Eurovision: The Netherlands is My Choice

So, I've watched both Eurovision semi finals and also the videos for the "Big 5" and the host nation, Sweden, and I've come to the conclusion that I'm voting for the Netherlands and their song Birds performed by Anouk.

Why? Well because it's a song, not just a performance. After all this is supposed to be the Eurovision Song Contest!

Take a look at this clip of the song from the first semi final;



As for the UK's entry, Bonnie Tyler singing Believe in Me, I wish her well and hope she ends up in the top half of the table. I don't think it will be in with a chance of winning, but it's got to be a better tune than recent fare entered by the BBC.

Tune in across Europe on Saturday at 21:00 CET. In the UK it'll be BBC One (at 20:00 BST).

JR

Report to UHSU Student Ideas Forum (NUS National Conference)

Below is my report to the Student Ideas Forum at Hertfordshire as I was a delegate to NUS National Conference 2013 from UHSU. If you're a Hertfordshire student, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

--

This was my fourth NUS National Conference as a delegate, but my first as a delegate from Hertfordshire. There have been many changes since my first national conference in Blackpool in 2008, not least of which was the magnificent venue of Sheffield City Hall hosting the conference for the second year in succession.

I am pleased to report I was on conference floor for all the policy debate, except for a half hour period on the first day when checking into the accommodation. Also, I cast a vote in every election that I was eligible to do so (as a Higher Education delegate).

Policy debate was lively and often heated and I even spoke against a motion that opposed the existence of trustee boards – the motion fell.

In order that you can hold me fully accountable here is how I voted on some of the major motions during the conference;

Motion 701: This motion attempted to introduce “gender balancing” to national conference delegations as well as introducing a guaranteed women’s place (either the VP or NEC place) for each zone on the National Executive Council. I voted to remove gender balancing conference delegations from the motion which was removed by conference, and voted for the women’s reserved place on for each zone on the NEC, but this motion was voted down by conference as a whole.

Motion 101: This motion was about NUS’s priority campaign for the next year. The campaign will be promoting a new vision for the future of tertiary education – NUS policy tends to deal with the here and now rather than setting out its own vision, this motion aimed to set out a vision that “takes a holistic view of induction into codes of knowledge and skill” and “imagines a rebalancing of educational goods towards public value” amongst other aims. I voted for this motion and the motion was passed by conference.

Motion 311: This motion seeked to improve the National Student Survey as it is due for review soon. There was also an amendment to this motion that called to boycott the NSS. I voted against the amendment which fell, and for the main motion which passed.

Motion 513 that was submitted by Hertfordshire was remitted to the Disabled Students’ Committee and not debated at conference.

If you want to know how I voted on any of the other motions, or if you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me using the details below.

--

JR

Local Election Conundrum

Local elections are an interesting, but confusing, thing. All predictions show that turnout will be very poor - almost certainly below 35% - and also that UKIP will see a large increase in their vote.

The oxygen of publicity for the UK Independence Party over the last few weeks has undoubtedly given them a large boost and has seen both Labour and the Conservatives attacking them. There really is no such thing as bad publicity (and, as an aside, is a pretty compelling argument for no platforming the BNP and other fascist groups) because the additional scrutiny has only seen an increase of support in the polls.

You might remember that the Lib Dems had a similar increase in fortunes just before the 2010 general election, shortly after the first televised leaders debate. In the end that (brief) lead in the polls didn't translate into that many more votes on polling day, but on the other hand there was no genuine chance of the Lib Dems getting any kind of majority in the commons.

The question is, will those telling the pollsters they're going to vote UKIP today actually do that when they find themselves looking at their ballot paper in the polling station? Many will hold their nose and vote how they did before, but others will want to give the Tories (and to some extent Labour and the Lib Dems) a bit of a kicking.

Of course that is the exact problem UKIP have, keeping hold of not just those who have pledged to vote for them in these elections, but also retaining those that actually do for future elections. UKIP are a party without any MPs in Westminster, and even though they've always had a strong showing in European elections, they have failed to capitalise on that.

