1. Graduate Tax – Elizabeth O’Malley

Under a graduate tax system students would repay the cost of their university education through extra taxation. The rate of tax is proportional to their earnings and suggested rates are quite low; the scheme proposed by the National Union of Students in the UK includes rates of between 0.3 per cent for the lowest earners and 2.5 per cent for top earners. In practice this would cost a teacher seven pounds of their income per week. This is compared to the nine per cent students pay on average of their incomes under student loan schemes. This scheme could either be capped after a number of years or levied throughout their working life. There would be no upfront costs at the point of entry. Repayments are interest-free.

This system is the fairest suggested for a number of reasons. Unlike our current system, which is forcing students out of education because of financial difficulties, entry to university will not be based on whether you can afford it; everyone will be able to attend. The government in turn won’t have to pay grants except for maintenance fees. This will reduce barriers to further education.

Unlike the student loan scheme, students will not be deterred by the prospect of personal debt once they have left university. It will not compromise the next generation’s ability to get reasonable loans or mortgages. There is also less of a temptation to emigrate under this system; most people don’t consider future income tax ‘debt’ and there are very few people who emigrate in order to take advantage of lower tax elsewhere. The rate of tax is also minimal. There are fewer problems for students after they have graduated.

This system is proportional, taxing those who can afford it most. Those who leave education and find it difficult to get high-paying jobs will not have to pay a huge amount. It takes into account a student’s future earnings rather than their parents’ income. This eliminates the problem we currently have under our means-tested system, in which an individual’s parents may either be unable or unwilling to pay for university even if they can afford it. Those who gain the most from their education will give the most back.

A graduate tax would also raise more money than our system of registration fees as graduates will pay back the full cost of their degrees over time. Depending on whether the system is capped it could also mean that students repay their fees many times over, raising significant revenue for investment in education. All plans for a graduate tax have suggested ring-fencing funds. Money raised would go toward maintenance grants, facilities and services. This is a long-term solution for funding higher education.

Admittedly there could be difficulties in implementing such a system. The time and cost of setting up this scheme as well as the lag before graduates begin earning are practical issues. However we must remember short-sighted ideas such as increasing registration fees or student loan schemes will only deter people from entering education. This will lead to less money being earned by those people and the economy benefiting even less from their tax payments. An educated workforce is also a significant factor in attracting foreign direct investment. This can be seen as a long-term economic investment as well as ensuring that all students can avail of their right to education. Overall, the graduate tax is the fairest and most rational way of paying for our third level system.

2. Student Loan Scheme – Catherine Murnane

When students were polled by The Examiner in 2011, fifty-one per cent favoured the introduction of a student loan scheme over any of the other models mentioned here. The loan scheme, which has been introduced in over sixty countries worldwide, is implemented by the State without a guarantor. When availed of, students receive loans to cover the cost of their education throughout their time in college, only facing repayments after the graduation robes have been well and truly tucked away.

So what made every second student that responded to that poll support the student loan scheme?

The first reason would most likely be the equality of access to education that it provides. The ‘free fees’ scheme of the last government, although alleging to achieve this, merely eased access for those who could already comfortably afford third-level education. A student loan scheme removes money from the managerial role it currently holds in the Irish education system, postponing payment until graduates are in a position to afford it. Under this scheme, graduates are not instantaneously burdened with repayments on completion of third-level education. Rather, it is only when graduates attain a job and rise to a particular point on the salary scale that they must begin to pay for the education that has led them there.

A student loan scheme provides funds upfront for all, and also eliminates a variety of issues associated with our current grant scheme. Since our last budget, postgraduate students who would have previously qualified for a student grant now only qualify for the €2,000 fee grant, a figure which doesn’t even cover the costs of the contribution fee. When determining eligibility for this grant the focus is placed on the income of the applicant’s parents, but this does not necessarily translate to the finances the student themselves has access to. The student loan scheme provides up-front finance for students, regardless of family circumstances, even when their grant application fails. This enables them to complete their education without the fear of their financial assistance being reduced, without the fear of having to leave college without their degree. The strengthened awareness that this scheme gives students of the costs of their education, along with the responsibility it places on them to use it wisely, will undoubtedly heighten its value in Ireland. By delaying repayment until employment, the scheme emphasises the important role third level education plays in ensuring access to the workplace.

It is also important to remember that our government will want rapid returns from these loans over the coming years. As the state will receive no revenue from their graduates until they have attained suitable jobs, the scheme will act as one of checks and balances on our government. Employers will choose the best candidate with the best education, regardless of what state they come from, and the scheme will motivate our government to constantly improve the education system to not only ensure that we supersede competing institutions, but to see that we can also reap the financial benefits it provides.

So far our government has taken a twisted stance on equal access to education. By raising the contribution fee and simultaneously cutting the grant, those who were struggling to get in have now been locked out. A student loan scheme which provides finances upfront, only views education as valuable if it provides you with employment, and places the value of education directly in the hands of those receiving it is a viable alternative and a worthy winner of this fifty-one per cent majority vote.

3. Full Upfront Fees – Conor O’Nolan

The government needs to make dramatic cutbacks in an attempt to plug our ever-growing deficit, and there is one sector that is heavily funded and can easily be cut: third-level education. The reintroduction of full, upfront college fees would probably have no adverse effects on the education system in Ireland; in fact it could improve the education available.

The argument that the introduction of full up-front fees would be a barrier to the access of third level education is somewhat disingenuous. There is little or no evidence to suggest that the free fees initiative introduced in the 1990s increased participation levels from members of low-income families. It is hard to imagine that the reintroduction of undergraduate fees would really impact the uptake of third-level places. Put simply, those who want to go to college will find a way to go to college. Secondly, it is unlikely that there would not be some description of a loan scheme set up to help people pay for fees, either run by the state or by the individual colleges in partnership with a bank.

A system in which those who can afford to pay for their education actually pay for their education should be introduced. The only particular hurdle involved here is that there is no functional, existing system in place. The county/city council grants system is broken; there is no question of that. However, aside from the inherent difficulties, restructuring the current system could potentially save taxpayers millions and possibly make access to education ‘fairer’, as those who need monetary support for third level education could be granted it instead of giving it to students who don’t actually require it.

