During the run-up to the second round of the French presidential election, the international press has had fun coming up with terms to replace the infamous “Merkozy” – the mostly close and cooperative relationship between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Many political commenters are anticipating that Sunday’s election results will end the Merkozy era and usher in “Merllande” – a new relationship between Merkel and François Hollande, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency.
The development of this terminology illustrates the importance – or at least the perceived importance – of France’s next leader in the European context. Merkel and Sarkozy are widely viewed as the architects of the response to the eurozone crisis, and the Franco-German cooperation as a necessary foundation for moving ambitious projects – such as the fiscal compact – forward at an EU level. As they both belong to conservative parties, they have tended to agree on core economic issues such as fiscal discipline, which has substantially shaped the EU’s crisis management. The fear among commenters is that a victory for Hollande in the presidential election would break up this alliance and create further high-level political tensions within the eurozone that would damage its ability to cope with the crisis.
And yet, Sarkozy’s rhetoric of late has not exactly been helpful for the credibility of the eurozone or the EU itself. Pronouncing that there are “too many foreigners in France” (a curious statement for the son of a Hungarian immigrant), the President has proposed to halve the number of immigrants arriving in France and re-establish national border controls to reduce illegal immigration. While this may appear to be part of a purely domestic debate, the EU’s open-border policy within the Schengen area is one of its most fundamental, and most recognisable, characteristics, and any member state dispensing with it automatically undermines a very powerful symbol of EU leaders’ ability to cooperate with one another. Interestingly, this move by Sarkozy has been backed by the Merkel administration, eager to support the incumbent President in his re-election campaign. This reaction on the German side is particularly bizarre considering the fact that Denmark was roundly criticised by European leaders when it briefly attempted to implement a similar policy at its national borders.
While this obvious lack of commitment to the ideals of the eurozone is worrying, Sarkozy is lagging behind in the polls, making Hollande the more likely candidate to win. Like Sarkozy, Hollande has also been making statements on issues of great importance to the EU. His campaign promises, however, are more directly relevant to the eurozone crisis. He considers himself “a European”, but has been critical of many EU policies, and has even threatened to demand that the fiscal compact, a treaty on fiscal discipline signed by 25 EU governments, be re-written. This move would upset the delicate balance in the eurozone built on a willingness on the part of countries like Germany to continue contributing funds to bail-outs as long as they receive some kind of guarantee of fiscal discipline on the part of the recipients. A confrontation and possible stalemate between France and Germany on this issue would send signals of instability to international markets, which would in turn put additional pressure on the most vulnerable member states of the EU – something they can ill afford at the moment.
Fortunately, Hollande has since retreated somewhat from this position, positing instead that additional paragraphs on supporting economic growth should be added onto the otherwise unaltered fiscal compact. These concessions suggest a certain degree of willingness to compromise with regard to policy-making at a European level, which is sorely needed at a time when EU leaders must work together to overcome the crisis. Maybe Merllande could find a way to work together after all.
This Friday will see GLRO John Bennett conclude what has been a frustrating and exhaustive campaign for the next Mayor of London, and with two of the most fiercely disputed policies of either candidate still largely unresolved, the treacherous fate of a popularity contest seems increasingly likely to be the decisive factor. Can Ken really cut transport fares by 7%? Can Boris make London safer by increasing police numbers?
Back in January, Labour candidate Ken Livingstone sensationally declared that he can counteract the Tories’ fare increase with an “emergency fares package” to begin in October. This package would see train and bus fares – the “bedrock and bread-and-butter in most Londoners lives” – slashed, saving Londoners an average of £1,000 over four years.
When Boris came in to power four years ago a bus ticket cost just 90p, and now, just four years on, it costs nearly three times as much at a whopping £2.50 per journey. If you happen to travel between zones 1 to 6, a monthly travelcard has also gone up from £193.60 to £205.10 for you, and an annual one from £2,016 to £2,136. If these increases continue to happen under Boris, in line with the Tory commitment of raising travel fares at 2% above inflation, this will affect the 16-25 demographic more than anyone; with unpaid work experience and internships still plentiful, youth unemployment at an all-time high, and university applications down by 8.7%, affordable rail fares are beginning to join higher-education institutions as a luxury for the rich and privileged.
A city with lower fares holds the brightest future for all Londoners, and this not only makes it by far the most effective vote-winner for Ken, but also one which needs to be considered by the disillusioned youth who are indifferent to the value of their vote. If, like myself, you are appalled by the expense you’re faced with every time you want to travel the length of Oxford Street by bus, or that you have to pay £4.30 for a single between Finsbury Park and Kings Cross, then do something about it: vote for change.