My opinion is they really are a bunch of clowns (h/t Ken Clarke). If they continue to be under the same scrutiny in the period between now and the next general election then they will be found out, and will probably fail to win any seats in Westminster in 2015. They really aren't any better than they were in 2009 when it comes to candidates and their stupidity.

I signed off a blog post in exactly the same way then ...

Who would vote for these jokers?

JR

Conference Report: Left at the End?

The National Union of Students' National Conference saw a dominance of moderate candidates and resolutions. Toni Pearce [pictured] was elected as the union's first national president from Further Education, and centre left candidates won all the full time positions being elected in Sheffield.

Also, just to add insult to injury for the far left, it's not unlikely that a Tory will top the vote for the block of fifteen executive councilors when the ballots are counted on Wednesday - something that has never been a likely prospect in previous years.

Facebook and blogs from members of the left have been filled with disappointment and outright anger at the way the conference turned out for them; indeed there was a sense of clutching at straws when talking about one or two motions that did go in their favour.

The thing is, conference floor has never been as "right wing" as it was in Sheffield this year. There were some motions put forward by lefty unions that fell woefully, perhaps only attracting two dozen votes in favour, in comparison to six or seven hundred votes against. The accusation is that the Nolsies (or Labour Students to you and me) have stitched-up conference floor, and/or there's some sort of conspiracy against the revolutionary left.

Frankly, it's just nonsense. The 1980s are long gone, and the demographic of students has changed dramatically since the turn of the millennium. The vast majority of delegates elected to conference, just like the public at large, are not party political; but what they are is very moderate. They may be centre left or even centre right in outlook, however the party whip is not going to feature in their decision making - the policies being debated will.

The best example of this was the complete lack of interest in messing around with the order paper and the order of motions. In the Society and Citizenship Zone there were 4 procedural motions about moving a given motion to be debated first, only one managed to gain interest from the 100 delegates required to hear the case for the move, and that motion clearly fell too - followed by a challenge to the chair's ruling that fell by even more of a margin. All that happened is 15 to 20 minutes were wasted at the start of the zone talking about various non-issues, and that time was lost from the motions debating time.

Reading this, you might think that the conference was frustrating for the vast majority of delegates in the hall but, although there were segments that were incredibly annoying, the conference overall was very enjoyable and a great success.

On a personal note, I even spoke against a motion (about opposition to the concept of trustee boards) that subsequently fell, taking me to 3 and 0 on motions at NUS conference going the way I spoke on them! Also, I now have text that I wrote as policy of the national union. Win!

I will be on my course at Hertfordshire until May 2014, so I might be making an appearance at conference next year too! Fingers crossed.

JR

I'm Voting #Pearce4Pres Because ...

Less than a week until I and over 1000 delegates to NUS National Conference vote on who will be the next President of the national union. I will be voting Toni Pearce as my #1 choice, and here is why;

I first met Toni back in 2009 when she was President of Cornwall College SU, and had come up to Manchester for the (brand new) zone conferences. I was the VP Welfare at Manchester Met and my union was hosting the evening entertainment (ie, was the bar).

Toni, keen as she is, was attending all of the zone conferences (except HE) on her union's behalf, and was one of the first to arrive at the entertainment one evening, and I was there anyway after finishing up my work in the office. We got talking about NUS and union stuff, as you do, and I probably gave her some sort of useless advice about NUS events and - being a Devonian - ribbed her about needing a passport to get into England from Cornwall.

What I realised very quickly was Toni is very on the ball, and absolutely knows her stuff. Frankly, and no disrespect to FE unions, it was made even more impressive because of the lack of staff support that Further Education unions suffer from - through funding if nothing else - meaning she would have had limited guidance of the complex issues that students go through, basically meaning Toni would have researched the whole sector herself from scratch. I also learned she likes Cricket (music to my ears) and is an Arsenal fan (nobody's perfect).

From that day I knew that Toni was destined to be one of the movers and shakers, one of the big names if you will. I was a fan of her within the time it took to drink a pint, as well as you can whilst talking to someone, and she was so personable it meant I was never bored throughout the conversation. The fact I vividly remember that conversation three and a half years later speaks volumes.