Of course, there is the argument that charging high-income families for education is unfair because they already pay more tax than lower income families. Unfair or not, it is likely to be a necessary evil. The current austerity measures have adversely affected everyone’s finances to some degree, and while further impositions might seem harsh, they may be essential if Ireland is ever going to escape the massive level of debt it is currently facing.

Aside from the fact that universal access to education probably wouldn’t be affected, the standard of education received in third-level institutions under full fees would most likely improve. If students have to pay a significant amount of money for their education, they are in a much better position to demand quality from universities. As it stands, lecturers are allowed stay in the university’s employ regardless of their ability to teach, especially if they contribute a significant amount in terms of research.

If students have to pay, it can be expected that the quality of lecturing in the college will become a more important factor in choosing a third level institution. Currently, in private institutes, close attention is paid to the standard of teaching; lecturers who are not performing to a high enough standard are replaced. This would not only stop academic staff becoming complacent in their roles, but it would also force colleges to compete with each other in a meaningful way, not just trying to attract students on the basis of better sports facilities or a superior social scene.

Funding for colleges would also improve, as colleges would no longer be faced with problems like not being able to afford books for their libraries, and redevelopment works to buildings would happen as they need to happen as opposed to being subject to long-overdue quick fixes.

Finally, the inherent value of third level education would change. If a student is paying upwards of €6,000 for a year of college they now have a financial incentive to perform better. Not only this, but it would stop people going to college purely for the sake of going to college. People will be more likely to enrol in courses that they have a genuine interest in or that could increase their employment prospects. It would be very hard to justify continuing a course that you don’t enjoy at such a high cost.

4. Student Contribution/Registration Fee – Jack Walsh

Following the UCD Students’ Union’s decision to hold a referendum on fees it is necessary to discuss and showcase all available options voters will be privy to, no more so than the choice of maintaining the way fees are currently implemented, via student contribution and registration fees, which currently sits at €2,000, excluding local levies.

This system spreads the costs of higher education between the exchequer and the student, or indeed their family. The contribution fee has been set for all those who do not qualify for its payment due to not fully meeting the requirements set out in the maintenance grant system, a system which examines the socio-economic background of a student, such as yearly household income. The aim of the contribution fee is to finance non-academic services such as student activities, health services and student support services. If the fee was discontinued universities would be required to find money for these services elsewhere, or cut them altogether. The registration fee’s origins coincide with the ‘free fees initiative’, created by then Education Minister Niamh Bhreathnach, introduced as the ‘registration fee’ in 1997, after it received approval by Dail Eireann in 1996. The Minister’s introduction of the fee was a result of heavy lobbying of Students’ Unions and other student service providers at that time. The advantages that are prevalent within this system of dealing with the situation of third level education are clear and easily visible at a glance. The means-tested maintenance grant system introduced, although competitive, ensures that those on the lower scale of socio-economic backgrounds who have been approved by the set requirements of the testing system will have the fee paid for on their behalf by the government. This maintenance grant has allowed many students to enter into college life who would otherwise not have had the opportunity to do so.

It has been speculated that should a one-hundred per cent exchequer funded system be put in place, it would leave no room for the maintenance grant, and as such would leave many out in the cold. Perhaps the most attractive method in terms of equality of access, it certainly holds regard with those who do receive the grant and perhaps those who don’t in comparison to paying upfront full fees, and it can also be argued that this system is favourable for less well-off students in comparison to the proposed idea of the student loan scheme, with students from lower income groups seen to prefer to avoid future debt, also taking into consideration the idea that graduate loans may be subject to annual interest, arguably outweighing, in monetary terms, increases in the student contribution fees.

The admittedly shocking rise in student registration fees, initially beginning at £150 (€190) with the 2012 charge is set at €2,250, in comparison to future taxes and possible loan interests observed within other available options is a serious issue that must be weighed up, and it should be considered a very real possibility that long term taxation can be a more demanding form of payment. An upfront payment may seem to be a more cost-effective approach, despite the initial and unappealing sting of paying a large sum in advance. The current system also ensures that all students pay a set amount, regardless of their course choice, and as such does not evoke the pitfalls that could potentially arise from students choosing a course that may be more expensive, as courses that may cost more will not be seen as attractive options to prospective students.

5. Fully Exchequer funded – Karl Gill

In 1997 fees for third level education were abolished and replaced with a registration fee of £150 (€190). Every year but one since 1997, this fee has gone up. Now, as most of us know, we have a registration fee of €2,250. Obviously this figure is impeding access to education for those of us who cannot afford it. So what is the solution? Some people think that because our policy is not working, we must have the wrong policy. However, I want to argue that our current policy is perfect but our strategy for achieving this is flawed.

The current UCDSU/USI policy is that the state should pay for third level education through progressive taxation. However, the aspect of ‘progressive taxation’ is often neglected in rhetoric and in our demands. Progressive taxation is when those who have larger incomes pay more tax and receive quality public services in return. We do not have progressive taxation in Ireland.

Every year there is a lobby of Students’ Union representatives who try to educate individual TDs on the benefits of free education in Dáil Éireann as a way of ensuring equal access to college is achieved. A successive line of SU reps, who are often not convinced of the arguments for publicly funded education themselves, presenting policy documents to politicians as a plea to lower our fees has failed. The student movement in this country looks weak and is not taken seriously.

Why is it that the farmers, trade unions and businesses can be taken seriously as lobby groups but the Union of Students in Ireland are simply brushed off by the powers that be? Well for one, unlike USI, representatives of other large lobby groups are mostly not members of one of the three main political parties, but also our strategy of lobbying makes us, on a national level, as students, look soft.

The Students’ Unions in this country were founded on the basis of free access to education and communicated their message through mass meetings, protest and peaceful civil disobedience in the name of not only student’s rights but also women’s rights, gay rights and plenty of other economic and social issues. USI officers in the past were people who knew about political activism and were predominately youth members of the Worker’s Party. Today SU officers can be seen posing for election pictures with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael TDs.

So why is free education so important? Just like free primary and secondary education, third level education is a public good. Having more educated people is of great benefit to both our society and our economy. If we had fees or a loan scheme students would pick courses on the basis of cost rather than on the basis of genuine interest in a particular discipline.

Besides the fact that it is unfair to add an extra taxation onto people for simply having a degree (regardless of income), having a graduate tax in a time of high emigration is economic lunacy.
A loan scheme would leave people in huge amounts of debt before they even have a job. In other countries such as the US or UK, loan schemes have not worked and have added significantly to the gap between rich and poor.

