När jag vaknade imorse läste jag denna artikel:
http://www.sydsvenskan.se/sverige/article1505340/SN-Sank-studiestodet-for-humaniora.html
Som historiastudent har jag allt blivit van vid att vi är till åtlöje både inom den akademiska världen -speciellt när det gäller vetenskapliga ämnena- och i media. Den post jag redan skrivit om doktorandstudenter och de prospekter de har för framtiden, eller snarare bristen av dem, gäller dubbelt för de som satsar på humaniorerna. Jo, vi är allt vana vid att alla säger att arbetsmöjligheterna för oss verkar vara otroligt mörka, för vem egentligen skulle anställa nån som har sitt huvud uppe bland molnen och forskat om döda figurer. Det finns som sagt bristande behov av oss, och världen verkar väldigt glad att visa oss detta konstant.
Så säger i alla fall Svenskt Näringsliv. Humaniorstudenter kommer ha mindre chanser i arbetsmarknaden än ingenjörer och därför ska vi ha rätt till mindre bidrag. Detta gäller även de som pluggar konst. Detta kommer låta hemskt bittert, men jag är trött på att behöva försvara mitt ämne till dem som verkar tycka att det inte är meningsfullt. Vad hände egentligen med den rätt att man får plugga vad man vill? Och även om jag är rädd för att allt fler studenter ger sig in i studier bara för de inte kan hitta jobb, de har fortfarande rätt till samma stöd som alla andra. Dessutom känns det som om de tycks att humaniorstudenter inte har nånting att ge arbetsmarknaden, vilket är helt osant. Jag kan förstås inte tala för andra ämnen inom humanioriska ramen, men mina historiastudier har gett mig en stor analytisk förmåga, och en talang att göra migsjälv förstådd både i tal och skrift. Inte bara detta, men jag är bra på att forska genom olika källor, att ge en kortfattad men fullständing översikt av deras innehåll, och sen använda dem i mitt argument. Dessa egenskaper är lätta att överföra till arbetsvärlden. Alltså har jag gett er den beskrivning jag alltid ger i försättsbrev, och det känns högst motigt att göra detta på min blogg men det känns också som om jag inte har något val. Hur egentligen tror de att humaniorstudenter kommer reagera när de säger att vi inte är lika värda som resten av ämnena. Det är helt oacceptabelt.
Okej, jag ska sluta nu. Det är inte första gången jag har behövt säga detta och destovärre för min skull är det säkert inte den sista. Det faktum att debatten finns kommer nog säkert skrämma iväg folk från dessa ämnen vilket säkert är poängen med det hela. En sak jag tänkte säga innan jag lägger ner det denna gång är att beskriva en kurs som en 'Harry Potterkurs' är inte speciellt rättvist och heller inte speciellt professionellt. Och jag tror säkert att den som pluggar butiksbitrade skulle tro att dessa är likadana värt som alla andra.
For the English version click here
Thursday 30 June 2011
Monday 20 June 2011
Finding a place to live in Stockholm
Moving is never easy. Having just left my flat in Scotland, I am now 'between houses' which means that I am back living with my parents, my usual location when in this situation. This is slightly depressing when now at 27 years of age, as it feels as if I should really not need this stopgap by now (although the student lifestyle often means that I have to swallow my pride). This aside, finding somewhere new is not always easy but it seems that finding a place in Sweden is a great deal more difficult than it is in the UK. The housing crisis affects most of the large cities in Sweden, especially Stockholm where the demand for places far outweighs what is available.
The problems that Stockholm faces has been known about for a number of years. This article in DN.se reports that Stockholm country grew by 38,000 people in 2009 but only 5,100 new homes were built. This article was written in May 2010, and so the problem has been growing:
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/bostadskris-bromsar-stockholm-
The problem is affecting Stockholm's growth, and as long as there is nowhere to live no young people will want to move to the area and the same for foreign expertise. The city is quite clearly stagnating, and the current government are facing criticism for not doing enough about it. For someone needing to move there in September on grounds that the central archives in Sweden are naturally in the Capital, this is all fairly worrying. I can live at my parents' house in Gothenburg and commute up to Stockholm for a two/three weeks at a time. I have a friend I can stay with for two three weeks at a time but her flat is far too small for it to be anything longer than that. That would be far from convenient but would work if forced into it by circumstance.
In the meantime I have kept looking at websites advertising rooms being hired out in second hand and I have joined 'bostadskön' (housing queue). The problem with the latter is that I have another friend who joined the queue in 2003 has only just started to get offers of places. The whole thing is ridiculous. I have also looked at such queues for students (to student accomodation) but I do not study at an educational institution in Stockholm so I cannot gain access to these facilities. I am perhaps also hampered by the fact that I am used to the UK, where accommodation may be expensive but it is largely always available. Places are also available for purchase, but I do not have the funds available to do this right now, however much I may want to.
My problem is not desperate. I can, if forced to, live in Gothenburg and commute up to the capital. This is not ideal but it is workable. It is far from an ideal situation however and one feels that a city like Stockholm should have more housing in place.
The problems that Stockholm faces has been known about for a number of years. This article in DN.se reports that Stockholm country grew by 38,000 people in 2009 but only 5,100 new homes were built. This article was written in May 2010, and so the problem has been growing:
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/bostadskris-bromsar-stockholm-
The problem is affecting Stockholm's growth, and as long as there is nowhere to live no young people will want to move to the area and the same for foreign expertise. The city is quite clearly stagnating, and the current government are facing criticism for not doing enough about it. For someone needing to move there in September on grounds that the central archives in Sweden are naturally in the Capital, this is all fairly worrying. I can live at my parents' house in Gothenburg and commute up to Stockholm for a two/three weeks at a time. I have a friend I can stay with for two three weeks at a time but her flat is far too small for it to be anything longer than that. That would be far from convenient but would work if forced into it by circumstance.