On crime, Johnson seems to be leading the charge after having increased the number of police on the beat, and Ken Livingstone’s recent challenge over his arithmetical abilities has only accentuated the value of such a policy. Not only does Johnson’s main policy mimic the same rise in police numbers as in Livingstone’s term (both saw rises by around 700), but seems to be the only solution to an increase of crime in London, nothing is being done to tackle the social issues from which crime manifests.
More than a third of Londoners think Boris is a “Mayor for the rich” according to a YouGov poll published last month, yet amazingly this has not damaged his campaign for re-election. For a city drowning under a wave of unemployment, the same wave being ridden by bankers, Tories and corporate CEO’s, we cannot afford the ludicrous increases in the cost of living being proposed by Johnson.
An almost non-existent 2% of voters in the poll believed Johnson would focus on the poor, compared with the 21% who said Livingstone would favour those harder off.
This sentiment is certainly reflected in the issue of London Housing, where there are 360,000 households on the waiting lists for social housing, a problem extenuated by Boris’s scrapping of Ken’s pledge to get 50% of all housing into the ‘affordable’ price region. Instead Boris favors the building of a pitiful 50,000 new affordable homes by 2011 – a policy which he still failed in doing. And whilst social housing may not be top of the agenda for you if you are part of the current younger demographic, think where you’ll be in two or three year’s time.
In fact, think where you’d like to be. The chances are you’re going to be priced out of living anywhere even remotely attractive, meaning you’ll have to travel further to get into the city – if you’re lucky enough to get a job in the city – and subsequently end up shedding more of your monthly wage packet into Johnson’s TFL vacuum.
So, if you want to see more devastating cuts to London’s most vital sectors, or if you cherish the lack of encouragement given to poorer households, then by all means vote bendy-bus banishing Boris Johnson. But if you want to see a change in the direction of interests in London, with the re-introduction of the absolutely vital Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) which Boris agreed to scrap, and if you want to see a 7% slash in travel fares followed by a freeze in 2013, then please, for the sake of all those who missed out on Cameron’s exclusive dinner parties, vote Ken Livingstone on 3rd May.
It started with market-led interventions in education. Lower socio economic groups both underperform educationally and are underrepresented in the best schools. A Conservative solution? Expand the academy and the free schools programs. Why? Because, as they have the most to gain, it will be disadvantaged and minority communities that will make the most out of these opportunities for more freedom in the setting up and running of schools.
As it turned out, this was just the beginning of a Conservative Party policy drive that reflects an insistence on market based economic solutions which is at odds with their claim to be a Party of the centre.
Following education reform, the Party’s attention turned to health. Andrew Lansley has been fighting an uphill battle since early 2011 to convince the electorate that GPs know best when it comes to healthcare. They have the right information, and importantly, could significantly cut costs. To hell with claims that the door for privatization of the NHS will be opened, with potentially damaging consequences.
Given the importance of these two sectors for the overall functioning of the economy, one hardly needs any more evidence of the Conservatives’ refusal to abandon the economic (and political) right. But the evidence is there for all to see.
Chancellor George Osborne has been one of the staunchest opponents of a Tobin style tax on financial transactions ever since the idea came to inter-governmental discussion. ‘It provides an incentive for our best performing companies and our wealthiest individuals to relocate’ was the cry.
Fast-forward to this year, and the brain drain argument was used with equal vigor to justify the scrapping of the 50p tax rate. Apparently, a 5p reduction in the rate of tax paid only on income over £150,00 will make all the difference to our prosperity.
The debate over the Government’s ‘workfare’ program increased in intensity early in 2012. Again, it seemed that, as long as businesses had an added incentive to hire people, nothing else mattered. Most recently, by hitting parents in the pocket, increasing fines for truancy is hoped to be the most effective way to keep children in school.
Conservative economic thinking was also behind the decision made to freeze the national minimum wage for under 21s as of October. The last thing the government wants to do is to impede job creation by making employers pay too much for their young labour. Interestingly, this decision was announced by Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, proving that, even as a Coalition, the Government is not afraid to lean to the economic right.
This adherence to the ideology of incentives certainly goes beyond areas normally conceived as ‘economic’. For instance, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke’s proposed prison reforms under which jail time for certain offences could have been halved were ditched partly on the basis that this would encourage more crime. But prison doesn’t work, mainly because the function of (punitive) incentives isn’t as black and white as that. When reconviction rates still top 70% in some prisons, something has to change in terms of priorities.