There is pessimism within our Union. People don’t think that people power, with the right kind of leadership, can work. Some people think that within the current economic circumstances it is not possible to have people freely attending education. Strong, serious leadership is needed, not a change in policy. What we need is energy, vibrancy and to use our youthfulness and creativity to challenge unequal access to third level education.

As “KONY 2012” takes over the internet, Yvanne Kennedy looks behind the hysteria and asks how we should oppose the world’s most infamous Ugandan

There is no denying that Joseph Kony is a terrible person. He has done shocking things and for them, he deserves to be punished. The nature and execution of the punishment is what we seem to be arguing over in every spare column inch and every other Facebook post. Given that we have decided to despise him, what’s the best thing we can really do to help Ugandans and others who have been affected by his regime?

Kony stands accused of conscripting over 30,000 children into combat warfare over a twenty-year period. The plight of those affected has been brought to light by ‘Invisible Children’, the charity behind this campaign. They believe that the US military should intervene to capture him and the ‘KONY 2012′ video, which has now gone viral, intends to inform the wider world and work as a call to action so that the US government will take note.

This move has not been without backlash, as the charity has come under attack from many other aid groups and lobbyists claiming that the campaign is “at best a gross oversimplification of a really complicated situation, and, at worst, an actively unhelpful misuse of resources and attention.” Essentially, after only days of support for Invisible Children, the charity is now being accused of misusing funds, misrepresenting facts and essentially making the situation in Uganda worse. This idea has gained support from NGO workers, activists, academics and journalists but, naive as this statement may seem, how bad can they be if they are bringing attention to the crisis?

Whatever about making the situation worse, the basic fact is that while Invisible Children sells itself as a charity set up to campaign against the use of child soldiers, only one-third of money raised has gone to directly assist children and families affected by such regimes. The video seen by millions around the world may raise awareness, but what if this is awareness based on false ‘facts’? Joseph Kony isn’t actually in Uganda and hasn’t been for six years or so. Such a fact seemed to not to matter too much in the thirty minutes Invisible Children talked about stopping this warlord. If this is just the surface, where else has the charity bent the truth?

The President of Uganda, Yoweri Museveni is not the leader of a democracy. Ushering in a fourth term in the office last year, he has now held this position for twenty-five years. Museveni lords over a country with minimal social services and well-documented governmental human rights abuses. Invisible Children is channelling money into a corrupt country. Stopping Kony will not change any of the other facts about Uganda and if we are to support the giving of more finance and firearms to those in power, we may actually make the country’s overall problems worse.

Furthermore, the crisis in northern Uganda is not seen by its citizens as one that is the result of the Lord’s Resistance Army, of which Kony is the head. Yes, you read right. The conflict in the region is viewed as one both the Government of Uganda and the LRA have perpetrated and benefited from after nearly twenty-five years of systemic violence and displacement. In order to stop Kony, we may be looking at a larger problem, far beyond the scope of Invisible Children.

What the charity has at its core is obvious – the welfare of children, especially those who have been conscripted, but condoning violence of the sort proposed to bring down Kony and to ‘free’ the Ugandan people seems slightly counter-productive. If you’re trying to save people and safeguard children, the best way to go about it is not to storm their country with ammunition and a mission to kill one man. Those caught in the crosshairs will not be few and far between.

Where there is an argument, there is always an objection and Invisible Children have not taken their criticism lying down. Finance aside, they say that co-ordination with regional governments is vital in helping to secure the arrest they so desperately want, and promise that no money has passed from them to the Ugandan government. They say that their video is simple because their goal, at its core, is not complex, but they also state that they want to see as many people as possible coming out to support the cause and the ‘KONY 2012’ video appeared to be the best way to do it. Whatever we think about it, they’re correct about one thing: we are talking about it.

Perhaps most importantly, Invisible Children acknowledges as its ultimate goal the arrest and prosecution of Joseph Kony. They want to see him brought before the International Criminal Court as a precedent for future war criminals. It can be agreed that his crimes against humanity must be punished and that the only way to do that is for him to be located and captured.

Invisible Children’s goal is to raise awareness. If they believed that the sharing of one video would stop Joseph Kony, they’d be kidding themselves and everyone else but the idea of making Kony ‘famous’ so that maybe, just maybe a few more people might sit up and notice and potentially help change the situation of so many people is honourable, no matter how improbable we may believe it to be.

In the last number of months, the controversy surrounding the bringing into force of a flat rate household charge has caused great upset and outrage. There have been regular marches to Leinster House and ‘town hall’ style meetings have popped up across the country. There is no denying that one more levy could be the one to break the taxpayer’s back, but can this reaction be justified?

One hundred euro is all that has to be paid. Most people, in days gone by, wouldn’t blink twice at dropping that on a pair of shoes but as the story goes, we’re in different times now. This hundred is on top of all the others, for the Universal Social Charge, the pension levies and general taxes. It has been the final straw for many, as protest websites and TDs alike are calling on householders to boycott the payment. The Government are proud of the fact ninety-seven thousand people have already signed up to pay the charge, but this is only a fraction of the nearly one and a half million eligible in the State.

“It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a person’s home” said Enda Kenny in 1994, so why in 2012 did he not deem it so to apply a household tax uniformly to every family, singleton or couple in Ireland? Desperate times call for the most desperate of measures, and the Government needs income. The source of that income is of small concern and while the flat rate of the charge is “not fair across the board” that hasn’t stopped its being implemented, if only for a short time until it is replaced by the property tax.

So why can’t we tax the rich in this instance as we do in all others – they make more, so shouldn’t they pay more? We aren’t talking simply about that elusive “one per cent”, so how exactly do we determine a fair share? It has been said that the wealthiest one per cent of the population make twenty per cent of the pre-tax income but they also pay twenty-five per cent of the tax and make thirty per cent of the charitable donations. A uniform tax may not affect everyone equally but it treats everyone equally and assumes everything will even out. It may not be a perfect formula but it is the one Revenue are employing and it’s the one we’re stuck with, for now.

