Upon my return to the UK after four months in France, this programme was one of the first to meet my eager eye on iPlayer.
It is a subject which depresses as much as it interests me, and so naturally I felt compelled to watch.
The programme showed some predictable scenes, including A level students from Westminster School, sitting all prim and proper in their uniforms and typically confident and self-assuredly giving their opinions on the matter in their undeniably posh voices, juxtaposed with those from a Scottish comprehensive. But it also included interviews with school teachers, headmasters and MPs, including Lib Dem Sarah Teather, who gave a variety of different opinions on the subject. While some pretended, or maybe genuinely believed, there wasn't a problem with the fact that 3/ 4 of the current cabinet are millionaires, that 6 of them went to the same fee-paying public school (Eton, whose fees of nearly £30,ooo a year are more than the average income), and that 66% of the coalition government were privately educated relative to the 7% of the population who are, others admitted that there was a problem with the fact that it seems these days it is Daddy's pockets which dictate the place you'll end up in society, as opposed to ambition and intelligence.
While I by no means would like to see a return to the awful, socially devisive, and bluntly discriminitative two-tier 11+ grammar school system, I agree with Andrew Neil that something is very ill-at-ease within Britain's education system and we need to change it if humble state school students are to stand any chance competing for university places against those from schools such as Eton, Harrow, Westminster and the many others in Britain's NEW two-tier system. Few can reasonably deny that getting rid of the grammar school system has pushed many of those who would otherwise have been selected according to ability and ambition into expensive private schools, where 90% of pupils get 3As at A level, compared with just 8% at comprehensives. There is something deeply unjust about this, and it needs to be set straight.
But a return to the old grammar school system is not the answer. In my eyes it might make sense to abolish private schools, but until the state system is better, it seems that this would only be shooting yourself in the foot. It is important that we have available the best quality standards of education, but at the moment often this is unfortunately only available to a fraction of the population. The comprehensive school system needs a serious rethink and shake-up.
Grammar schools do still exist in certain counties of England (not Scotland) of course, and although the 11+ is no longer compulsory in these areas, the local vibe can often apply a lot of pressure so that in effect it might as well be. But I do not think getting rid of the remaining grammar schools is necessarily the answer either. For in theory, we can learn from them. While I am against education by selection - whether income OR intelligence, effort and attainment are at least linked to learning and education, whereas money really is not. So I propose as an alternative to the two-tier system: a co-educational school for all, but which is streamlined according to attainment. The teachers teaching the students in higher sets should be trained completely differently to those teaching the students in lower sets. After all, they will often require highly different skills in order to carry out their job effectively. I feel sure that this would make a difference to academic performance in state schools.
With university fees just about to be raised, this will no doubt mean that even fewer students from less privileged backgrounds will be going to university. David Willetts reassures us that there will be a boost in new apprenticeships, and that universities are, by virtue, competitive. But tens of thousands of students not being able to go to university, let alone study the subject they want to, due to cuts and higher fees? It might as well be a return to a two-tier system, with rejects being forced onto apprenticeships. And of course not everybody will be suited to or want to go to university, but my point is that they should at least have that option. And pricing people out WILL reduce perfectly able students' incentive to apply, particularly those with financial worries. Do we really want to make an even bigger ruse in the class system, perpetuating already disgustingly visible differences between rich and poor? And do we really devalue art, literature, music and humanities so much that we don't think the government should fund them very much at all? Culture keeps Britain going in times of crisis such as economic instability. Which is why I find it highly ironic that politicians don't seem to see the need for Arts degrees.
Finally, I had a conversation with a friend recently; she a former science student, me doing arts. She struggled as so many do seeing the importance and need for Arts and Humanities degrees, dismissing them as irrelevant and unhelpful to society. What I tried to express to her was that I really think they are of use, but just in such a different way to Science degrees. In fact, sometimes it seems that Sciences and Arts students are almost living in different worlds, on different planets. I really think it might be beneficial to divide universities into Science and Arts-based universities, because the disciplines are so different, and that way things can be more specialised. At the end of the day, science can save us and helps others in a very practical way. But the way I see it, with art, music and literature... what would there really be that was really so worth living for anyway?
Monday, 31 January 2011
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Labour Leadership Speculation
Well finally the day is here. In just a few hours, Labour will have a new leader, and the future of the party will be pretty much in his (or her...) hands. It is a pivitol political moment.
Not being a member of any political party, I can of course keep my objective eye on the matter and not have to worry too much about who they choose. But at the same time, I'm very interested, and curious how it is all going to turn out.
In my head, it will clearly be one of the Milibands - not that I can honestly say I've been following British politics much at all of late (the shame), but that is still my gut instinct. And as much as I remain fairly impartial to politics, having voted Labour in the last election, I do want to see a good strong leader who I think will be able to square up to Mr. Cameron appropriately. And so I admit that I fall into what seems to be the typical Labourite category, who wants one of the Milibands to win. And if I'm honest, I want it to be David.
