in ten voters choosing to abstain as they feel they don’t have a say.

Democracies, in theory at least, should have parties which represent groups of people who stand for different ideas. At the moment, there exists only the three main parties; the Labour party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. If you were to vote for any of the smaller, more obscure parties, it’s highly likely that nothing will come of your vote.

We will forget for a moment what each of the leaders of these three parties say what they stand for and instead look at what they have actually stood for. The Liberal Democrats, during the 2010 elections, promised that they would scrap University fees across Britain. In fact, that was one of their biggest points on their manifesto. But they didn’t do that. They did the opposite and agreed with the Conservative policy of raising tuition fees. Another example would be the Conservative cuts to public spending. This is an expected Conservative move (they have done so on numerous occasions during past recessions, including the Wall Street Crash) but Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor, stated, “We cannot make any commitments now that the next labour government will reverse rises or spending cuts.” Ed Miliband, leader for the Labour Party, agreed, saying the Labour government would continue to make cuts. Elections which lack any competing agenda are pointless.

Leading on from this is one of the biggest moves from the coalition government when they first came into power in 2010. They set up the Your Freedom website in the hopes that people would vote on controversial topics and hear what they wanted directly, rather than through their elected agents. But this proved to be useless as the public decided they wanted a review of the smoking ban and were ignored entirely. The Coalition stated they “had no plans” to review it.

If there is no real difference between the ideologies of the main political parties, no difference as to what party you vote for, can Britain really call itself a democracy?

Europeans Officially Crowned the World’s Biggest Drinkers

Yes, it’s true. We all beat the Americans and now we are officially the world’s biggest drinkers. Hurrah! Although, livers all across Europe will now be seeking counselling at some point in the near future.

The World Health Organisation led a report with the European Commission to ascertain the truth, and it emerged that people in Europe drink more alcohol per day than in any other region of the world. On average, Europeans drink the alcohol content equivalent to three glasses of wine per day every day.

Continue reading Europeans Officially Crowned the World’s Biggest Drinkers