According to the Economist, hitting the well-off where it hurts will only damage us in the long run. The principle of higher taxes for the economic elite should take a leaf out of any history book that “suggests that low taxes on the rich encourage investment and growth.” With the current state of our economy, it may not actually be the best time to saddle them with greater taxes in any area “particularly since the rich are among society’s most mobile.” If we were to lose any of our more mobile investors, they will take all their taxes with them. A few hundred extra is nothing compared with how much we potentially stand to suffer.

This may be one relatively small tax but it is, literally, the principle of the thing. There are whispers among those in the know that say the fifty per cent top marginal tax rate in Britain is doing lasting damage to the British economy. If we start with the household charge, we set down a precedent, one which many in the Dáil would be more than happy to extend and expand. You give them an inch, they’ll potentially take down the country.

Yet there must be an argument in there somewhere. The biggest problem is implementation. For some reason, the Government has implemented the household charge “for right now”, until they can properly assess criteria for the differing pay scales associated with the property tax. It beggars belief that they couldn’t have simply introduced that to begin with. It operates in the same way as regular taxes – slightly more for slightly larger homes, irrespective of how many live in them. It is a failing cornerstone of Irish society that we can have the fantastic ideas but actually getting them enacted is where we stumble. Coherent proposals put before the Houses of the Oireachtas did not fall on deaf ears; they know what their options are. In fact, the average property tax will be three hundred euro. I’m no mathematician, but none of these figures add up.

It has been said that the issue lies in assessing the situation – why can’t we just essentially estimate, based on the degree of the gap these plans hope to bridge, how much we all have to pay? Why can’t a property tax be based on the number of rooms per house, declared by the home owner, and corroborated by random auditing of every dozen or so households, both to dissuade misinformation, and apply penalties to those who attempt to buck the system? Why is a Census readily achievable, but this a Herculean endeavour? If we need money, why not do what we’ve always done; just take it? Perhaps, as F. Scott Fitzgerald once said, “The rich are different from you and me.”

Syria is in a state of turmoil and uncertainty. Internally, there is a divided population who, aroused by the revolts of their Arabneighbours last year, are increasingly yearning for the democratic seeds of change. The grip that its President, Bashar al-Assad has on the country is tenuous, although seemingly not sufficiently so to bring about a hasty collapse of his regime. Outside of Syria, affairs are equally complicated. The vast majority of the West are staunchly anti-Assad but intervention is proving difficult. A UN Security Council resolution on the subject of an intervention was vetoed at the beginning of this month by both China and Russia, thus leaving the West temporarily impotent in the midst of the crisis.

The media coverage of the civil war in Syria is markedly different from that surrounding the events that unfolded in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia in the last two years. Rather than being an indicator of a disinterested world however, it is a reflection of a more embroiled and disordered battle that is occurring. For a start, Egypt’s Mubarak and Libya’s Gaddafi had a strong and focused opposition. In Syria however, the discordant cries of revolt are coming from the scattered collection of voices of gangs, militias, and soldiers who have defected from the regime. They are not united, no leader has prevailed among the rebels, and even if a strong opposition existed they would certainly be unable to match the Syrian army in terms of numbers or armaments. Thanks to a combination of conscripts and superior arms, Assad will likely remain in control for the foreseeable future.

Furthermore, unlike in Egypt and the other countries of the Arab Spring, Assad has some key alliances that make intervention from outside the country extremely challenging. Russia’s veto of the Security Council resolution in early February was not motivated by some noble ambition to respect Syria’s sovereignty, but out of personal interest. Syria houses Russia’s only naval base outside of the country, and if the UN were to intervene and topple Assad, Russia’s possession of this base would be jeopardised.

Although trade restrictions have been put in place – American exports are no longer reaching Syria and Europe is no longer importing Syrian oil – the Russian-Chinese veto has indisputably created a hurdle for people in the West, who are demanding dramatic and immediate interference.

To add another twist to this already complex plot, Assad also has a convenient alliance with the Iranian government. Speculation abounds that Iran has piped money into Assad’s failing regime and it would be a gross understatement to say that Iran desires a free, democratic Syrian state next door to it. Without going into further detail, it is sufficient to say that the Iranian involvement creates another treacherous dimension for anyone contemplating getting involved in this mire.

It may seem like there is less political and indeed media attention being paid to the civil war in Syria, particularly when you compare it to the hype that surrounded the Arab Spring revolutions last year. However, to be under the impression that the world has grown fatigued and bored of the seemingly relentless instability in the Middle East would be misguided. While everyone knew and indeed was interested in what was going on in Egypt during the fall of Mubarak, this was thanks to a few unforgettable moments during the protests in Tahrir Square that were captured on camera phones and uploaded and shared across the internet almost instantaneously. Unfortunately for the Syrian revolutionaries, few cinematic snippets of their efforts are available to us because of the danger involved for the foreign press entering the country at the time. In other words, it is not because the press are not interested in the Syrian war, it would appear that it is just too dangerous and too difficult for them to cover it.

The lack of media coverage is forgivable to a degree, but it would appear that the absence of more forceful interference by the outside world is beyond excusable. On average fifty citizens are being killed daily by their own government in Syria. These are citizens who are fighting for some of their most fundamental democratic rights and paying for it with their lives.

Russia and China may have created a stumbling block for the UN resolution, but we need not look back far in the history books to be reminded of how little heed some of the global powers actually pay to these agreements. Some think that to ignore the Russian-Chinese veto would be dangerously absurd, but with the kind of manpower and resources at Assad’s disposal and the vulnerability of the people trapped in his regime, it seems that to leave Syria to its own devices for much longer would be equally senseless.

In politics, a week is a lifetime; three months an eternity. President Nicolas Sarkozy has three months in which to turn his record disapproval ratings around if he is to have any chance of being re-elected. While some think that he has little to no chance, it would be premature to rule him out entirely. France’s presidential campaigns are known for being volatile and susceptible to immense changes, thus at this stage it is unwise to declare Sarkozy’s campaign as dead in the political water.

Sarkozy’s first major challenge is getting his support to the level of his main opponent, the Socialist Party’s François Hollande. Although Hollande is leading in the polls, he has considerable difficultly in inspiring the French public, and as such it is likely that his approval ratings stem from the ‘anyone but Sarkozy’ mentality. The staid and lackluster Hollande is the Socialist Party’s second choice, a late replacement for their original candidate, former IMF chief Dominique Strauss Kahn, before the events of May 14th 2011 lead to his downfall. While untested and not the most dynamic of personalities, Hollande is considered by many to be a good bet in ousting Sarkozy out of the Elysee. Another key player is Marine Le Pen of the far right National Front Party. A more presentable character than her father, the former party leader Jean Marie Le Pen, Le Pen is achieving for the party a prominence that cannot be dismissed by the French political establishment. The increasing popularity of the National Front is also damaging to Sarkozy as it undercuts the conservative voter base upon which he previously relied.