The thing is, I haven't actually seen much of her since then; quite rightly too, I've been in Higher Education whereas Toni's focus has been on Further Education. When I have seen her at an NUS event she's always said hello to me, but we've also had the odd conversation on twitter (odd being the operative word) - more often than not about something not related to student politics. Some gems from the twittersphere include; not being able to hear anything in one ear except for blood, and how 0.999 recurring is equal to 1. I'm happy to say that we've had some more sane conversations too!

Why am I telling you this? Surely I should be talking about Toni's record, or perhaps what she would do if she was elected as National President next week? Well, I didn't want to simply regurgitate her manifesto; I wanted you to know why she is the right choice, not just as an incredibly intelligent and versatile young woman, but as an amazing person and brilliant friend.

If you're a delegate to NUS conference then please make Toni Pearce your number 1 choice for President. You won't regret it!

JR

A Summary of All #nusnc13 Motions

The following list is a summary of all the recommendations, motions and amendments being sent to NUS National Conference 2013.

The list was originally compiled by Anthony Masters and posted on his twitter feed. I've renumbered the motions and ordered the zones correctly so that you can see the order the motions will be debated in.

You can see the full text of the motions in the official final motions document (CD10).

Key:
Bold - Zones
Italics - amendments 

Zone 100: Priority

Recommendation 101 wants the NUS to develop a "Vision for Education", and trust between stakeholders.

Zone 600: Welfare

Recommendation 601 wants "to support SUs fighting cuts to welfare services on their campuses"; & support for mental health issues.

Amendment 601a adds that the NUS should produce guides for working with welfare issues, as they do for educational/academic issues.

Amendment 601b adds that "independent advice services are vital", & opposes all cuts to advice services.

Recommendation 602 believes student financial support is critically important, supports an adjusted EMA and bursaries.

Amendment 602a adds that SUs should be supported in campaigns for institutional spending on student financial hardship.

Amendment 602b opposes "legal loan sharks" and supports credit unions, including Students' Unions setting up their own.

Amendment 602c resolves the NUS should launch a 'Bring Back EMA Battle Plan', including direct action.

Recommendation 603 wants to "examine issues students face in relation to quality of accommodation", working with Shelter.

Amendment 603a wants to mandate the VP Welfare and their zone looks at Students' Union Letting Agencies.

Amendment 603b wishes to implement a national 'Rate your Landlord' campaign, drawing upon good practice from SUs.

Amendment 603c resolves "to produce campaign materials and a charter of demands – inc. that no one should pay over £100 a week".

Recommendation 604 notes cost increases in student accommodation, & lobbies for "fair & transparent" approach to student debt.

Recommendation 605 resolves "to monitor the impact of public health reforms and changes to police and crime commissioning."

Motion 611 resolves to "lobby for access to sexual health services to be free for all students"; solidarity with Women's Campaign.

Motion 612 seeks to reduce public stigma and discrimination surrounding issues of mental health; opposes cuts to welfare services.

Amendment 612a believes "students should not have to choose between sitting an assessment, & submitting extenuating circumstances."

Motion 613 resolves "to campaign for part-time students to be exempt from paying council tax".

Motion 614 wants transport to be "fair, safe, affordable", with late lectures having flexible times & caps on late-night bus fares.

Motion 615 believes that teacher trainees require more flexibility from universities, with open campus services.

Motion 616 opposes 'lad culture': "Universities should put their female students’ rights before the simple aim of making profit".

Motion 617 believes arts students are likely to "experience high pressure, intense critique & long hours", & seeks better support.

Motion 618 wants the NUS to survey its students on drug policy, and then align itself with groups with the same aims.

Motion 619 resolves "NUS lobby universities to increase English Language support to international students", foster integration.

Zones 200 & 300: Further Education & Higher Education

Recommendation 201 seeks to heal the "divide" between Further Education and Higher Education, under one government department.