In the meantime I have kept looking at websites advertising rooms being hired out in second hand and I have joined 'bostadskön' (housing queue). The problem with the latter is that I have another friend who joined the queue in 2003 has only just started to get offers of places. The whole thing is ridiculous. I have also looked at such queues for students (to student accomodation) but I do not study at an educational institution in Stockholm so I cannot gain access to these facilities. I am perhaps also hampered by the fact that I am used to the UK, where accommodation may be expensive but it is largely always available. Places are also available for purchase, but I do not have the funds available to do this right now, however much I may want to.
My problem is not desperate. I can, if forced to, live in Gothenburg and commute up to the capital. This is not ideal but it is workable. It is far from an ideal situation however and one feels that a city like Stockholm should have more housing in place.
Thursday 16 June 2011
Träningsvärk!
Så nu när man är tillbaks i Sverige har jag börjat med en av mina favorit sysselsättningar Friskis och Svettis. Jag var på spinningpass igår och i söndags, gym på Tisdag (dock dragen dit) och nu blir det skivspin ikväll. Mina muskler svider och stela samt jag kan inte säga att kondisen är på toppen precis men det är ju bara att köra på. Passet igår var roligt, men det känns verkligen som alla är otroligt vältränade och jag fick skruva ner motståndet på cykeln flera gånger under passet. Lite pinsamt att känna sig så utröttad när alla andra knappt är påverkade. Okej, nu ljuger jag, självklart de var påverkade men det kändes som om de kunde få lite mer från det hela än jag. Och detta är knappt en månad efter göteborgsvarvet, helt sjukt hur snabbt allting släpper sig!
Nåja, det blir nog bättre, speciellt eftersom jag är bland friska svenskarna snarare än skottar som försöker få mig att dricka whisky hela tiden (det låter som en stereotyp, men helt sant). I Skottland är de antingen super hälsosamma eller extremt lågt ner på andra sidan skalan. Det finns en anledning att skottarna uppfann friterade Mars bars (de heter nog Japp! här tror jag), och en av deras mest kända deckar skribenter Ian Rankin sa av sitt eget folk at de var 'prone to self destruction.' Kanske det är lite charmigt, men definitift inte speciellt bra om man vill hålla sig i form och leva länge.
En sak som jag tycker är lite unikt med svenska motionskulturen är musiken. När jag har varit på pass i England eller Skottland har musiken alltid använts som en distrahering snarare än i motionen i sig, medan i Sverige så använder ledarn takten i musiken för att få deltagarna att jobba hårdare. Problemet för min del är att jag föredrar svenska systemet men har blivit väldigt van vid det brittiska, eller snarare är det så att jag har blivit van vid att lyssna på min egen musik när jag tränar. Detta betyder att dansmusiken som de ofta använder för att få upp pulsen här brukar inte få mig att jobba hårdare. Men när tränaren spelade rock musik i passet igår fick det upp pulsen! Det kanske är bara jag som är speciellt musikberoende.
Hursomhelst är jag nu otroligt glad att jag har chansen igen att vara i denna miljön, och nu när vädret är så fint känns det inte så motigt att ge sig ut och springa heller. Sista gången jag var här nån längre tid var i julas och då var det ju massa snö och is så det var livsfarligt att ge sig ut i skogen. Får väll ge mig ut i Skatås eller Delsjön med alla andra hurtiga typer. Funderar på Stockholm halvmara i September och eventuellt en maraton. Ni är välkommna att komma med om nu vill!
For the English version click here
Nåja, det blir nog bättre, speciellt eftersom jag är bland friska svenskarna snarare än skottar som försöker få mig att dricka whisky hela tiden (det låter som en stereotyp, men helt sant). I Skottland är de antingen super hälsosamma eller extremt lågt ner på andra sidan skalan. Det finns en anledning att skottarna uppfann friterade Mars bars (de heter nog Japp! här tror jag), och en av deras mest kända deckar skribenter Ian Rankin sa av sitt eget folk at de var 'prone to self destruction.' Kanske det är lite charmigt, men definitift inte speciellt bra om man vill hålla sig i form och leva länge.
En sak som jag tycker är lite unikt med svenska motionskulturen är musiken. När jag har varit på pass i England eller Skottland har musiken alltid använts som en distrahering snarare än i motionen i sig, medan i Sverige så använder ledarn takten i musiken för att få deltagarna att jobba hårdare. Problemet för min del är att jag föredrar svenska systemet men har blivit väldigt van vid det brittiska, eller snarare är det så att jag har blivit van vid att lyssna på min egen musik när jag tränar. Detta betyder att dansmusiken som de ofta använder för att få upp pulsen här brukar inte få mig att jobba hårdare. Men när tränaren spelade rock musik i passet igår fick det upp pulsen! Det kanske är bara jag som är speciellt musikberoende.