It has become increasingly obvious that the difficulties Sarkozy is facing are himself, his record, and his relationship with the French public. Any race in which a sitting politician is seeking re-election is seen as a referendum by the nation on that incumbent. Here lies Sarkozy’s greatest problem: gaining popularity with the French public is personal, not political. In the words of the French Interior Minister Claude Guéant, when it comes to the national mood, the President has an “affection deficit”. This is in contrast with his American counterpart, President Barack Obama, whose personal popularity bolsters his polling numbers despite the public not liking his policies. Sarkozy is suffering due to his immense unpopularity with the French electorate, who like neither his policies nor his personality. The French are impatient and frustrated with Sarkozy; they dislike his closeness with the super rich, his courting of the extreme right and his exhibitionist soap opera life. Adding to their grievances is the downgrading of France’s credit rating, which further cements the fact that France’s economy is coming into trouble, with rising unemployment and mounting debt. Indeed, Sarkozy is quoted as having said, “I am dead” if France loses its triple A rating. Marry this with the fact that Germany has retained its credit rating; it feeds into the unpopular idea of Germany being Europe’s undisputed leader with France as its junior partner, a notion that is humiliating for the French. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s endorsement of Sarkozy is unlikely to have been entirely welcomed by the French public.

Despite the overwhelmingly negative factors that have troubled his re-election chances, Sarkozy’s campaign isn’t as hopeless as it appears. It is vital to remember that despite his limitations as a leader, he is an incredible campaigner with a record of overcoming numerous setbacks and securing surprise victories. As a talented debater and campaigner, Sarkozy may prove that he has a chance after all. His party, the Union for A Popular Majority (UMP) has been working aggressively to dent Hollande’s credibility as a candidate. Combine this with a ruthless campaigning style characterised by confrontation, blatant calculation, and a dogged determination and we see a candidate with what it takes to pull it off. In the meantime, the re-election campaign is working hard to distance the candidate from the public’s image of him. Indeed it is believed that Sarkozy announced his campaign early so as to create as much time as possible for his team to distance the President from his record and history. Already Sarkozy is trying to create and project the image of a more statesman-like President, giving off an aloof air while keeping his personal life firmly in the background. First-time candidates must seduce the electorate; incumbents must work to prove that they are the only serious option, and this is what Sarkozy hopes to convey.

Three months is a long time in politics, particularly in an unfailingly volatile race such as a French presidential campaign. Anything is possible in this time period. A skilled and canny campaigner such as Sarkozy, who thrives in adversity, may yet find himself overcoming what currently seem like very poor chances.

Apple have come under fire in the last few years for their attitude toward workers’ rights, particularly in relation to their involvement with a company named Foxconn. Foxconn assemble a large proportion of Apple’s products, with some components coming from other suppliers. Foxconn also build products for Sony, Samsung, Intel, Dell, HP, Microsoft and a large proportion of the other main industry giants, to the point where it is almost difficult to own products that have not been in part manufactured by Foxconn.

What exactly is the problem with Foxconn? Foxconn is the world’s largest manufacturer of electronic components. They employ over 900,000 people spread over three continents. Their largest complex is based in Shenzhen, China, which is where the majority of the controversy surrounding the company originates. A multiple of one hundred thousand people (exact counts are impossible to obtain) are employed in this factory. Working conditions are terrible; staff are routinely mistreated and are forced to abide by an exceptionally severe code of conduct that can result in their wages reportedly being docked for simply not walking at the right speed. Those that chose to live in the compound (and a least a quarter of them do), live in immensely cramped dormitories which often have barred windows to prevent workers from jumping out of them. Employee suicide is not an uncommon occurrence, and earlier this year a group of 300 workers threatened suicide if they did not receive a pay rise.

Apple cannot be accused of inaction in this area. They have approached Foxconn in an effort to increase the workers’ base wage, which Foxconn then raised. However, Foxconn subsequently raised daily quotas for each employee and started to place extreme controls on employee abilities to claim overtime. Apple attempted to solve the problem, and in turn, Foxconn’s greed undid any progress that appeared to have been made.

Apple’s reasoning behind operating out of China is fairly reasonable. The costs are infinitely cheaper and the supply chain is much more accommodating. If Apple were to operate out of America, the average manufacturing worker would be paid about thirty-four dollars an hour as opposed to the average manufacturing wage in China, which is approximately two dollars an hour. Operating solely out of China also allows for incredible flexibility in manufacturing. The classic example of this was the late Steve Jobs’ decision to make iPhones have glass screens. This decision was made just a month before the iPhone was actually due to launch, so it required a major overhaul of existing iPhone stocks. If this were to be done in America, the costs would have been astronomical and the turnaround time would likely have been a great deal longer.

Yet why does Apple take so much flack, while their competitors and industry colleagues receive little or no attention for their usage of the Chinese supply chain? Why does Apple have protests organised against them when others with an equal or even greater market share don’t receive any attention for the same issues? The answer almost certainly lies in the perception of the Apple brand. Apple is a computer company with a slightly hipster origin story. They have a focus on aesthetics. They seem to be honestly concerned about their environmental impact, and actually act on this concern. Their products are often seen as a fashion accessory and are highly sought after, despite cheaper and equally functional machines being readily available. They are seen as a ‘cool’ brand, and there is a daft expectation that every ‘cool’ brand must have completely ethically sound manufacturing and assembly processes. Microsoft, for example, was not a ‘cool’ brand to begin with, despite endless attempts to change their image, and as a result, no one seems to be angry that Xboxes are made in a similar way to iProducts.

A comparison can be drawn between Apple and American Apparel, and the controversy surrounding their CEO, Dov Charney. AA are a sort of ‘ethical Penneys’, manufacturing and selling low cost, high quality clothes, while operating exclusively out of America, paying all of their factory workers a fair wage and treating them well. AA is another ‘trendy’ brand and when reports surfaced that the CEO had sexual harassment lawsuits taken out against him, there was an intense backlash from the public. While this backlash probably wasn’t helped by some of the more creative advertising decisions made by the Charney over the years, the concept of boycotting a company who are renowned for treating their workers so fairly seems strange in the context of allegations of staff exploitation on the part of some competing corporations.

