response
Student Media Office Falmer House University of Sussex Brighton BN1 9QF
07.02.11
Views expressed in the Badger are not representative of the views of the USSU, the University of Sussex, or the Badger. Every effort has been made to contact the holders of copyright for any material used in this issue, and to ensure the accuracy of this week’s stories. Please contact the Communications Officer if you are aware of any omissions or errors.
letters and emails
Tax debate cont. Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to respond to a letter by John Galt in last week’s Badger [‘Tax Debate,’ 31/01/11], which was part of a series of replies and rejoinders between Mr. Galt, Eleanor Griggs and me. First, I would like to assure Mr. Galt that I certainly was not expressing “rage” in my comment piece, just unequivocal opposition to his views. I would politely advise Mr. Galt to refer back to his original article in which he used very strident language; denouncing one of Ms. Griggs’s points as ‘immature.’ Second, Mr. Galt’s statement that he made it clear he has no qualm with the jobless is extremely dubious. His opposition to welfare benefits and spluttering indignation at those creating ‘a negative balance’ amounts to the same thing. Indeed, the government he was defending has cut public employment, benefits and the funding of agencies supporting those seeking work, rendering any purported concern for the jobless rather hollow.
Mr Galt’s statement that he has no qualm with the jobless is dubious Even if one accredits Mr. Galt’s article with the most progressive reading possible it still, at the very least, supports equating unemployment to criminality by compelling the jobless to do what effectively constitutes community service. This point was raised by Ms. Griggs, but, unfortunately, Mr. Galt failed to address it. Third, Mr. Galt states that he is unsure how the idea he was defending billionaire tax avoidance arose, despite having expressly stated his intent ‘to challenge Eleanor’s protest against “tax dodgers!”’ His
badger | badger-letters@ussu.sussex.ac.uk
Telephone: 01273 678875 Email: badger@ussu.sussex.ac.uk Advertising: BAM Agency vb@bamuk.com
the
7
article argued that tax avoiders were not morally culpable like benefit claimants ‘seeking to get something for nothing,’ adding (unhelpfully) that it was not illegal and that many ‘normal’ people did likewise without the beneficial corollary of creating employment. He further expressed dismay that ‘the axe was to apparently fall on the most economically productive,’ ‘the axe’ being graduated direct taxation based on income! It is astounding that Mr. Galt cannot see the necessary inference that he was, at the very least, suggesting that the issue is not of the importance commonly attributed to it. Fourth, Mr. Galt also refers to the ‘FairTax system,’ which I concur is a radical proposal; however, it is not a progressive one. It retains the basic inequity of indirect taxation systems; disproportionately affecting people on lower incomes being inflexible in relation to one’s disposable income. It has also been subject to robust criticism for its likely effects on spending and employment. Yours, Liam Sabec
and clubs? The winding, shadowy streets which hint at illicit meetings? Or perhaps the strong sense of community which exists despite a large population size. From this, I got to thinking about the identity of towns and cities in general. How is something as intangible and changeable as the dynamic or ‘feel’ of a place defined in such a simple and neat way? It brings into question the nature of accolades such as the UK and European ‘City of Culture’ awards. Whilst these are undoubtedly a great asset to cities due to the boost given to their economies, let alone their tourism campaigns, they must surely be very difficult to judge. I would argue that cities cannot really have a longstanding reputation or ‘trademark’ aspect which is accurate, as this implies that the populations which define them are stagnant, when of course this isn’t the case. Anyway, I suppose what I’m trying to reach through all this rambling is a question: do you feel that Brighton has a distinctive character? And if so, what is it? Where do you get this impression from? I would be very interested to know what other readers think. Yours,
Brighton identity Dear Sir/Madam, Having been inspired by the intrepid Andy Hatton in his account of collecting a C-card, I decided to follow his example and get one for myself. This was done very quickly and easily, with the coordinator informing me that this is a new scheme which has been set up due to the rather high STI rate in Brighton. The only reason she could think of for this was that Brighton is a rather ‘busy’ place, which I found a rather amusing euphemism. However, it got me thinking – Brighton does have something of a reputation as a promiscuous, freespirited place, but why is this? Of course there is the sheer diversity of its inhabitants, and the label of gay capital brings with it certain stereotypes (whether these are accurate or not), but as one who lives in Brighton rather than an objective outsider, I wonder what it is about the city itself which gives it this reputation. Is it the hedonistic parade of bars
Richard Wilkes
A* grades Dear Sir/Madam, I write with regards to the article in last week’s edition about the introduction of A* grades as a requirement to study certain degrees at Sussex [‘More universities demand applicants with A* A-levels,’ 31/01/11]. I have never fully grasped the point of this new grade, so I agree with the general view expressed in the article. It is claimed that the purpose of the A* is to distinguish the ‘ultra highflighers’ from the rest of the students with good academic potential, but it seems to me that it might be a quick fix, rather than a true solution. As a European student who took A levels in the UK but not GCSEs, I believe that the problem lies with the current grade boundaries. When I took my A levels in 2009 (before the A* was introduced), I found that there was a larger range of marks within which one could obtain an A, compared with the other grades.