Such a radical shift in economic thinking is unlikely to happen. Cameron’s centrist image should not be fooling anyone; the Conservatives really are committed to traditional right wing economics.
For a government that has received more criticism than any other of recent times, it is no surprise that the criticism towards George Osborne’s proposed cap on tax relief for charities has risen at an astonishing pace. Lord Fink, the millionaire Conservative party treasurer who is leading the backlash, has said it would put the wealthy off giving to charities, and as a consequence they will lose out on one-off big donations.
Fink is just one of the many Conservative MP’s protesting against his own Chancellor; Senior Tory David Davis has said that if the aim was to prevent tax avoidance, it would be better to ensure schemes were approved by the Charity Commission. In what seems like yet another example of this government giving with one hand and taking with the other, there certainly needs to be a crackdown on tax-avoidance for the rich – but not at the expense of genuine charitable donations.
Osborne is certainly right to blockade the tax avoidance of the rich, but so soon after the unconvincing promises made after the cut to the 50p tax band he is in danger of making too many right turns and ending up where he, and this coalition, started. Not only does it seem as if the April budget was a ‘Cash For Cameron’ scheme to those who don’t fall under the rich-friend list of Mr. Osborne, it seems now those friends who are generous enough to donate a fraction of their million pound fortunes will be feeling a little less generous than usual.
A consortium of 46 wealthy donors signed a letter to The Sunday Telegraph, which urged a drastic U-turn – something this government is no stranger to doing.
“The proposal in the budget to cap charity tax reliefs is a brake on philanthropy that may deter future donations. It is confusing and dispiriting, and we urge the Prime Minister and chancellor to think again.” With this said, how can the same government who invented the equally confusing, and more highly criticised, ‘Big Society” plan now act in such a detrimental fashion to a sector which can only be at the heart of such a caring, considerate idea?
This cap on charity tax relief seems to be nothing more than the Chancellor’s attempt at climbing out of the hole their budget left them in; only by clawing at the sides they’re making their escape increasingly unlikely. Don’t let this thinly veiled rescue attempt fool you – this could well be the decision that costs the government most dearly, and it certainly seems that way to the rich, the poor, the middle, philanthropists, donors, you name it: this is a “tax without friends.”
With unemployment figures at an all-time high, students being put off from going to university due to the ridiculous cost of tuition fees, and more strikes around wage-orientated issues than ever before, it is now harder than ever for people to give to charity. With some charities needing to raise over £100 million every year just to continue their work, Osborne needs to pull his head out from the sand and take a good look around before he thinks he can escape with such an unnecessary and damaging budget plan. One thing is for sure though, when the public discover the damage this will do to the UK charity sector, the blood will certainly be on Osborne’s hands – without any of his rich friends to wipe it on.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) has come under attack after footage emerged of an Alzheimer’s patient being abused by care workers. The care home shown in the Panorama documentary was rated ‘excellent’ by the CQC. This week’s footage however revealed a contrasting picture. The patient shown in the video, was slapped several times, violently mishandled, and pushed around like a piece of meat, rather than a human being. It was shocking to see that the care workers who had abused the patient were permitted to continue working at the care home.
This once again shows the failure of the care system to provide the basic care provision for elderly patients. Care homes should provide a nurturing environment for elderly patients, a place where they feel safe and are looked after, particularly at a time when they are most vulnerable. The amount of stories that appear in the news media continue to show the mistreatment of elderly patients, yet there has been no plan of action in dealing with this crisis. There needs to be serious reform in the UK’s care system and it’s procedure in recruiting staff.
After watching the short documentary, it was apparent that one of the fundamental problems in the care system was partly to do with the staff, hired at care homes. There was not a single moment in the video where the staff engaged in a conversation or expressed any empathy towards the care of the patient. Carers should receive appropriate training to have a better understanding of how to deal with a wide range of patients. Although, those care workers shown in the documentary had received training, they failed to follow the basic care guidelines. For example, one of the care workers fed the patient at a rapid pace which caused the patient to choke several times and another care worker slapped the patient several times. How did the care home fail to notice this? This cannot be acceptable and should not be tolerated in the care system. Why should elderly patients continue to suffer as a result of reckless and incompetent care workers? There needs to serious checks and balances in place to ensure that those who become care workers are well prepared in dealing with care for elderly patients with a wide range of illnesses.