Are Apple evil? Not really; they are as guilty of exploiting foreign workers as almost every other electronics company. They have recently released ‘Apple’s Supplier Code of Conduct’ and seem genuinely intent on improving the conditions for the workers making their goods, and considering their environmental policies and how well they treat their non-outsourced staff, it would appear that they are not such a bad Apple after all.

There is a stereotypical adage that Americans are keen to show off their greatness through size. The caricatured yank drives a big car to a bigger house to eat an enormous dinner, and is darn proud of it. The sole area that the US have never made room for the ‘bigger is better’ argument is in the size of their government bureaucracy. Since the rise of the Tea Party movement in the wake of the Wall Street Bailout, the entire American right has aggressively reasserted the centrality of the minimal state to its agenda, and it is likely to be the choice line of argument for whoever ends up opposing Obama, whether it’s Romney or not Romney.

The candidates clinging on in the race so far are all cosying up to this libertarian base, with varying levels of authenticity. Ron Paul has led a movement of radical libertarianism with the Republican Party for decades, and many voters will remember Newt Gingrich’s willingness to cause a government shutdown to coerce a balanced budget when he was Speaker of the House in the nineties. The other candidates have fewer laurels to rest on. Romney in particular is haunted by the ghost of the state-funded health insurance mandates he imposed as governor of Massachusetts that served as the basis for Obama’s health care reforms. At the time it was hailed as a model of compromised progression between private and public healthcare systems; now Romney has to declare regret for it to appease the base.

The pursuit of the small state has proved a complex one for those inside and outside of the movement to comprehend. To an extent, this apple pie minarchism is the natural, rational response to the economic climate. With US government spending reaching formidable peaks as a result of the ‘war on terror’, bailouts, stimulus and healthcare reform, dangerous debt levels and pushing for balanced budgets have become the concern of the layman as much as the policymaker. However, this penetrates far deeper into the national psyche. The founding of the union was, at its core, an experiment in guaranteeing freedom to the masses by shackling the state, an idea that sees obvious endurance in the symbolism of the Tea Party movement. The problem is that the small state in the late 1700s meant allowing a handful of civil rights to white people and not killing you because of your faith. The contemporary Leviathan is an altogether more complex beast, something that the discourse needs to reflect.

For an example, just look at the opposition to gay marriage expressed by all the Republican candidates. To hold the belief that the state should be as small as possible but still be all-encompassing enough to stop certain citizens from marrying seems to require either an infinite capacity for Orwellian doublethink or a level of stupidity that would make one question whether you can even tie your own shoelaces. In reality, it’s an indicator of the selective, agenda-serving approach that makes it incredibly easy to undermine those seeking small government.

Portraying itself as an enemy of excessive spending, the Tea Party’s rise instantly called for an explanation as to why they hadn’t opposed the huge increase in public debt that occurred in the Bush era. The obvious reason is that conservatism is innately tied to military strength, and that kind of big government didn’t count. The same could be said for the long-standing acceptance within the Republican Party, as much as among Democrats, for huge subsidies to corporations involved in everything from natural gas extraction to agriculture, even if it was a burden on the state and a complete contradiction of any free market aspiration.

The principles are gaining ground in many ways. The candidates contesting the Iowa primary, a state with a strong agricultural vote, were not harmed by their declarations of opposition to agricultural subsidies. Even now, many are happy to accept that military spending may be as much a problem as social spending. But the ideology is still distorted by who they appeal to.

The low tax agenda has led to somewhat justified criticisms that the movement has been astroturfed by corporate agendas, with particular accusation against the funding from the likes of Koch Industries to small government think-tanks and lobby groups. It is the reason why, for all the progress made, Senate Republicans still blocked a bill to remove subsidies to oil companies last summer. It is the voters who decide where the agenda is applied.

The willingness to roll back government interference ends when it contradicts the interests that are there beforehand. If they want to be taken seriously, a level of consistency is needed on a range of issues, not least on subsidies and social issues such as drug legalisation and LGBT rights, or even reconsider the Doha Development round and tackle the government’s bloated, hugely damaging tariffs on imports from the third world. As long as they aspire to please a base with vested economic interests or social views that involve government intervention, there is little reason to take the small government ideal as any more than an election strategy with a worrying stranglehold on American politics.

In January, French president Nicolas Sarkozy expressed interest in the introduction of a tax on financial transactions in the coming year, regardless of the decision by fellow European parliaments. This ‘Robin Hood’ tax, as it is commonly called, refers to a tax on financial transactions at the suggested rate of 0.1 per cent. The tax is similar to the Tobin tax, and in its current structure sets out to propose a levy on currency market transactions as well as trading in shares, bonds and derivatives, which would fundamentally raise revenues for governments.

This is one of a number of attempts by the French government to help promote job prospects in the lead-up to the country’s general election in April, in which Sarkozy is already facing a losing poll battle with Socialist party candidate Francois Hollande. The French government hopes that the introduction of the Robin Hood tax will serve as an example to be followed by other EU member states. “What we want to do is create a shock wave and set an example,” stated Sarkozy in a recent interview, “that there is absolutely no reason why those who helped bring about the crisis shouldn’t pay to restore the finances.”

With such plans, Sarkozy has already won the support of Germany’s Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble, who firmly believes that investor confidence in the Eurozone would return, despite the turmoil related to the sovereign debt crisis in recent years. Schaeuble is hoping that the Robin Hood tax will be introduced across Europe, but if not then the Eurozone is his next priority. The European Union’s executive proposed a bloc-wide tax on financial transactions, that it claims could raise €57 billion a year. Many banks denounce the plan as nonsense and Britain has stated that it would only support a global levy.

The EU’s executive European Commission formally adopted plans in September for a financial transaction tax, which will need unanimous approval from EU states. Under the plan, stock and bond trades would be taxed at the rate of 0.1 per cent, with derivatives at 0.01 per cent. The EU executive further explains that the tax would be imposed on all transactions in financial instruments between financial firms when at least one party to the trade is based in the bloc. Schaeuble favours an immediate introduction of the tax, “I don’t want to wait until such a tax is introduced worldwide. Otherwise we would risk not only the stability of our financial markets … but we would also be endangering the legitimacy in the public eye for the entire system.”