For example, there might be 4 marks between a C and a B, or between a B and an A, while there’d be over triple that amount of marks covering an A. Would it not therefore be more appropriate to adjust grade limits by increasing the values to those below an A, thus making the spectrum more equal? Surely if this was done, a course which now requires a student to obtain A*AA could instead ask for AAB or ABB, as the value of a B would be higher, without necessitating the use of the A*. It seems that this is the way the system used to work and that the problem is a relatively recent issue, as I recently met a former Sussex student who claims grade requirements were generally lower when she took her A levels in the 80s. Universities now need to ask prospective students for increasingly high grades in order to distinguish them from the ‘average’ or ‘below average,’ which means that those institutions of what is generally considered as a high standard end up asking for, on average, at least ABB. This, in the past, would have indicated an exceptionally high level. It may be that my logic is not sharp enough to tackle this issue, but it just seems that there could be more thorough ways of fixing it than by simply throwing an “elite” grade into the mix. Yours faithfully, Marina Jackson
Ban everything culture Dear Sir/Madam, I have always keenly read the Badger, particularly the letters and comment pages, and recently the argument about the ‘Ban everything’ culture has reappeared. I understand that everyone wants to have their opinion and I would like to clarify that this letter is not opposing people’s freedom of speech. However, I do have an issue as to why this topic keeps coming up without anyone properly addressing the fact that most students on campus did not vote for the ban on Coca-Cola, etc. Although last year’s AGM involved many more students than last year,
YOU SHOULD DEFINITELY WRITE FOR US.
o
the fact that there was going to be a ban by a fraction of the student body on water bottles demonstrates how easily these bans can go through (though of course this particular ban was not implemented as there were not enough fountains available to supply the demand for water). Yet the argument still stands, how is it that maybe one-tenth of the student body feel they can vote on such a significant issue without a proper referendum? How is that democracy? I know it could be argued that the students who attended are the most engaged and should therefore have a say, yet I have met many people who are not even aware of what the AGM is, or cannot make the meeting due to seminars at that time.
I have met many people who are not even aware of what the AGM is In addition, although it is only union outlets that would enact the bans, I do not see this as fair. Why? Because the union is meant to represent the entire student body at the university, not just the most vocal. Thus, with regards to Liam Sabec’s letter that appeared last week, I would like to address the naïve assumption that voting ‘against these measures or even stand[ing] for election yourself ’ would enable a person to have a say about these bans. I have tried several times at the AGM to question the bans pertaining to Coca-Cola and the aforementioned water bottles. And what happened? Well, let’s just say that intimidation was rife that day and even today some who remember me look at me as if I killed their puppy or kitten. Yours fearfully, Rachel Finn
Weekly open writers’ meetings: Friday, 1.30pm, Falmer House, room 126. Or email one of our editors.