A spokesperson for the Alzheimer’s Society said ‘the most vulnerable people in our society should be treated with respect and dignity.’ No elderly patients should have to suffer and go through a terrible ordeal, at a critical time in their life. Elderly patients should get the respect they deserve and in order to do this, the CQC should play a greater role by cancelling the provider’s registration if they seem unfit to provide care. This documentary, once again shows that the care system in the UK is broken and inadequate. This issue needs to be dealt with imminently in order to prevent incidents such as this. The longer it is left, the more patients will suffer.
In the 21st century, power is rarely defined by the number of soldiers, boats or airplanes a country can deploy. Other indictors, especially economic and financial ones, have come to be considered the most relevant in identifying winners and losers in the international relations game. Nonetheless, as the Iranian regime is making very clear, some military capabilities such as the possession of nuclear weapons, are still regarded as fundamental to becoming a world power. For this reason, trends in defence spending are a useful tool to understand the changing distribution of power at the global level.
For anyone with even a superficial knowledge of international relations and international economy, it cannot come as a surprise that the West is progressively cutting the percentage of budget allocated to defence, while emerging economies like Russia and Asian countries are expanding their military expenditure. As a result of these trends, Asian countries, taken as a whole, now spend more than Europe for their defence. Looking at single countries, the UK and France, Europe’s biggest spenders, have now been superseded not only by China but also by Russia, who boast a 9% increase in military expenditure last year. Nowadays, only three of the top ten spenders are European.
Obviously, the economic and financial crisis is one of the main causes of the progressive reduction in defence spending decided by the US and European governments. Conversely, the impetuous economic growth they are experiencing is among the causes of the massive investments in weapons made by many Asian countries. China, in primis, but also India, Singapore, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have, in fact, decided to reinvest part of their expanding budgets in the strengthening and modernisation of their defence systems.
What does this raw data mean for Europe and its political future? On the one hand, for European citizens the reduction in defence spending can be seen as cause for celebration. Clearly, the only reason why European states can get away with very specialized and professional but progressively smaller armed forces is the fact that, in the span of a few decades, Europe has gone from being the epicentre of international military confrontation (during the Cold War) to a largely secure and pacified region. Europeans cannot but rejoice that, nowadays, a war in the heart of our continent almost seems a science-fiction movie plot.
On the other hand, we must admit that progressive decline in relative military capabilities, despite a few successful examples of pooling dwindling resources (see EU’s efforts but also UK-France cooperation) will probably mark an analogous decline in international influence for our continent. Missions like the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in Libya or Lebanon, will be more and more difficult to shoulder for any European country; as a consequence, it will become harder to gain a seat at the international negotiating table and in multilateral fora.
Unfortunately, such a bleak outcome is far from unrealistic. However, a sliver of hope for European countries, reluctant to abdicate their position as global powers, may come from the possibility of further regional cooperation. Comparing total defence spending in Asia and Europe, in fact, while somewhat significant, is in a way like comparing the proverbial oranges and apples. Asian countries have to coexist in a region where nationalistic rivalries are very much alive and threats to peace are not just memories of the past. This means that their armies are much more likely to clash, in the future, than to cooperate. In Europe, on the other hand, a military confrontation between EU member states is almost inconceivable. True, full integration at the military level is still far from happening, but stronger and more efficient coordination, maybe in a NATO where the Americans have given up part of their influence, could put European countries back in the superpowers category.
This week the American Tycoon Donald Trump restated his opposition to wind farms and protested against plans to build one next to his £1 Billion golf course in Scotland. Trump before a committee of MSP’s claimed that wind turbines are not an economic way of producing power and are bad for wildlife and tourism. He argues that the world cannot afford to build them, but the truth is that it cannot afford not to. The UK and indeed the world need to make bold steps in building renewable and low carbon sources of electricity and the simple truth is that it cannot be done without wind farms.
With the onset of climate change, it important to embrace energy sources that produce no carbon dioxide. Donald Trump agrees with this but argues that there is no need for wind turbines as tidal and wave power can provide enough energy on their own. This is simply untrue as both sources of energy are highly experimental and even if they are proven to be workable technologies there would be relatively few places which they could be used, hence limiting the electricity produced. Under these circumstances it would be an enormous and wholly unnecessary gamble to stop investing in wind turbines in favour of these other technologies.