Yet several states are reluctant to introduce the tax, maintaining that Europe’s market is simply not strong enough to adopt it and that it would harm global financial centres of trade. Ireland has become a prime example of this, with many uncertain about the changing face of the markets that this tax may lead to. Under this view, should the tax be streamlined, then Dublin’s financial sector could be decimated. The fear is that foreign investors may abandon the IFSC for areas and cities that will not be subjected to the tax.

However, on the 30^th of January, Taoiseach Enda Kenny signed a new European economic treaty focused on financial discipline. The conference was attended by twenty-seven representatives of EU states, with only England and the Czech Republic refusing to sign the pact. Although the possibility of a Robin Hood tax was not discussed, European leaders’ pack mentality on economic reform has become so charged that the possibility of the introduction of the tax is certainly within reason.

In the United Kingdom, a debate has begun between those who believe that the tax will cause London to no longer be seen as a world financial market leader, and those who see the tax as only beneficial for the many who feel cheated by the economic situation. British Prime Minister David Cameron has confirmed the UK’s objection to the aforementioned fiscal treaty, stating, “We are not signing this treaty. We are not ratifying it. And it places no obligations on the UK,” adding “Our national interest is that these countries get on and sort out the mess that is the euro.” In retaliation, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stated that the new treaty could be slotted into EU law within five years. Many public figures have come out in support of the new tax, with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams stating, “there is still a powerful sense around – fair or not – of a whole society paying for the errors and irresponsibility of bankers; of impatience with a return to ‘business as usual’ – represented by still-soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices.”

Yes - Lauren Tracey

UCD is most certainly a university to be proud of. We dominate in the world of academia, producing some of the greatest thinkers this country has ever seen. We are held in high esteem and ranked likewise, continually topping both European and global rankings. University College Dublin also carries with it an element of fame, having seen so many of its past students go on to bigger and better things, James Joyce being perhaps one of our most famous alumni. UCD is a university to be proud of because our students and our faculties strive to provide excellence in every sector of our university. Everyone carries with them that infamous UCD pride.

Why wouldn’t we? We have some of the most incredible alumni; the best of the best, from all sectors of Irish society, have walked through the hallways of University College Dublin. UCD played a part in forming some of the greatest literary minds in the world, from the famous poet Gerard Manly Hopkins, to the contemporary novelist Maeve Binchy and the immortal James Joyce, considered by many to be one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century.

In the fields of journalism we exceed ourselves, with alumni such as Samantha Libreri, Vincent Brown, Fintan O’Toole, Pat Leahy and Miriam O’Callaghan.

However the university has not only produced great writers and journalists, but great business minds and heads of state. The newspaper tycoon Tony O’Reilly and king of radio Denis O’Brian, head of the Central Bank Patrick Honohan as well as Eamon De Valera and Douglas Hyde are all notable UCD alumni.

In sport and the arts we’ve seen Brian O’Driscoll, Gordon Darcy, Amy Huberman and Gabriel Byrne. Pat Kenny and Brendan Gleeson are also honourable UCD students. UCD is of course a university to be proud of when it has managed to help shape and teach these individuals who have made such an impact on our society and culture.

Academically UCD has proven itself to be a gem. Our university has consistently been ranked as one of the best in the world. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2011-2012 placed us at 159th globally, and 67th in Europe. The Financial Times Global MBA Ranking 2011 set UCD in 78^th place globally. This is no wonder when we explore the depth of what UCD has to offer its students. UCD is the country’s leading research centre, with a research income of 114.7 million euro during the height of the boom years. Research institutes housed within the university include the Clinton Institute for American Studies, the Centre for Research of Infectious Diseases, the Equality Studies Institute and many more. UCD is a university to be proud of because academically, we are in our prime. UCD offers students a diverse range of courses, from Archaeology to Linguistics, English to Economics, and that’s just our Arts program. Law, Science, Medicine, Architecture, Engineering and Veterinary Medicine are amongst the many choices for students attending UCD.

We can look at the list of our famous alumni, and then at all the academic achievements UCD has to its name, but the most important reason to be proud of UCD as a university is our friendly and inclusive student body. Not once have I ever felt lost or alone among the population of 25,000 students on the Belfield campus. Students in UCD go out of their way to ensure that everyone feels part of the family; societies, class trips, nights out, even class Facebook pages all allow students to meet, get in touch and become friends. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t walk through the corridors of the Newman building without waving hello to a dozen passers-by who have greeted me with a friendly face. We should be proud that even in a university with a population so large, our students manage to make everyone feel like part of the UCD team, family, whatever you would like to call it.

I cannot think for one moment when considering every aspect of UCD; the academia, the prestige, the friendly and inclusive atmosphere, why anyone could ever suggest that UCD isn’t a university to be proud of.

Rebuttal – Evan O’Quigley

There is no question that UCD has produced impressive alumni, from journalists and actors, to writers and academics. However, if you will notice one thing about the long list named in the opposing argument, it is that most, if not all of these names, are from the past. Indeed, many famous faces have passed through the halls of our many buildings, but as of late, it seems that UCD is falling behind.

UCD has continually dropped down the university rankings over the past several years. Having previously been in the top one hundred as recently as 2009, the last three years have seen the plummeting of the University’s international credentials. Of course, much of this is the result of numerous government cutbacks, and is not necessarily the fault of the college.

However, as for a ‘friendly and inclusive’ student body? While in my own personal experience, most students here are indeed are lovely folk, apparently not all students feel the same way. An extraordinary forty-four per cent of students told the University Observer in a poll conducted last November that they felt societies were ‘cliquish’ and ‘exclusive’. This is indeed an unfortunate statistic, considering the active roll societies are supposed to play in college social life.

There are many reasons why UCD is not a University to be proud of, but I guess, what are you going to do about it, go to Trinity?

No – Evan O’Quigley

Last week a friend of mine sat in Starbucks in the Quinn Building, when he overheard another student asking a staff member for a glass of water. When she responded that she did not have a glass, but instead could give the student a cup of water, he sneered and turned to his friend saying ‘To think I have shares in this place’. Whether he was joking or not is a mystery, but one point about this story is clear, be it taken as fact, or simply allegory. This type of attitude in UCD makes it, to this writer, not a place to be proud of.

