It's a Strike!

"Unions: the people who brought you the weekend. And capped working hours. And employment rights and protections. And fair wages. And pensions. And ended child labour. What a bunch of greedy bastards." - Priyamvada Gopal

­­­

When I walked into uni today, one of my lecturers handed me a sticker and thanked me for my support. He’s striking, along with over two million other public sector workers, to fight the cuts against pensions. It’s the biggest nationwide strike in decades with numerous different unions objecting to the government’s proposal which will see people working longer, and paying more to receive their pension.

Normally I see strikes as quite a nuisance, resulting in little change and mass inconvenience to many hundreds of people; the Southampton bin-men walkout for example achieved nothing but a huge pest infestation and a revolting smell in my street. However today, I see them as nothing of the sort and believe that action, not talking, is the only way for workers to get what they want. The government is not unlikely to rethink and actually listen otherwise.

Teachers provide us with an education and a subsequent future, ambulance men and women save our lives and airport staff allow us to travel the world, and all do it whilst paying their taxes. Without question, these people have contributed to society so surely they have the right to a decent pension? The same goes for everybody else; if you’ve worked hard in your lifetime then you should have the right to a happy and secure retirement, not one spent endlessly worrying about money.

If I had started a job as a teacher and signed on the dotted line for a specific pension, at the end of my career then that pension is what I would expect. It shouldn’t be cut. It would be what I am rightfully entitled to.

Some officials believe that the cuts are inevitable; that the money saved will help with Britain’s ever-growing debt problem but it seems like nothing more than a quick-fix scheme that, in the long run is going to leave many retired people struggling. Besides, in recent years there have been plenty of things we could have saved money on, for example a £500,000 ‘Bat Bridge’. We could have saved a lot by not ever building that at all.

Like many people, I’m often guilty of shunning a protest before I really know the reasons behind it but if striking is the only way of getting a message across in this instance then so be it. It doesn’t mean that I’ll condone every future protest, but I’ll make an exception for this one because it’s a matter that could potentially affect my future too.

Actions speak louder than words and I hope David Cameron listens.

Rise in Fees Shows Drop in Students

Being a university student myself, I am fully aware at my uncertain future prospects and the amount of debt that I’m clocking up with the start of each new term. Luckily for me though, I missed the increase in tuition fees that would have seen me paying up to £9000 a year for my education, almost £6000 more than what I pay now.

For the most part, I feel that the increase in fees is a bad thing; depriving people of higher education because they simply can’t afford it. Some universities are asking unjustifiable amounts from potential students and the course that I am studying now would cost in the region of £7800 per year. There is no way that I would be willing to pay that.

The BBC’s student finance calculator estimates how much of their loan a person will realistically pay back after they, hopefully, start earning over £21,000 a year. However, when even top graduates are struggling to get work and those who do aren’t close to such a salary, then the chances of their debt being paid off is very slim. My friend Laura, for example, graduated with a 2:1 in Phycology from Exeter University, one of England’s top places to study, last year but has been forced to work in a call centre doing a job that she could of done without her degree.

Ok, so it’s a good thing for my purse that I probably won’t have to pay off my debt in full, but surely in the long run this is going to stretch the economy’s purse strings to absolute bursting point. Who else is going to pay off the debt that I can’t afford to? Future doctors and lawyers may be able to, but what about those of us who have chosen media related degrees?

Anyways, I digress, the reason I’m actually posting this rant is because The Guardian has reported that applications from UK-born students have fallen 15% since the fees were increased. Statistics from the article show that last year 157,116 UK citizens applied for a university place but this year, it’s inclined to only 133,357 applicants.

My response to that…I told you so Cameron! As I said before, there is no way that I would ever pay more than what I am paying now for my course and neither would the majority of my course mates I’m sure. Charging so much, especially for low ranking universities, is completely unjustifiable and surely not beneficial to them if they cant fill their spaces with students.

Creating £27,000 worth of tuition fee debt isn’t worth it at any university because it speaks wavelengths when even those who graduate from some of Britain’s best universities have to settle for £7 an hour. For future high paid professionals then yes, this works out fine I suppose but when your debt overrides your potential salary by a milestone then what is the point? It’s not like there’s a load of jobs to start applying for instead.

Trebling tuition fees has scared a lot of people away from university, and who, honestly, could say that they didn’t see this coming? You could argue that preventing people from going into degree-level education will create more jobs for graduates but it’ll create plenty more exclusion for poorer students.