Another foundation of Trump’s argument is that wind farms are uneconomic and do not represent value for money. However using the wind to generate energy is economic in the long term as they have very low running costs due to low maintenance and the fact that there is no need to buy fuel. The cost of constructing them is relatively high but it is important to make that investment in order to get long term returns. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels is not only important for tackling climate change but also for energy security. As North Sea oil and gas is running out we are increasingly reliant on imports from Russia and the Middle East to meet demand. It is strategically important to build the infrastructure now in order to ensure we have electricity production capability that is not reliant on volatile world markets and regions. Obviously wind power alone cannot provide complete security as it is weather dependent but it is part of a sensible energy security policy.
The environmental impact of wind turbines on wildlife is greatly exaggerated by their critics. Earlier this month a report by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found that there was only a minimal impact on birds from flying into rotating turbines. Trump calls wind turbines ‘unattractive, ugly, and noisy’ and says that tourists would avoid visiting his golf course if they were built nearby. Despite believing that wind turbines look nice, I accept that this is not a view shared by everyone. In any case how something looks should not be a significant factor in whether something is built and what is important is its economic and environmental value. Due to the significant value of wind power as an energy generating resource the governments north and south of the border need to push ahead with wind farms despite the opposition.
Greece is heading for an election on May 6, and the stakes are incredibly high. How the Greek electorate votes, how the elected politicians handle the country’s crisis, and how effectively the administration and economy can be reformed will have significant repercussions beyond the small country’s borders. In this election, Greek voters have the chance to shape the debate about what role the EU should play in Europe’s economies and financial markets, how its member states should relate to one another, and how governments should respond to the pressures of a globalising world.
Of course, the debate is being shaped already: hardly a day goes by without a reference by the media or politicians to the demonstrations and riots in Greece. Most shocking was the suicide by a Greek pensioner in front of the parliament, who left behind a note blaming the government’s spending cuts. The citizens’ palpable anger at their government’s mismanagement and corruption and at the austerity measures required by the conditions of the EU bail-out is a powerful argument in favour of a better handling of the eurozone crisis, and, crucially, though not mentioned as much, better financial regulation on an international level.
However, this does not necessarily mean that Greeks will vote for radical change in the upcoming election. Contrary to the often repeated claims that Greeks (and other European citizens) are worse off because of the euro, recent opinion polls demonstrate that the majority of Greek citizens believe their country should remain in the eurozone – though seek an alternative to the austerity measures. Similarly, the latest polls indicate that a governing coalition of the two ruling Greek parties, both in favour of the bail-out, could garner a slim majority in the upcoming election, suggesting substantial support for EU involvement in the crisis.
Of course, no opinion poll can positively predict the outcome of an election, but from these figures it would appear that Greeks will vote for continuity rather than upheaval – recognising, perhaps, that there is no easy fix for the crisis and that the ongoing efforts to reform government, bureaucracy, and business practices need time to be carried out fully in order to be effective. And yet, that does not mean politicians in Greece and the EU are free to continue as they have. The anger and desperation will only get worse – in the short term – as further cuts to government spending are required and as the economy contracts even more. The new Greek government and EU leaders will ignore this degree of acute dissatisfaction at their own peril.
While the need to reduce the overwhelmingly unsustainable amount of Greek debt and stabilise the country’s position in dangerous financial waters is undeniably urgent, at this point more is required of the EU. It is no longer enough to merely keep the country from the brink of bankruptcy (though this monumental task is not to be underestimated) – the EU can and should do more. Last week, the European Commission presented a communication on “Growth and Jobs for Greece”, which outlines various ways in which EU funds can improve the situation for Greek citizens by providing loans and guarantees for SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises), training and work experience programmes to unemployed young people, and temporary economic relief for disadvantaged groups. All of these proposals sound great, but they were badly needed months ago. EU leaders have been so preoccupied with containing the crisis that they neglected to introduce measures such as these earlier, when they could have done much alleviate suffering and social tensions.
Simon Cowell, Karren Bradey, Richard Branson, Walt Disney, Alan Sugar, Coco Chanel, Steve Jobs, John Major, Debbi Fields, Henry Ford… an endless list of successful, well-known people – past and present – who kick started their careers without a degree.
When my parents were younger it wasn’t ‘normal’ for teenagers to aspire to go onto higher education after college. My father was expelled from school before sitting his O-levels, turned up to complete exams in the three subjects he enjoyed, and subsequently left education with 3 A grades. He is now known in the area as a hardworking and well-respected tradesman. My Mum, on the other hand, was the first person in her family to attend university. She failed her O-level’s but then decided to buckle down and start-a-fresh. She studied a mixed honours degree in English and Geography at Preston Polytechnic and just missed out on a 1st. My Mum is now a journalist at the BBC.