Hursomhelst är jag nu otroligt glad att jag har chansen igen att vara i denna miljön, och nu när vädret är så fint känns det inte så motigt att ge sig ut och springa heller. Sista gången jag var här nån längre tid var i julas och då var det ju massa snö och is så det var livsfarligt att ge sig ut i skogen. Får väll ge mig ut i Skatås eller Delsjön med alla andra hurtiga typer. Funderar på Stockholm halvmara i September och eventuellt en maraton. Ni är välkommna att komma med om nu vill!
For the English version click here
Tuesday 14 June 2011
Funny historical deaths
One of the fascinations as regards history seems to be death and how historical figures seem to meet them. This grim facet of history is ever present in my area as historians are constantly quoting figures on just how many people died during the Thirty Years War, whether from fighting, disease or starvation. Yes, fascination with death is a dark and important part of the discipline, and it's perhaps most macabre manifestation is that of the funny death. My thoughts were brought towards this by way of an article on the BBC website today:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13762313
The Tudors it seems, died of many different causes, including runaway bears, falling into moats whilst baking bread, getting attacked by cows and having your testicles crushed. The last one made my eyes water somewhat. Naturally this phenomenon was not isolated to the Tudors. Chinese poet Li Po (701-706) after falling into the water from a boat after having pondered the moon just that little bit too hard, Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546 – 1601) died from an infected bladder after he had attempted to hold his pee in during a particularly long banquet, and King Adolf Frederick of Sweden died in 1771 after eating a meal of lobster, caviar, saurkraut, cabbage soup, smoked herring, champagne and 14 servings of his favorite dessert: semla, a bun filled with marzipan and milk. The semla is still extensively eaten in Sweden. These are deaths that are hard for anyone but the most rich, or the most obsessed in the case of Li Po.
Indeed, as I typed the title of this post into Google, a large number of websites came up. Would I prefer deaths in a weird way, deaths that were ironic or deaths that occured during sex. Mind you, it seems to me that people who died in modern times in humorous ways are just as much of a fascination. The website for the Darwin awards (deaths that prove that evolution is alive and well) has always been one of my favourites, and suggests that despite all its achievements, mankind isn't quite as clever as it has painted itself:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
One wonders then, why this slightly dark obsession with death and how people meet it? Satirising death may be a symptom of a modern society that is ever more concerned with what happens after you die, a factor that is not more prevalent in today's society than in any other, but one that is perhaps these days more complicated. I am making this conclusion far too simplistic, as the effect of death on society is one that is a whole discipline in itself, and one that has it's own institute at the University of Bath. Therefore I will leave it to them to suggest why people view death the way they do, however from a personal point of view and from one of my profession it is just intriguing to see the interest in historical people dying in humorous ways.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13762313
The Tudors it seems, died of many different causes, including runaway bears, falling into moats whilst baking bread, getting attacked by cows and having your testicles crushed. The last one made my eyes water somewhat. Naturally this phenomenon was not isolated to the Tudors. Chinese poet Li Po (701-706) after falling into the water from a boat after having pondered the moon just that little bit too hard, Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546 – 1601) died from an infected bladder after he had attempted to hold his pee in during a particularly long banquet, and King Adolf Frederick of Sweden died in 1771 after eating a meal of lobster, caviar, saurkraut, cabbage soup, smoked herring, champagne and 14 servings of his favorite dessert: semla, a bun filled with marzipan and milk. The semla is still extensively eaten in Sweden. These are deaths that are hard for anyone but the most rich, or the most obsessed in the case of Li Po.
Indeed, as I typed the title of this post into Google, a large number of websites came up. Would I prefer deaths in a weird way, deaths that were ironic or deaths that occured during sex. Mind you, it seems to me that people who died in modern times in humorous ways are just as much of a fascination. The website for the Darwin awards (deaths that prove that evolution is alive and well) has always been one of my favourites, and suggests that despite all its achievements, mankind isn't quite as clever as it has painted itself:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
One wonders then, why this slightly dark obsession with death and how people meet it? Satirising death may be a symptom of a modern society that is ever more concerned with what happens after you die, a factor that is not more prevalent in today's society than in any other, but one that is perhaps these days more complicated. I am making this conclusion far too simplistic, as the effect of death on society is one that is a whole discipline in itself, and one that has it's own institute at the University of Bath. Therefore I will leave it to them to suggest why people view death the way they do, however from a personal point of view and from one of my profession it is just intriguing to see the interest in historical people dying in humorous ways.
Monday 13 June 2011
Är svenska ett döende språk?
Jag tyckte väll att det var dags att jag började skriva lite på svenska, både för att i mitt fall kan det vara värdefullt att öva och bara för att chansen finns. Jag har alltid tyckt att svenska är ett oerhört fint språk. och ett som jag vill vara bättre på eftersom för min del har jag alltid funnit att ett andra språk har varit viktigt i mitt arbetsliv lika mycket som det har varit en länk till min uppfostran.
För min del dock har det inte alltid varit så här. Vid den här punkten är det nog viktigt att förklara att jag var född i Göteborg och bodde där tills jag var sju år gammal. Efter det så flyttade hela familjen till England pga. av mina föräldrar hade skaffat jobb där. Flytten var egentligen bara tänkt som temporär, ett eller två år som värst, men det visade sig att efter fyra barn har väl gått in i skolor och är i oliken skeden av sina liv blev det inte så lätt att ta sig tillbaks till Sverige. Till slut blev det arton år för mig, och mina syskon kommer nog aldrig flytta tillbaks dit.