UCD is, certainly from an academic point of view, a good, if not great, University. It has produced many of Ireland’s greatest exports, such as James Joyce, Gabriel Byrne, Neil Jordan, and Dermott Morgan, and of course some we can be more critical of (Charles Haughey and Brian Cowen spring to mind). This however, does not answer the question, ‘Is UCD a University to be proud of?’ As of late, I’m not so sure that it is.

Several thousand students are accepted into UCD every September, expecting to arrive at a great public institution. A place of freedom of thought and expression, far removed from the corporatised dystopia that Ireland seems to have become over the last twenty years. President Michael D. Higgins recently stated that a ‘materialistic society’ and ‘radical individualism’ were to blame for the current misery Ireland has been left to deal with following the collapse of the ‘Celtic Tiger’ economy some four years ago. Perhaps it was naïve of me to believe that our universities would not have been subjected to the same type of economic ‘Profit before People’ type thinking that our elected representatives have been routed in for some time. Of course, I was wrong.

Every week we see headlines in student media regarding some new privatisation proposal and fights between trade unions and University management. A fortnight ago, during the protest against the Students’ Union’s dismissal of employees in the Copy Print bureau, a second issue was highlighted that has gone with somewhat less notice: the planned privatisation of the main Restaurant. This September the licensing rights to the majority of catering outlets on campus were handed over to the Kylemore Services Group, a private catering company that has outlets on many universities around the country. SIPTU, Ireland’s largest trade union, has called for an “end to privatisation” of the University services.

It is somewhat embarrassing that today the college seems to be more concerned with maintaining a good business model than maintaining its position as a great centre of learning and providing students with an authentic college experience. This is, of course, through no fault of any students, academics or staff members, but rather a result of the kind of ‘radical individualism’, which seems to have taken over the country in a larger sense. The idea that everything be about markets and private enterprise has taken too great a hold of both the national conversation, as well as conversation in the University itself. For this reason UCD needs to move on, and get back to what the University should be, and used to be about.

Rebuttal – Lauren Tracey

I personally don’t think that we can judge an entire university based on what I truly believe is a minority attitude that permeated the younger generations of Irish society during the boom. Over the past number of years many of us have been influenced by the follies of the Celtic Tiger generation, but we have learned and we’ve grown, and this fact is evident all around campus in the nature of our students. This is perhaps another reason we should be proud of our university: our ability to adapt.

Yes, there may be issues and problems at our bureaucratic base, but really, where isn’t there? These issues are far removed from us as students, and the reasons I am proud to be enrolled at UCD. I am talking about the student, and the students’ reasons to be proud of university; our great academics, our prestigious reputation, and our open, friendly atmosphere.

To argue that we cannot be proud of UCD as a university because of the basic nature of how the University has to run to keep afloat is ridiculous. We must view this issue with more depth and examine the University as a whole, not just as a “good business model.”

Every year advertisers get more skilled at saying nothing. They have long since learned that making specific claims can only lead to trouble – an ad for Johnson & Johnson’s RoC Complete Lift was banned for claims that its effectiveness was ‘clinically proven’ when it was discovered that the ‘trial’ had just forty-one participants and a survey – and so instead, they depend on nonsense phrases and meaningless assurance. Recently however, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority has been cracking down even further and tackling the issue of the misleading imagery that more or less defines modern advertising. Earlier this month L’Oreal came under fire for their anti-wrinkle cream ad featuring English actress Rachel Weisz looking wrinkle-free and glowing. Too glowing, as it turns out, as the actress had been heavily photoshopped. Following the ruling, an ASA spokesman released a statement explaining that the “image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even. We therefore concluded that the image in the ad … misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims ‘skin looks smoother’ and ‘complexion looks more even.’”

Of course the Advertising Standards Agency’s job is to investigate complaints about the accuracy of ads, but do these standards go too far? Yes, the forty-something Rachel Weisz appeared with a face so smoothed back that she looked like she was accelerating at 200 kilometres an hour, but the ad was not in any way a lie. The vague promises of smoother skin and even complexion are true. They are actually true of any moisturiser, regardless of cost. All moisturisers serve the same function and there is little to no evidence that those specifically promoted as anti-aging have any extra effect. But the ad didn’t claim that it was better than other moisturisers, just that it was good. Often these ads back this up with a survey showing that eighty per cent of the women they gave some free face cream to thought it was great. It’s meaningless, but not false.

The majority of advertisements are either bland statements of fact or suggestive promises pasted over aspirational imagery. Perfume ads are the best example of the trend. Not one perfume ad mentions what the product supposed to smell like. Instead they are a montage of aspiration and wish fulfilment. Men’s ads feature aloof, handsome, mysteriously shirtless men with just the right amount of stubble finding stunning women throwing themselves at their feet. Women’s ads show models draped in silk with said aloof shirtless men in an agony of love, lust, angst and whatever other sexy emotions the Twilight series have popularised, and you could have this life too if only you gave Calvin Klein your money. Could this sort of advertising be banned by the ASA? The imagery is definitely misleading. All a purely factual ad can promise is that if you buy this bottle of smell, you will smell like this smell.

But don’t we know all this? We have been exposed to advertising since we were infants being raised by our square luminous parent, television. We live in the real world; we know that these things aren’t true. There are too many years of eventually buying the toy you so desperately yearned for and finding out that it didn’t really fly. Drinking a bottle of coke and discovering that instead of teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony, all it did was make you need a wee. Realising that Frosties being “Gr-r-reat!” is more of an opinion than a fact. While advertising makes us spend money on underwhelming products, it also teaches us a valuable lesson: scepticism.

By the time you are an adult you should know that what advertisements promise are impossibilities. They don’t just promise a smell or food or an item of clothing; they promise to make you the person you want to be. They are selling ‘cool’. We want the lifestyle of the ad, not the product. The reason they don’t attempt to explain what the perfume smells like is that it doesn’t matter. No cologne is going to turn you into Matthew McConaughey, and no moisturiser is going to make you look like Rachel Weisz. Even Rachel Weisz doesn’t look like Rachel Weisz, so you have no chance. And if you’ve reached the stage of needing anti-aging cream without realising this, then you deserve to lose your money on pointless products. Consider it a tax on the gullible.