Recommendation 202 wants the NUS to continue the #No2FEfees campaign and obtain expanded financial support for FE students.

Recommendation 203 believes the NUS should campaign to increase apprentice pay, and create a work experience charter.

Recommendation 204 wants the NUS to produce a "UK-wide guide to qualifications" and campaign for a central FE-HE admissions system.

Motion 211 says the NUS should "oppose immigration rules restricting international students' right to work", & up spending on FE.

Motion 212 wants the NUS "to recognise FE students as Mature at the age of 19" & ensure adequate support for such students.

Recommendation 301 wants the NUS to continue its campaign on the public value of education, & targets for widening participation.

Amendment 301a believes the NUS should highlight the economic value of Higher Education.

Amendment 301b thinks the NUS needs to build a "network of allies" to win the public argument of the value of tertiary education.

Amendment 301c has the same aim (winning the argument on education), and wants SUs to "embed themselves" within local communities.

Recommendation 302 says HE institutions are "communities", SUs should be engaged; join with trades unions to oppose privitisation.

Amendment 302a focusses on 'students as producers' campaigns, rejects false calls for 'partnership' as controlling student voice.

Amendment 302b wants students to 'Take Back your Campus', in favour of "democratic university governance".

Recommendation 303 wants SUs to work with institutions to "develop retention & success strategies", as well as peer mentor schemes.

Recommendation 304 wants to develop "full-costed alternatives" to tuition fees, that will create education "accessible to all".

Amendment 304a wants the NUS to campaign for free education, with "state investment", as opposed to a graduate tax.

Amendment 304b seeks the revival of EMA, cancellation of all student debt, incl. a year of "protests, direct action & occupations".

Amendment 304c wants the NUS to campaign for no cuts, living grants for all students, & "student support for workers' struggles".

Motion 311 wants the NUS to consult on & review the National Student Survey, & oppose calls to boycott it.

Amendment 311a believes the NSS should be boycotted, as it is "a tool to implement cuts and privitisation".

Motion 312 opposes "xenophobic immigration policy", & seeks the repeal of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999.

Amendment 312a wants to add that Post Study Work visa should be reinstated.

Motion 313 wants the NUS to formally adopt its own postgraduate taught funding proposal, with a cap on postgraduate fees.

Motion 314 highlights that a third of postgraduates are "earning below the minimum wage in real terms", & seeks remedies.

Motion 315 wants the NUS to develop an accreditation scheme for placements.

Motion 316 wishes timetabling to become a priority for the HE zone committee.

Motion 317 wishes to investigate a Grade Point Average, instead of the British degree classification system.

Motion 318 wants a cap for international students' fees, which should not increase over the study period.

Motion 319 wants arts education to be placed on the same level as STEM subjects, calling their de-funding "shameful".

Motion 320 wants universities to "remain at the centre of Initial Teacher Education", rather than schools.

Amendment 320a believes there should be a national campaign "against the closures of PGCEs with teaching trade unions".

Motion 321 wants the NUS to recognise HE students that are currently in FE colleges, who are between different NUS zones.

Motion 322 wants the NUS to discuss funding plans for 5-year medical (MBBS) and dental (BDS) students with relevant ministers.

Motion 323 wants to investigate issues over clearing and confirmation of students, providing support where possible.

Motion 324 believes that undergraduate research projects should focus on "tangible challenges faced by local communities".

Motion 325 believes the NUS should collect information on student demographics, the "student life cycle" and drop-out causes.

Motion 326 opposes companies being able to award qualifications: McDonalds as being one of the 1st such companies is "appalling".

Motion 327 seeks an investigation of the effects of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) on life-long learning.

Zone 500: Union Development

Recommendation 501 wants the NUS to highlight student activities, such as volunteering, including through an 'NUS giving' award.

Amendment 501a believes the NUS should explore the benefits of a 'Vice President Student Activities'.

Amendment 501b adds that the NUS should research best practice in training and facilitating part-time officers.

Amendment 501c believes the "NUS will create guidance and training for SUs in supporting their Student Activity Groups".

Recommendation 502 wants guides for engagement in independent, autonomous and student-led Students' Union.

Amendment 502a believes that "personal progression of individual unions" should be sought, rather than standardised assessment.

Amendment 502b wants to continue to support direct action by students, "including demonstrations and occupations".

Amendment 502c wants only elected students to be full voting members of Trustee Boards.

Recommendation 503 wants the NUS to "roll-out a programme of regional Organiser & Activist Academics", to "empower" students.

Amendment 503a adds "activist and leadership development should be a priority for NUS regardless of calls for national actions".

Amendment 503b believes that those students involved in sports, societies & volunteering would support more campaigning.

Motion 511 believes that a mentoring scheme for current officers, using former officers, should be investigated.

Motion 512 opposes "the existence of Trustee Boards", in a campaign for SU democracy.

Motion 513 wants "proper support and advice to help students with developmental disabilities and specific learning disabilities".

Motion 514 supports 'Plain English' in "student-facing documents".

Motion 515 believes that "specialist unions deserve specialist support", especially in arts.

Zone 400: Society & Citizenship

Recommendation 401 wants to "build a road-map" for campaigning in the 2015 General Election, esp. voter registration.

Amendment 401a believes that the NUS's vision should be "rooted in communities", and backs a Living Wage campaign.

Recommendation 402 backs lowering the voting age to 16.

Amendment 402a believes the NUS should promote "sit-ins" of 16-17 year-old students at "ballot stations".

Recommendation 403 wants the NUS to back "ethical sourcing", & provide guidance on Freedom of Information requests.

Amendment 403a wants universities to affiliate with the Worker Rights Consortium, & divest from 'unethical' companies.

Amendment 403b wants the NUS to lobby to remove VAT from sanitary products.

Recommendation 404 wants to campaign, including "direct action", against tax avoidance, & investigate how tax affects education.

Recommendation 405 wishes to conduct research into child poverty, and back the Living Wage campaign.

Amendment 405a wants a minimum wage of £8.55, "benefits you can live on", "taxing the rich & expropriating the banks".

Motion 411 believes that the NUS should oppose local council grant reductions "within student towns & cities".

Motion 412 wishes to establish a NUS 'seal of approval' for employers, & to research issues surrounding unemployment.

Amendment 412a adds that a NUS commission on unemployment should be brought into being, and be "on-going".

Motion 413 wants to "work with partners" to mobilise the youth vote around elections and referenda, with "liberation education".

Motion 414 supports "compulsory comprehensive Sex & Relation Education in schools".

Motion 415 resolves "to adopt a pragmatic and progressive approach to opposing cuts and privatisation of our health care system".

Amendment 415a wants the NUS to "support the Keep Our NHS Public campaign" and support strikes by NHS workers.

Motion 416 resolves "to actively challenge racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and fascism" & maintain the No Platform policy.

Amendment 416a wants to unite "workers and communities for demands to undercut the demagogy of the far right".

Motion 417 condemns government for not setting an electricity decarbonisation 2030 target; seeks tough action on climate change.

Motion 418 opposes the "so called" 'bedroom tax'.

Motion 419 wants the NUS to "oppose the war on Mali and western intervention in Syria, Africa and the Middle East"; scrap Trident.

Motion 420 resolves that the NUS "will join and lead national campaigns to protect and advance the arts."

Motion 421 believes that the state should "intervene" to stop people using drugs, but seeks an "evidence-based drug policy".

Motion 422 calls on the UK government to ratify the International Convention of the Rights of Migrants and their Families.

Motion 423 believes the NUS should join the "global movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel".

Motion 424 wants the NUS to organise a delegation to Greece, and to interview Greek students.

Motion 425 wants the NUS to oppose campaigns for Britain to leave the EU.

Motion 426 wishes the government & universities extend support to Syrian students.

Motion 427 wishes to mandate that NUS UK remains neutral on the issue of Scottish independence "for the entirety of the debate".

Motion 428 wishes to co-ordinate the NUS & SUs with trades unions; calls for a student strike whenever there is a 'general strike'.

The following motions in this zone have not been listed in the motions document, but appeared in the draft version. They are included here for information.

Motion 429 resolves "NUS will factor whether electronic products contain conflict minerals in future purchasing decisions."

Motion 430 wants to "outline the minimum quality standards for careers guidance in schools".

Zone 700: Annual General Meeting

Challenge CTE1 wants to increase the NEC budget by £35,000, with an equal decrease of the contingency line.

Recommendation 701 states "in the event that the previously elected VP is not a woman this position shall be reserved for a woman".

Recommendation 702 mandates the National President reviews the remit of each Zone, which are resolved for expansion.

Amendment 702a resolves to abolish Zone Conferences, which are "unrepresentative".

Recommendation 703 resolves the Block of 15 should be allocated "a principal scrutiny duty"; creates Comms & Ethical committees.

Amendment 703a expands the Block of 15 to a Block of 20, scrapping Zone seats on the NEC.

Amendment 703b bars "unelected non-students" from voting on the Trustee Board.

Amendment 703c demands that NEC members can be "held to account", with "consequences for their actions".

Recommendation 704 raises the threshold for procedural and parts motions being discussed, from 100 to one third of those present.

Amendment 704a preserves the ability to contribute to all zones of the NUS, retaining the 1,400 word limit.

Amendment 704b wishes to restore the delegate entitlements to 2009 levels, making the conference larger.

Amendment 704c wants to extend the national conference by a day.

Amendment 704d would equalise Zones with Constituent Members, removing their power to place recommendations at the agenda's start.

Amendment 704e wants 'one fifth of those present' to signal support for a procedural motion to be discussed.

Amendment 704f commits to the principle of "direct One Member One Vote" elections for President, Vice Presidents and Block.

Recommendation 705 wants a creation of a London student structure "to capture, synthesise & amplify the voices of London students".

Amendment 705a resolves to "lobby the University of London not to cut ULU".

Recommendation 706 resolves conferences should elect their National Executive Council members.

Amendment 706a resolves the "student section shall have the right to report directly to National Conference".

Amendment 706b resolves "NEC to produce a report on how to get more part time students to national events including NC".

Amendment 706c wishes to consider a Student Carers' Conference, or separate representation for student carers within the NUS.

Recommendation 707 seeks a "fairer distribution of power amongst unions", & power devolution in the NUS Group Structure.

Recommendation 708 resolves that submitted motions about a person "include robust evidence... and is not defamatory".

Motion 711 believes richer unions should pay a higher proportion in affiliation fees, & lobby for "legally enforceable autonomy".

Motion 712 resolves for the NUS to develop a "strategy based on collective power" to rely less on entertainments revenue.

Motion 713 wants to omit tactics and strategies from the submission of motions, citing recent national demonstrations.

Motion 714 believes that the NUS should represent apprentices.

Motion 715: "NUS Delegate elections should be considered of equal importance in Students’ Unions to Sabbatical Officer positions."

Motion 716 seeks to reserve delegation places for black students.

Motion 717 wishes to change the law so that those in FE colleges under the age of 16 can be represented by the NUS.

And that's yer lot folks! Any mistakes, let me know.

JR

Are General Meetings Ever Representative?

The eternal question for students' unions up and down the country. General Meetings have been the staple of policy making for decades, and before mass electronic communication became common place, these meetings were the easiest way of gathering opinion, debating topics, and voting on policies.

It's odd to think that in some universities you would regularly get over 1000 students attending these meetings, indeed some union's rules required a minimum of 1000 students attending in order to pass policy. However, apart from one or two notable exceptions, attendance at general meetings has dropped significantly, partly because students have got other forms of entertainment in their lives (TV, Internet, games consoles) but mostly because meetings are not engaging and/or are dominated by the same old hacks.

I'm an old hack, that's a fact that cannot be disputed. I had to be convinced (some time ago now) that 30-odd students in a room wasn't representative of the student body as a whole. I would have said that students don't know what they want or what is good for them, but what I realized is they really do. Unions have hundreds of course representatives, but education policy is rarely decided upon by those students. Unions have large LGBT, disabled, and women's societies, but welfare policy is rarely formed by these groups.

Students need engaging in policy matters. The information on policy is poor at best, and non-existent in most cases. If your union just expects the small number of students that turn up to its general meetings to be representative of all students, then it's sadly mistaken. The more students involved in policy making, the better it is for democracy in your union - a truism if I've ever heard one - but it's not about promoting the status quo better (like bribing more students into attending GMs), the way policy is debated and formed before it's even put into a motion needs a major rethink. That means going out and talking to students!

Not a new idea, I realize that, but one that gets forgotten far too often. The problem is that policy is often thought to be the start of student engagement, rather than the culmination of a successive period of gathering student opinion. If you are going to be successful in engaging students in how the union is run, you need to give them an easy way of feeding their views to you, and I don't mean a box that you can write suggestions on bits of paper and put them in. You almost need to get feedback off students without them realizing that's what's happened.

A former NUS VPHE once said to me that I needed a budget for buying coffee for students. How often have you set up a forum at lunchtime, with some free food to help get the students along, only to find that only a handful of students bother to attend? Why spend that money on the food when you could spend the lunchtime next to the coffee shop, buying students a coffee in return for talking to them for 10 minutes and gathering their opinions. That student that turned up to the luchtime meeting was probably on council or would've been at a GM anyway, the students you bought a coffee are likely to not have even known there was a meeting in the first place, let alone turn up to it. The thing is, if you don't go out to get new student ideas then you just get the same old hacks with the same old views.

You've seen the students that run for elected positions with the aim of letting people know when they will be in the office (which doesn't ever happen anyway); the reason they do that is because they don't understand that most students wouldn't know where the office was even if they walked through it every day. An elected representative's office is wherever the students are, be that the bar, the coffee shop, the refectory, halls of residence, or even the bus stop. Once you ask students what they think, they will always tell you.

It used to be that students would let you know their views by turning up to a meeting whenever you arranged one, now you have to go out and meet them - the only truly representative meeting an officer will ever have!

JR

The Problem with Tax

I pay tax, you pay tax, we all pay some sort of tax.

We all know what tax we have to pay and when. You might not know how much tax you're paying exactly, but you know that you pay tax on your income, on the stuff you buy, and to put your car on the road.

We don't really like paying it. There's a feeling - even if that feeling is unjustified - that the money you pay doesn't get spent wisely, or you put more money in than you benefit from; but at least you are able to plan your finances based on your expected income.

When you have an unexpected expense then hopefully you have insurance to cover it, you at least have the opportunity to buy insurance before the event. All of these things are known variables. So when your government decides that they are going to tax your savings at up to 10% without any warning, you're probably going to be angry.

Cyprus have announced, as part of a bailout from the eurozone, a levy on all savings of 6.75%, or 9.9% for those with savings above €100,000. OK, so everyone is effected in the same way, but it's pretty annoying to say the least. It's thought that almost half of all deposits in Cypriot banks are from Russians, able to deposit in Euros but not face the tax on the interest or even particularly high currency conversion rates. Those effected by the levy will receive the equivalent amount of shares in their bank.

The fear is that those depositors will withdraw their money and take it to another country, which shows a major problem with the way the Cypriot economy was being run, effectively having the capital in their banks in the hands of foreign investors. The amount of money from those investors would be fiscally insignificant in Germany, France, or the UK, but in the third smallest economy in the eurozone the problem is very real.

The calculation from the other eurozone countries is that the foreign investors will see the cash to share conversion as a reasonable investment to keep hold of - the risk of losing that money being much less after a bailout, and the recapitalization from the levy itself - but the confidence will only continue if the eurozone gets on with getting some growth back pretty sharpish!

So the problem with tax is the more you have to pay, the less likely you want to pay it, and when it comes unexpectedly you get very angry indeed. Of course the government would rather you spent the vast majority of disposable income and not stick it in a sock under your bed ... because then they get more tax from it (and they economy is more likely to grow)! Perhaps that's a motivation also?!

JR