To view the English version click here
Min uppväxt var därmed minst sagt svengelsk -jag är inte speciellt förtjust i det ordet, dock i mitt fall är det sant- och det har alltid varit svårt för mig att reda ut vart egentligen jag hör hemma då jag känner mig svensk när jag bor i England eller Skottland men känner mig otroligt engelsk när jag bor i Sverige. Som tur var såg alltid mina föräldrar till att jag kände till svenska traditionerna med Jul och Påsk firade på ett svenskt sätt samt Midsommar, så även om vi bodde i ett främande land så var vi i kontakt med våra rötter, och då hade jag i alla fall en chans att känna mig svensk snarare än bara engelsk, dock vet jag inte egentligen om det gjorde den intärna debatten lättare eller svårare att hantera.
Detta har naturligtvis påverkat hur jag utrycker migsjälv i skrift, som ni säkert har märkt. Jag har hållt igång med svenskan alla dessa år tack vare mina föräldrar, och detta är trots bara en månad av formell undervisning svenska språket. Till att börja med när vi flyttade till England var engelska det enda språket jag ville prata och det tog mig bara ett år att bli flytande, det var nog tänkbart att svenskan skulle dö ut helt och hållet, men det gjorde den inte. Nuförtiden tycker jag annorlunda och jag har som sagt använt svenska både inom ramen av mitt vanliga liv och inom arbetslivet. Dessutom så finns det nån vilja att utrycka mig i svenska trots det faktum att när jag skriver kan jag tänka på en miljon bättre sätt att skriva det på engelska och att det skulle ha tagit mig halva tiden att skriva texten på engelska också.
För min del har det nu mer relevance då svenska språket har blivit mer och mer blandat med engelska. Alla år utomlands samt mina svårigheter med att hålla igång svenskan över huvud taget betyder att jag försöker hålla svenska och engelska språken separata och generellt håller jag till denna filosofin till de andra språken jag lär mig. Jag undrar egentligen hur denna fenomen har utvecklats sig, men det är kanske bara jag som förstår hur svensk kultur funkar nuförtiden. En vän till mig sa att det var helt enkelt lättare att uttrycka sig på engelska och att det fans ett finare ordförråd. Och till viss del håller jag med, engelsmännen har ett fint sätt att uttala sig och jag har som sagt funnit att engelskan kommer lättare än svenskan, men om man är svensk uppväxt, borde man inte då ha ordförrådet att kunna uttrycka sig lika bra som man gör på engelska? Det jag är oroad för är nu när engelskan har blivit till stor del ett till modersmål i Sverige, är att svenska folket helt enkelt slutar försöka med svenska språket och allt deras kreativitet är istället skapat med engelska. Det tycker jag skulle vara oerhört trisst.
För min del dock har det inte alltid varit så här. Vid den här punkten är det nog viktigt att förklara att jag var född i Göteborg och bodde där tills jag var sju år gammal. Efter det så flyttade hela familjen till England pga. av mina föräldrar hade skaffat jobb där. Flytten var egentligen bara tänkt som temporär, ett eller två år som värst, men det visade sig att efter fyra barn har väl gått in i skolor och är i oliken skeden av sina liv blev det inte så lätt att ta sig tillbaks till Sverige. Till slut blev det arton år för mig, och mina syskon kommer nog aldrig flytta tillbaks dit.
To view the English version click here
Min uppväxt var därmed minst sagt svengelsk -jag är inte speciellt förtjust i det ordet, dock i mitt fall är det sant- och det har alltid varit svårt för mig att reda ut vart egentligen jag hör hemma då jag känner mig svensk när jag bor i England eller Skottland men känner mig otroligt engelsk när jag bor i Sverige. Som tur var såg alltid mina föräldrar till att jag kände till svenska traditionerna med Jul och Påsk firade på ett svenskt sätt samt Midsommar, så även om vi bodde i ett främande land så var vi i kontakt med våra rötter, och då hade jag i alla fall en chans att känna mig svensk snarare än bara engelsk, dock vet jag inte egentligen om det gjorde den intärna debatten lättare eller svårare att hantera.
Detta har naturligtvis påverkat hur jag utrycker migsjälv i skrift, som ni säkert har märkt. Jag har hållt igång med svenskan alla dessa år tack vare mina föräldrar, och detta är trots bara en månad av formell undervisning svenska språket. Till att börja med när vi flyttade till England var engelska det enda språket jag ville prata och det tog mig bara ett år att bli flytande, det var nog tänkbart att svenskan skulle dö ut helt och hållet, men det gjorde den inte. Nuförtiden tycker jag annorlunda och jag har som sagt använt svenska både inom ramen av mitt vanliga liv och inom arbetslivet. Dessutom så finns det nån vilja att utrycka mig i svenska trots det faktum att när jag skriver kan jag tänka på en miljon bättre sätt att skriva det på engelska och att det skulle ha tagit mig halva tiden att skriva texten på engelska också.
För min del har det nu mer relevance då svenska språket har blivit mer och mer blandat med engelska. Alla år utomlands samt mina svårigheter med att hålla igång svenskan över huvud taget betyder att jag försöker hålla svenska och engelska språken separata och generellt håller jag till denna filosofin till de andra språken jag lär mig. Jag undrar egentligen hur denna fenomen har utvecklats sig, men det är kanske bara jag som förstår hur svensk kultur funkar nuförtiden. En vän till mig sa att det var helt enkelt lättare att uttrycka sig på engelska och att det fans ett finare ordförråd. Och till viss del håller jag med, engelsmännen har ett fint sätt att uttala sig och jag har som sagt funnit att engelskan kommer lättare än svenskan, men om man är svensk uppväxt, borde man inte då ha ordförrådet att kunna uttrycka sig lika bra som man gör på engelska? Det jag är oroad för är nu när engelskan har blivit till stor del ett till modersmål i Sverige, är att svenska folket helt enkelt slutar försöka med svenska språket och allt deras kreativitet är istället skapat med engelska. Det tycker jag skulle vara oerhört trisst.