I admire my parents and I see them as first hand evidence that qualifications are not the be-all and end-all factor to success. But times are changing and it’s becoming the norm to stay in education until your twenties… in fact, it’s what’s expected.
Only a few days ago my tutorial group – an academically gifted & talented group of teenagers (based entirely on our GCSE results being ‘well above average’), was asked by our teacher: “Is there anyone in this room who does not wish to attend university?”… I was the only one to raise my hand. Being, an academically gifted group, there are a number of people who wish to fight for a place at the likes of Oxbridge, and there are also many who want to enter highly competitive careers in which a degree is a necessity. However, I do believe that within both my tutor group and my friendship group, there are other reasons as to why my peers have a desire to further their education.
A reasonably strong factor is the pressure that my college puts on its students to apply to university. Part of this will be because our teachers want to see us succeed, but another, perhaps more convincing argument, is that the college wants to impress its forthcoming students. Despite the fact I’m 90% sure I don’t want to go to university, I will be applying to at least one. I am a ‘people pleaser’ and in order to stay on the right side of my teachers I feel that applying to university is a must; if I don’t, I fear I will be considered less worthy of their one on one help than the students who do apply.
League tables place huge pressure on college’s to churn out the best possible grades. At my college, if you obtain a ‘U’ in an exam, you re-sit. If you obtain a ‘B’ in an exam, you re-sit. Personally, I find this outrageous as there isn’t actually a distinction between those students who fail, and those students who get what used to be considered as a good grade; I actually have friends who have been advised to re-sit their “low A grades” of 82%. The point being that my college trains students to achieve sufficient grades for the best universities – it’s an exam factory. Student’s who don’t want to go to university aren’t actually given advice on what path to take next – there have been several talks for students wishing to attend Oxbridge but only one for those wishing to pursue an apprenticeship – and it wasn’t advertised to anywhere near the same extent. The result is that those who originally don’t want to apply or go to university are eventually persuaded to do so; if not by the teachers, then by, what would be seen as, the lack of alternatives.
“University culture” has cropped up numerous times in conversation with my friends – a reason why many of them wish to go. Here, the term “culture” refers to the student parties, nights out and the lifestyle away from home as opposed to the studying. The freedom is also obviously appealing. A job though, would offer much more independence; an income, stability, and the networking – which would also include partying and nights out, which is what I personally find much more appealing. However, what scares many of my friends is the dawning of adulthood and the commitment it involves. University offers the right amount freedom and the right amount of security in order to remain a teenager a little bit longer. So much of it isn’t really about the yearning for a degree; it’s about being afraid of going out into the big wide world. In fact, one of my friends has actually said they’re going to university because they don’t want to work. It’s attitudes like this which degrade the value of a degree.
One of the main reasons why I don’t want to go to uni is the £45,000-£50,000 debt I’d be lumped with, combined with the uncertain prospects of getting a job. So many young people believe that performing well, going to a good university and getting a degree means that the world owes them a living. Normally, this would be laughable but in this current climate, it’s utterly mind-blowing. What I want is experience. I’m both academic and arty and until a few weeks ago, I was torn between the two, but now I have my heart set on photography. Since I already have a photography business, a fashion blog, and the likelihood of working alongside an established photographer in London this summer, I think I’m at an advantage to those studying it at degree level who may very little experience of the profession.
Furthermore, I think apprenticeships can be more worthwhile than degrees – take accountancy for example. Apprenticeships in the occupation are few and far between whereas degrees are arguably more readily available – which, in my book, makes the apprenticeship option more valuable. It used to be the case that degrees made you stand out – but the diversity in courses and changing attitudes have made them more accessible. To stand out in terms of qualifications in the present day, you need a Masters. On top of this, companies have increased their qualification standards in order to be within a chance of being employable. This is going to be difficult to reverse but there are still other options; all of which need to be considered by young people before making the assumption that a degree is the best path.
In the third episode of Street Politics we see Boris Johnson speak to Catch21 and a young voter in order to gain the youth vote. Has he convinced you? vote in our online poll.
Would you go on a date with a politician? How about a political date? In the third episode of our Street Politics series, we take on Conservative candidate and current mayor Boris Johnson and challenge him on what he will do for young people. Has Boris convinced you? Why not vote in our poll and [...]
Facebook
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Delicious
Subscribe & follow: