alexist

Sky bloke coming tomorrow to install the point. We don't have the box and card yet (duh, but Neil should've known about this :) ) so we'll have to get him or someone else to come back and set it up.

Also made my appointment at Croydon. 10am, Monday 4th, need to be there at 9:30. It will take 2-3 hours :-(

Still too much wedding stuff to sort. Argh.

Went to Wagamama's and saw Collateral tonight. I hadn't been really keen on seeing it but it was pretty good.

Just watched tonight's Storyville on BBC4 about illegal African migrants. Depressing. (but interesting)

First, I would like to moan about pro-hunt protesters. Now, I'm not committedly anti-hunting. If you asked me my opinion I'd say "ban it", but I wouldn't view it as the most pressing issue facing the country. I don't see any good reason it shouldn't be banned. Firstly, it's cruel to rip apart a fox for fun. Secondly, the utilitarian argument doesn't work. According to the report on fox-hunting, it's not a very good way of managing fox populations. What it does manage to achieve is a cull of weaker foxes who can't outrun the hounds. If it were truly the only way to kill off excess foxes I suppose we'd have to live with it, but surely there's another way. Third (this is from Ann Widdecombe and I was ashamed to agree with her), jobs are not a good reason. If it's cruel it's cruel--is it OK to do something harmful to animals for no good reason because it provides a few thousand jobs?

I find it very hard to sympathize with the protesters who invaded the Commons--they're hardly "ordinary country folk" for goodness' sakes; they've got ties to the royals. To be honest the attitudes I've been seeing from some of the pro-hunt activists make me more keen on a ban. It's not simply that I'm a city girl who doesn't want to face the realities of country life. A farmer has the right to shoot a fox killing his chickens, or whatever. Even in the suburbs where I grew up there's a deer overpopulation problem and that has to be controlled, as distasteful as shooting Bambi may be. But it seems unnecessary to make a sport of cruelty.

Second on the chopping block is the Lib Dems. Now, occasionally I find myself agreeing with an idea of the Liberal Democrats; I'm certainly no dyed-in-the-wool Labourite. However at this conference they've attempted to take back Old Labour ground (and as Peter Hain pointed out, sometimes cloaking it in Old Tory clothes). Their tax policies are loony. I've no problem with a 50% rate on income over £100,000 in theory, but I doubt it would actually raise substantial amounts of revenue. The more money you make, the more you can afford accountants who keep it out of the taxman's hands. Secondly, Vincent Cable admitted that "higher earning" people would be worse off under the Lib Dems. His definition of higher earning? Mid-30Ks. Now, that's not a bad living by a long shot, but it's not a huge wage, especially in London. I'd be more interested to see tax made fairer--for instance, redistributing National Insurance. Why not lower the rate and make all income subject to it? That would be a lot fairer to lower and middle income people. Right now it's stupidly regressive since you stop paying it at something like £30,000. I'd also like a redistribution of tax bands to take into account the rise in incomes. Hitting the top rate of 40% at £35K or so isn't particularly fair.

I also think their higher education funding policy is wrong. Let's make HE free again! Yay! Well, I don't mind paying for poor kids to go to uni but I don't see why rich brats should get a free ride. The current funding regime is unsustainable--universities lose money on every student they teach. Cutting student numbers isn't really an option. As the economy changes, so do the skills and education people need. New jobs aren't in factories and mines these days. (As for the Tories' moaning about low standards for entry... maybe the problem is a system where only 25% of pupils get 3 A-Level passes? Of course, if more students got A-Levels, they'd moan about lowering standards.) IMO, universities should be given free rein on fees and use rich students to subsidize poorer ones, and develop a system where you can actually get enough money to live on. Right now, poor students are suffering the most--but not because of fees, which they don't pay anyway. Middle class and rich students have parents who can afford to come up with the extra money you need to live on. Poor students have to live at home, work like dogs, or forego university, because the student loan is a joke. Paying half your expenses is as good as paying none at all for students whose parents have nothing to spare.

Then, of course, the NUS chimes in and says that any fees are the next stop to a US style system and of course that would be awful. News flash: The US system is BETTER for poor kids. My grant and loan (both from the government) paid all of my college bills: tuition, room, board and books. And despite all the horror stories you hear about colleges that charge $35K a year, only a small number of universities charge that. And they have loads of money for aid--some of the major universities now have packages where the poorest students don't have to take out any loans. My state university tuition was $3,400 a year.