Sunday 12 June 2011
Low Budget Airlines: A defence
I have a mild love/hate relationship with low-cost airlines. As I travel regularly around Europe, it is quite unfeasible for me to buy tickets from the regular airlines even if I wanted to. I can barely remember a time when I actually got out my wallet to pay for a ticket from one of these, and it has left me wondering if I would do it had I the funds. Despite the fact that Ryanair or Easyjet may add fees up to your eyeballs if you don't meet their regulations, and they may have hour queues at Stansted (there was one such queue yesterday, which I narrowly managed to avoid), but recent events have started to change my mind.
First of all, I have started realising that the rushing toward the gate and subsequently onto the plane has it's own little charm. Those passengers that actually get themselves organised and are there early actually get the best seats on the plane. This serves those who are slightly neurotic, like me, in wanting to get to the gate early and avoiding the last minute clamber onto the plane. Naturally this is not so good for those who prefer the more relaxed atmosphere, perhaps wondering round the shops before hand, or hanging out at the bar. If these things please you then the benefit of having a pre-chosen seat is invaluable.
Moreover, I like the idea that if one travels light -which the last couple of trips I have- then there is the possibility of bypassing the usually huge check-in queues. The flipside of this of course is that sometimes you do not travel only with hand luggage and often then you are left in the queue with hundreds of other equally frustrated travellers. I should add that this is only a problem at London for me as when I have used Ryanair at Edinburgh and Gothenburg City (or Säve to locals) then the queues have been next to non-existent.
I have also always found that the planes are in a good condition and have never felt like they are going to fall apart. One exception of an Easyjet plane that I took from London to Aberdeen Dyce which was so small it felt like it was going to fall out of the sky when it hit turbulence. This thankfully did not happen. I have also found that the landings of the planes have been pretty decent. The reason why this is such an issue is that the runway at Gothenburg City seems much shorter than any other airport that I have encountered, and all the Ryanair pilots have managed this admirably. Reinforcing this was a landing at Edinburgh airport a couple of weeks back in 120 mile an hour winds. As the plane descended everyone on board was silent as the plane was being thrown about all over the place by the winds, yet the landing was remarkable smooth and it was the only time where Ryanair's cheering tape played at every on time landing seemed strangely appropriate and was supported by a clap from all occupants of the plane.
The reason why I say all this is because I feel that these airlines do get a great deal of bad press. One might argue that with Ryanair's profits rising by 23% this year to 374 million Euros then they really do not need me defending them. I would say that this may be just me convincing myself that the stress is sometimes is justified tradeoff for expediency. There are also doubtless people who have extensive horror stories of these airlines. One thing I did notice yesterday was a wheelchair bound older woman being forced to tackle stairs to the plane after the Ryanair member of staff had ushered her through. I am in no place to comment on their policy as regards wheelchairs but this seemed a little mystifying and genuinely wonder what would have happened if the woman had been completely unable to walk. This is perhaps a prime example of human compassion being forgotten at the expense of a quicker turnaround. I have to say though that these cases have been mercifully few in all the years that I have travelled, and perhaps now I am finally getting comfortable with the idea of flying with them.
First of all, I have started realising that the rushing toward the gate and subsequently onto the plane has it's own little charm. Those passengers that actually get themselves organised and are there early actually get the best seats on the plane. This serves those who are slightly neurotic, like me, in wanting to get to the gate early and avoiding the last minute clamber onto the plane. Naturally this is not so good for those who prefer the more relaxed atmosphere, perhaps wondering round the shops before hand, or hanging out at the bar. If these things please you then the benefit of having a pre-chosen seat is invaluable.
Moreover, I like the idea that if one travels light -which the last couple of trips I have- then there is the possibility of bypassing the usually huge check-in queues. The flipside of this of course is that sometimes you do not travel only with hand luggage and often then you are left in the queue with hundreds of other equally frustrated travellers. I should add that this is only a problem at London for me as when I have used Ryanair at Edinburgh and Gothenburg City (or Säve to locals) then the queues have been next to non-existent.
I have also always found that the planes are in a good condition and have never felt like they are going to fall apart. One exception of an Easyjet plane that I took from London to Aberdeen Dyce which was so small it felt like it was going to fall out of the sky when it hit turbulence. This thankfully did not happen. I have also found that the landings of the planes have been pretty decent. The reason why this is such an issue is that the runway at Gothenburg City seems much shorter than any other airport that I have encountered, and all the Ryanair pilots have managed this admirably. Reinforcing this was a landing at Edinburgh airport a couple of weeks back in 120 mile an hour winds. As the plane descended everyone on board was silent as the plane was being thrown about all over the place by the winds, yet the landing was remarkable smooth and it was the only time where Ryanair's cheering tape played at every on time landing seemed strangely appropriate and was supported by a clap from all occupants of the plane.