I know that I would have never been able to afford £9000 a year, and if I hadn’t gone to uni then I’m sure I’d be stuck in a dead end job right now. My degree at least is going to give me a slight advantage among other job candidates even if it’s not the job that I pictured myself ending up in.

Increasing university fees hasn’t proven to be a success so far and I doubt that it will ever be. If these stats are anything to go by, then maybe the PM should seriously think about the class divisions he is promoting, the great minds he is excluding and the mountain of economical debt that he is fuelling.

Reverse these changes now Mr Cameron before it’s too late and the education system is damaged for good.

No Place Like a New Home

As a child, if somebody had asked me what I wanted my ‘grownup’ life to be like, my answer would always be the same; a nice husband, a couple of kids, possibly a dog, but most importantly a nice little house of my own. Stereotypical I know but I wanted what my parents had; a happy family in their own home.

As a teenager, I began focusing on my life ambition to become a writer to hopefully get my own house when I became successful (fingers crossed). I ignored the news when it warned about housing prices, mortgages and equity because, I thought, by the time I wanted to buy a place of my own, everything would be sorted and I’d be ok.

However now, at the age of 22, my dreams of someday owning my own property have flittered away. I fear that I’ll never get my own little house, unless a distant relative I’ve never heard of before decides to leave me their millions, or, more realistically, I win the lottery.

Don’t get me wrong I have nothing against renting, for the last three years I’ve rented, but I just feel that home ownership offers a much better sense of security and independence, plus you can decorate however you like!

We all know that getting onto the housing ladder, at any age, now seems like an impossible task. The  downfall of the housing market alongside housing shortages and the lack of money in everybody’s pockets has meant that many people are realistically never going to get a chance to own their own home. For those like me who are going to be saddled with thousands of pounds of student debt before they’ve even started, well, what chance have we got?

Currently, some of my friends are saving up for house deposits of around £30,000, and when their wallets aren't bursting at the seams each week, it seems rather pointless.  It’s going to take them years, maybe even decades before they are able to afford their own places and who knows what the housing market is going to look like then.

So in step Cameron and Clegg with their £400m fund to kick start the building of 16,000 new houses under their newly published strategy aiming to “unstick” the housing market. In theory, it will allow lenders to lend and buyers to buy and it would also mean that first-time buyers will be able to take out “taxpayer-backed 95% mortgages,” a brilliant idea, right?

Well actually, I don’t think it’s that bad. Under these proposals, buyers will only have to put down a 5% deposit for a newly built home rather than 20% which is what the banks are currently asking for. It’s a step in the right direction for people who would have never been able to afford a deposit otherwise. It’s not going to fix our debt problems and restore the market quickly, but perhaps if the scheme proves a success then lenders may just be inclined to lower their rates and owning your own home may not sound like such a preposterous idea in the future.

But, not to speak too optimistically, it could have an altogether different domino effect as if the housing market experiences another downturn then the loss would be shared between the taxpayer and the bank alongside the home owner losing their deposit. I suppose though, if you want to own a home that badly, it’s a risk you should be prepared to take and how are we ever going to restore our market if we don’t take risks? 

For the foreseeable future it seems as if any incline in the housing market will be unsteady with as many, if not more, downs as ups. Yet if this scheme works it could boost our economy and create jobs, something we have all been moaning about for too long. I think we need to stop waiting around for a miracle payout that’s never going to happen and take risks like this in a bid to get Britain back on track. If you don’t try you’ll never know.

Of course, our money (or lack of) isn’t one to be gambled, but in my eyes this proposal has more pros than cons. I doubt that it will “unlock” the house market once again as Cameron believes, but it’s a start, and we have to start somewhere.

Above: The graph shows the rapid incline in house prices across the country. (Source: Nationwide)

The Church Being...Civil

My best friend is a gay and since she’s come out I’ve seen firsthand the amount of prejudice she has to face near enough every single day when out in public. The dirty looks from people of all ages when she’s out shopping with her girlfriend and the disapproving tuts directed at them when they’re holding hands suggests to me that gay people aren’t as accepted in today’s society as many of us like to think.

So when I heard that the ban on performing civil partnerships in religious places would be lifted as of next month, I was shocked to say the least. This isn’t because I’m not in favour of the ruling, if it was up to me then same-sex couples would be able to conduct a ‘proper’ marriage, adopt and even become priests if they wanted to. It was because, finally, people are beginning to stand up to the Church.