The reason why I say all this is because I feel that these airlines do get a great deal of bad press. One might argue that with Ryanair's profits rising by 23% this year to 374 million Euros then they really do not need me defending them. I would say that this may be just me convincing myself that the stress is sometimes is justified tradeoff for expediency. There are also doubtless people who have extensive horror stories of these airlines. One thing I did notice yesterday was a wheelchair bound older woman being forced to tackle stairs to the plane after the Ryanair member of staff had ushered her through. I am in no place to comment on their policy as regards wheelchairs but this seemed a little mystifying and genuinely wonder what would have happened if the woman had been completely unable to walk. This is perhaps a prime example of human compassion being forgotten at the expense of a quicker turnaround. I have to say though that these cases have been mercifully few in all the years that I have travelled, and perhaps now I am finally getting comfortable with the idea of flying with them.
Friday 10 June 2011
The Monarchy: A Changing Institution
The role of the Monarchy in today's society is one that has been deeply debated for a number of years. In Britain, support for the institution appears as healthy as ever, with a recent poll done by the Guardian reveals that only 26% of those asked wanting to get rid of the Monarchy whilst 63% argued that they should be kept. Indeed, the recent wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton appeared to unite the country with even those not particularly animated by the Monarchy at least excited by the Bank Holiday to celebrate the occasion.
This very same debate is currently being conducted in Sweden, where the current reigning monarch Carl XVI Gustaf has got himself into hot water concerning allegations made in Tove Meyer's, Deanne Rauscher's and Thomas Sjöberg's book Carl XVI Gustaf: den Motvillige Monarken. In it Sjöberg details the private life which included wild parties with both models and friends, and various connections to the underworld. The book also talks about an affair between the King and Camilla Henemark in the late 1990s, apparently with the full knowledge of Queen Silvia.
Reactions to the book have from what I can tell been extremely mixed, with many arguing that it is simply not the remit of the press to reveal such things about even a public figure and others pointing out that the book was just incredibly badly written. The backlash even included one of the author's, Meyer, being fired from her day job as a researcher on Swedish radio. The book also received a great deal of criticism for it's use of anonymous sources, a factor which one of the other author's Sjöberg finds hard to understand as all these sources have a right to their privacy. In a recent interview he also pointed out that these kind of rumours would not be accepted about the prime minister Frederik Reinfeldt and should therefore not be accepted from the King.
Love or hate the book it seems now that the opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of the 64 year old King, on the throne since 1973, should now hand over the reins to his daughter Victoria within the next five to ten years. This and in other respects the Swedish Monarchy has in common with it's British counterpart. Whilst there have been no calls for Elizabeth II to relinquish the throne, the same article seems to indicate that those asked wanted the throne to be given to William rather than to Charles, Charles himself not being completely unfamiliar with the rumour mill. This, along with the news today that at the tender age of ninety Prince Philip was to withdraw from public duties may indicate that change may be ushered in sooner rather than later.
It occurs to me that whilst historically the monarchy were to some extent at the behest of their public, one remembers what happened to Charles I or to the French monarchy in 1789, but certainly in the case of Sweden and the UK they are going evolving in an entirely more democratic way. It has become increasingly clear that whilst they are still valued as an institution a greater emphasis is now being placed on the moral leadership that these provide. Whilst republicanism in these two countries is still far in the distant future, evolution is not so far away at all.
This very same debate is currently being conducted in Sweden, where the current reigning monarch Carl XVI Gustaf has got himself into hot water concerning allegations made in Tove Meyer's, Deanne Rauscher's and Thomas Sjöberg's book Carl XVI Gustaf: den Motvillige Monarken. In it Sjöberg details the private life which included wild parties with both models and friends, and various connections to the underworld. The book also talks about an affair between the King and Camilla Henemark in the late 1990s, apparently with the full knowledge of Queen Silvia.
Reactions to the book have from what I can tell been extremely mixed, with many arguing that it is simply not the remit of the press to reveal such things about even a public figure and others pointing out that the book was just incredibly badly written. The backlash even included one of the author's, Meyer, being fired from her day job as a researcher on Swedish radio. The book also received a great deal of criticism for it's use of anonymous sources, a factor which one of the other author's Sjöberg finds hard to understand as all these sources have a right to their privacy. In a recent interview he also pointed out that these kind of rumours would not be accepted about the prime minister Frederik Reinfeldt and should therefore not be accepted from the King.
Love or hate the book it seems now that the opinion is now overwhelmingly in favour of the 64 year old King, on the throne since 1973, should now hand over the reins to his daughter Victoria within the next five to ten years. This and in other respects the Swedish Monarchy has in common with it's British counterpart. Whilst there have been no calls for Elizabeth II to relinquish the throne, the same article seems to indicate that those asked wanted the throne to be given to William rather than to Charles, Charles himself not being completely unfamiliar with the rumour mill. This, along with the news today that at the tender age of ninety Prince Philip was to withdraw from public duties may indicate that change may be ushered in sooner rather than later.
It occurs to me that whilst historically the monarchy were to some extent at the behest of their public, one remembers what happened to Charles I or to the French monarchy in 1789, but certainly in the case of Sweden and the UK they are going evolving in an entirely more democratic way. It has become increasingly clear that whilst they are still valued as an institution a greater emphasis is now being placed on the moral leadership that these provide. Whilst republicanism in these two countries is still far in the distant future, evolution is not so far away at all.
Thursday 9 June 2011
Travelling through the UK
I have, due to studies, been based the last eight/nine months in Scotland. Scotland is an extraordinarily beautiful country, which has been to a large extent unspoilt by modern society. Whilst this creates a peaceful haven many communities in more rural areas are only reachable by bus and in many cases not even that. Bus transport in Scotland is incredibly expensive, but this post is going to be focused on traveling from Scotland to England, or rather more specifically Edinburgh to London.
Having done this trip now several times I can say unequivocally that the most comfortable way of making it is flying, but often it is unfeasibly expensive for the distance you are actually traveling or often it is just easier to jump on a train or indeed a coach. The trains are comfortable I have found and whenever I am on one the time seems to slip by incredibly quickly, so this is my mode of transport of choice. However, whilst prices for this stretch can be acceptable if one gets their act together in good time and books many weeks ahead of time, for a student who is -shall we say- spontaneous, prices are often pushed up to the unaffordable level by the time I actually get round to booking the tickets. Thus, usually the only form of transport open to me are the coaches.
Now, I fully understand that you get what you pay for when it comes to these things, and National Express coaches are often up to a third cheaper than train tickets, but still I wonder how they plan which service gets which coach. Twice now I have done this trip and twice now the coach has had to be swapped in Durham on the way down to London due to the Air Conditioning not working, and at that point we got a coach that was of an acceptable standard. This was also after having stood at the coach station for a full hour before my departure and watching two national express coaches leave of a perfectly nice standard before the 951 arrived which was considerably older than the previous two, and Edinburgh to London must be one of their longest stretches. A previous coach journey from Dundee to Blackpool (which meant three different coaches) all had coaches of a decent standard, one which even had plug sockets which seems to be rarity these days.
This complaint seems fairly minor in comparison to some of the horror stories that have appeared on the web. The drivers that I have had have not been rude, did not make any unscheduled stops, or driven in an unsafe manner, although I gather that some customers have experienced this. In times where train prices have risen the extent they have consumers are bound to start thinking of the coach as a viable alternative, thus it is in National Express' interest to put coaches on the road that are roadworthy from the start and do not need to be swapped mid-journey. They may also want to consider adding small things to the coaches -like plugsockets- that makes the journey ever so slightly more acceptable, as ten hours is a long time to not be able to use one's laptop.
I would like to finish this rant by pointing out that I have made the trip from Stockholm to Gothenburg (a journey of around seven hours) in my native Sweden and these have never broken down and have been comfortable and the fleet has been mostly updated. Thus it is possible to be relatively cheap and provide decent service.
Having done this trip now several times I can say unequivocally that the most comfortable way of making it is flying, but often it is unfeasibly expensive for the distance you are actually traveling or often it is just easier to jump on a train or indeed a coach. The trains are comfortable I have found and whenever I am on one the time seems to slip by incredibly quickly, so this is my mode of transport of choice. However, whilst prices for this stretch can be acceptable if one gets their act together in good time and books many weeks ahead of time, for a student who is -shall we say- spontaneous, prices are often pushed up to the unaffordable level by the time I actually get round to booking the tickets. Thus, usually the only form of transport open to me are the coaches.
Now, I fully understand that you get what you pay for when it comes to these things, and National Express coaches are often up to a third cheaper than train tickets, but still I wonder how they plan which service gets which coach. Twice now I have done this trip and twice now the coach has had to be swapped in Durham on the way down to London due to the Air Conditioning not working, and at that point we got a coach that was of an acceptable standard. This was also after having stood at the coach station for a full hour before my departure and watching two national express coaches leave of a perfectly nice standard before the 951 arrived which was considerably older than the previous two, and Edinburgh to London must be one of their longest stretches. A previous coach journey from Dundee to Blackpool (which meant three different coaches) all had coaches of a decent standard, one which even had plug sockets which seems to be rarity these days.
This complaint seems fairly minor in comparison to some of the horror stories that have appeared on the web. The drivers that I have had have not been rude, did not make any unscheduled stops, or driven in an unsafe manner, although I gather that some customers have experienced this. In times where train prices have risen the extent they have consumers are bound to start thinking of the coach as a viable alternative, thus it is in National Express' interest to put coaches on the road that are roadworthy from the start and do not need to be swapped mid-journey. They may also want to consider adding small things to the coaches -like plugsockets- that makes the journey ever so slightly more acceptable, as ten hours is a long time to not be able to use one's laptop.
I would like to finish this rant by pointing out that I have made the trip from Stockholm to Gothenburg (a journey of around seven hours) in my native Sweden and these have never broken down and have been comfortable and the fleet has been mostly updated. Thus it is possible to be relatively cheap and provide decent service.
Tuesday 7 June 2011
Vegetarianism on the rise
Around 7% of the UK are vegetarians, or around 5 million people, and according to the Vegetarian Society this is increasing at about 5000 people a week. These include a number of celebrities including Chris Martin, singer in Coldplay, actress Sadie Frost, writer Ruth Rendell and comedienne Victoria Woods. Perhaps the most outspoken of vegetarians is singer and former Beatle Paul McCartney, who launched a Meat-free Monday website in 2009 alongside his daughters Stella and Mary.
For some, vegetarianism is a badge of honour, and pressure groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) actively seek to spread this growing trend. Indeed, many turn vegetarian due the unfair treatment of animals before reaching the supermarket floor. Diet.co.uk states that 2.5 million farm animals are killed each day for the meat eater. Furthermore, they state, these animals are often pumped full of hormones in order to maximise meat density.
This is not to say of course that people become vegetarian for many different reasons. Vegetarianism can often be the easier path for many who have particular dietary requirements, and there are even some cases -although rare- of meat allergies. Economically also vegetarian options can often be a more viable for those with a somewhat more restricted financial situation.