It often seems to me that people are petrified of challenging those in charge of the Church; they don’t want to offend anyone seen closer to God than they are just in case it hinders their chances of reaching those golden gates. Take the fight for women to become bishops as an example; shouldn’t this have happened years ago?

Thankfully not all Christians that believe homosexuality is ‘wrong’ but why are many still happy to offend same-sex couples by denying them the right to have their civil service where they want to. It’s holding back on society’s quest for equality amongst everybody.

The new scheme will be voluntary, giving organisations such as the Church of England the choice to bless same-sex couples. This has, unsurprisingly, caused uproar in some religious communities who believe that this is going against the word of God. But it is only some that are disagreeing surely meaning that the others choose to accept that being openly gay should no longer be seen as taboo. I’d like to think that these organisations realise that people need to relate to religion, and not feel outcast by them. It’s going to reflect well on those who take up the choice to marry two men or women. It will show that the Church is finally taking into account our modern society and the views of the majority of the public. 

If a person decides to live their life by God then they should absolutely be able to legalise their partnership no matter what their sexual orientation is. After all, “God shows personal favouritism to no man” (Galatians 2:6) so why contradict this and stick to blessing only those that are straight?

I am, if you hadn’t already guessed, an atheist and I would want somebody to respect my own beliefs just as much I would a person who had devoted their life to the man in the sky. But gone are the days where we isolate by gender and race so why should homosexuality be any different?

Not so long ago people would have laughed at the idea of banishing slavery so, fingers crossed, in a few more years, people will laugh at the memory of people not being able to marry where they want to.

People need to accept that in today’s world it is no longer just ‘Adam and Eve’ but it’s ‘Adam and Elliot’ now too. 

The New Royal Rules

One story that made me smile this week is the confirmation that if Will and Kate’s first child is a little girl, then she can become queen.

For hundreds of centuries it ruled that boys had first dibs but after the Queen gave it the thumbs up it was all change.

This is definitely an adjustment for the better, bringing the Monarchy into the 21^st century where gender equality has developed quite something in the last three hundred years!

Some of our greatest Queens have been women; Mary, Victoria and of course Elizabeth so getting rid of the old sexist rule proves that female equality is something that the royals think highly of.

Big changes to society such as this are yet another step forward in banishing sexism and although us girls have come far in the last hundred years, there’s still a little way to go yet.  Think about the preference in jobs that men often get or the difference in pay they quite often receive on the quiet for doing exactly the same job as us.

The Queen’s “Women of Acts of Change” speech asked for further reforms “to allow all girls and women to play their full part.”

I think it’s brilliant that the Queen is recognising the aspirations and potential of women and who better to campaign for girl power now The Spice Girls aren’t around anymore.

Cameron's Poverty Plan

In his quest to ‘reform the criminal justice system’ David Cameron has introduced another bright idea to slash crime across our country it emerged today.  And what is this ingenious idea? Well, to go and make the country’s poorest even more hard-stricken of course!

It’s proposed that from 2013 those on benefits who receive court fines will no longer be able to get away with “paying the bare minimum” of £5 pounds a week. Instead they will be expected to pay £25 out of their Jobseekers Allowance packet of just £67.50 per week, £53.45 for those under 25. Say hello to the poverty line kids because it’s going to be towering above you soon enough.

Following the London riots, where Ministry of Justice Figures revealed over a third who appeared in court where claiming, Cameron believes that giving criminals a kick up the arse with this new proposal will ultimately mean they will think twice about breaking the law.

He said: “People need to understand if they commit a crime they will face the consequences. The system as it stands at the moment is far too soft and does not send the right signal.”

I have lived with somebody on Jobseekers and let me tell you that it is a real, brutal struggle. When unemployment is at record highs, to have even more money taken from your pocket when your chances of finding a job are slim is no step forward to me. Cutting crime?! It’s going to practically force people into committing it! Nice one Cameron!

I don’t for one second he has really stopped and thought about why people are robbing and all the rest of it. It’s because such people who don’t even have a pot to piss in resort to doing so because they’ve given up, after society has given up on them. If somebody can’t feed their children are they more or less likely to steal? Not forgetting of course how much all this likely subsequent crime is going to cost taxpayers.

He should be putting the focus into creating jobs and opportunities for people, getting them off the dole and giving them a chance in life instead of their only choice being between crime and poverty.

Never mind though eh because at least when the thousands of citizens struggling to makes ends meet are sat at home in the cold because they can’t afford to pay their bills, society’s rich will still be able to get by with their yachts, designer clothes and constant holidays.

Because that’s fair isn’t it?