Naturally, there are options for those that are ethically opposed to the treatment that animals are often subjected to but don't want to stop eating meat. Many companies now have started using the fact that they only sell ethically sourced produce as a marketing tool. Many Supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Tesco's have now started selling produce that has only been obtained from these sources. Other local sellers also make a point to sell only meat from local farmers that do not seek to produce meat for the larger market.
Doubtless people turn vegetarian for many different reasons, but the important factor in this is that the demand for more responsibly sourced food is on the rise. The reasoning behind turning vegetarian is often something other than just the latest scare over fast food or the need to look cool, although these clearly exist. Rather, often these are options for those wishing to live in a kinder more earth friendly way. Whilst this does not necessarily demand that you turn vegetarian, clearly the number of people picking this path is on the increase.
For some, vegetarianism is a badge of honour, and pressure groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) actively seek to spread this growing trend. Indeed, many turn vegetarian due the unfair treatment of animals before reaching the supermarket floor. Diet.co.uk states that 2.5 million farm animals are killed each day for the meat eater. Furthermore, they state, these animals are often pumped full of hormones in order to maximise meat density.
This is not to say of course that people become vegetarian for many different reasons. Vegetarianism can often be the easier path for many who have particular dietary requirements, and there are even some cases -although rare- of meat allergies. Economically also vegetarian options can often be a more viable for those with a somewhat more restricted financial situation.
Naturally, there are options for those that are ethically opposed to the treatment that animals are often subjected to but don't want to stop eating meat. Many companies now have started using the fact that they only sell ethically sourced produce as a marketing tool. Many Supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Tesco's have now started selling produce that has only been obtained from these sources. Other local sellers also make a point to sell only meat from local farmers that do not seek to produce meat for the larger market.
Doubtless people turn vegetarian for many different reasons, but the important factor in this is that the demand for more responsibly sourced food is on the rise. The reasoning behind turning vegetarian is often something other than just the latest scare over fast food or the need to look cool, although these clearly exist. Rather, often these are options for those wishing to live in a kinder more earth friendly way. Whilst this does not necessarily demand that you turn vegetarian, clearly the number of people picking this path is on the increase.
Monday 6 June 2011
History Teaching in Schools
The standard of the teaching of History in English schools has degraded in the last few years, or at least so reports both the Guardian and the Daily Mail in March 2011. Even earlier than this, Simon Schama, noted TV personality and historian, suggested that history teaching in schools is not engaging pupils, and does not teach pupils events with which everyone should be familiar:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/09/future-history-schools
Schama as ever, makes an empassioned argument. History should be extended beyond the 'academic' sphere, and more should be done to ensure that future generations be made aware of their collective heritage. This is seemingly supported by Ofsted findings that it had become 'marginalised,' or at least this is what the Daily Mail suggests. What the Ofsted report actually suggested was that history teaching at Key Stage 3 was being constrained by decisions over curriculum changes.
Furthermore, a report by the The Historical Association suggests that the amount of teaching by those 'unqualified' (ie.with a qualification of GCSE at most) is on the increase. Existing history teachers have expressed concern over the quality of teaching pupils receive, and 25% of teaching establishments have in fact amalgamated the teaching of history with others in order to provide a 'generic' teaching module. The Association are currently also conducting a survey of the status of history as a subject in schools:
http://www.history.org.uk/news/index.php?id=1063
As someone deeply engaged with the subject since I was sixteen, I can speak with some conviction of how lucky I was to have history teachers that were engaging and keen to pass on their knowledge. Concerns over the nature of historical teaching have always been up for discussion, and this debate is not new. I would also suggest that despite an apparent paucity in the teaching, the subject remains a popular subject to pursue at University level, and so it's popularity beyond school is not in question. Therefore, much like Schama suggests, our concern should now be to improve pupils education not just of 'modern' European history such as the World Wars and the Cold War, but earlier key events in their history remain a mystery to them. Thus, even if the student chooses not to carry on with the subject, they have a grounding in the events that define their history.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/09/future-history-schools
Schama as ever, makes an empassioned argument. History should be extended beyond the 'academic' sphere, and more should be done to ensure that future generations be made aware of their collective heritage. This is seemingly supported by Ofsted findings that it had become 'marginalised,' or at least this is what the Daily Mail suggests. What the Ofsted report actually suggested was that history teaching at Key Stage 3 was being constrained by decisions over curriculum changes.
Furthermore, a report by the The Historical Association suggests that the amount of teaching by those 'unqualified' (ie.with a qualification of GCSE at most) is on the increase. Existing history teachers have expressed concern over the quality of teaching pupils receive, and 25% of teaching establishments have in fact amalgamated the teaching of history with others in order to provide a 'generic' teaching module. The Association are currently also conducting a survey of the status of history as a subject in schools:
http://www.history.org.uk/news/index.php?id=1063
As someone deeply engaged with the subject since I was sixteen, I can speak with some conviction of how lucky I was to have history teachers that were engaging and keen to pass on their knowledge. Concerns over the nature of historical teaching have always been up for discussion, and this debate is not new. I would also suggest that despite an apparent paucity in the teaching, the subject remains a popular subject to pursue at University level, and so it's popularity beyond school is not in question. Therefore, much like Schama suggests, our concern should now be to improve pupils education not just of 'modern' European history such as the World Wars and the Cold War, but earlier key events in their history remain a mystery to them. Thus, even if the student chooses not to carry on with the subject, they have a grounding in the events that define their history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)