I met Ed Miliband some months ago - or at least, observed him from across our table at Paul Blomfield's victory celebration, and I didn't think he was all that. Airy and aloof and I don't like to say it, but seeming to be very into himself, and the speech he delivered wasn't amazing either. I certainly can't say I felt inspired, or that I felt like I was watching a future prime minister, or even a future leader of the Labour Party. But then strange things can happen...
I've always had a sort of soft spot for David Miliband. Alright, so the media paint him as a hardcore Blairite, but he's not really. And even if he is, I like a lot about his personal traits and characteristics, that make him his own person, and show brilliant leader potential. Besides, Blair's charisma and powerful optimistic talk was a huge part of what brought Labour that landslide victory in '97. So maybe having a Blair associate wouldn't be such a bad thing after all, especially considering the widespread contempt for Gordon Brown, particularly outside the Labour Party.
David Miliband talks a lot about justice and fairness, and his own Jewish heritage, which he seems prouder of and to be more relevant to his identity than his younger brother. I think these things are all really important at such a worrying political era, with the rise of far-right parties such as the BNP. I also think he has more experience and would be a better contender at challenging Cameron. His public speaking skills far outshine any of the other Leadership contenders.
Ed Balls would be a hazard to Labour, and it enrages me that he thinks he can just speak out against Iraq now, when he didn't say anything about it at the time. He was clearly only doing that to win votes, and it makes me sick. He is not popular or charismatic enough to steer Labour into a favourable, vote-grabbing position. And the unfortunate truth is that charisma and rhetoric does count for an awful lot these days; I'd say more so than it used to, what with the rise in digital media and focus on physical appearance.
I don't know enough about Andy Burnham to comment really, but I think that speaks for itself. On the odd occasion I have seen him speaking, he has come across as startlingly mediocre. His ideas may be excellent, but unfortunately I have not heard too much about them, and so can comment no further.
In all honesty, I'd love to live in a society which would see Dianne Abbott get elected, and for it to be a good thing. But that isn't the world we're living in. If that happened, it would obviously be a disaster for Labour (and almost certainly a fluke!). So I'll leave it to the Milibands' mother and mark my hypothetical 'x' against her oldest son's name. Modernisation of Labour is crucial at this stage, and in less than half a day, we'll find out whether it's going to happen...
The fate of the Labour Party is in its members hands, and more specifically, pens.
Not being a member of any political party, I can of course keep my objective eye on the matter and not have to worry too much about who they choose. But at the same time, I'm very interested, and curious how it is all going to turn out.
In my head, it will clearly be one of the Milibands - not that I can honestly say I've been following British politics much at all of late (the shame), but that is still my gut instinct. And as much as I remain fairly impartial to politics, having voted Labour in the last election, I do want to see a good strong leader who I think will be able to square up to Mr. Cameron appropriately. And so I admit that I fall into what seems to be the typical Labourite category, who wants one of the Milibands to win. And if I'm honest, I want it to be David.
I met Ed Miliband some months ago - or at least, observed him from across our table at Paul Blomfield's victory celebration, and I didn't think he was all that. Airy and aloof and I don't like to say it, but seeming to be very into himself, and the speech he delivered wasn't amazing either. I certainly can't say I felt inspired, or that I felt like I was watching a future prime minister, or even a future leader of the Labour Party. But then strange things can happen...
I've always had a sort of soft spot for David Miliband. Alright, so the media paint him as a hardcore Blairite, but he's not really. And even if he is, I like a lot about his personal traits and characteristics, that make him his own person, and show brilliant leader potential. Besides, Blair's charisma and powerful optimistic talk was a huge part of what brought Labour that landslide victory in '97. So maybe having a Blair associate wouldn't be such a bad thing after all, especially considering the widespread contempt for Gordon Brown, particularly outside the Labour Party.
David Miliband talks a lot about justice and fairness, and his own Jewish heritage, which he seems prouder of and to be more relevant to his identity than his younger brother. I think these things are all really important at such a worrying political era, with the rise of far-right parties such as the BNP. I also think he has more experience and would be a better contender at challenging Cameron. His public speaking skills far outshine any of the other Leadership contenders.
Ed Balls would be a hazard to Labour, and it enrages me that he thinks he can just speak out against Iraq now, when he didn't say anything about it at the time. He was clearly only doing that to win votes, and it makes me sick. He is not popular or charismatic enough to steer Labour into a favourable, vote-grabbing position. And the unfortunate truth is that charisma and rhetoric does count for an awful lot these days; I'd say more so than it used to, what with the rise in digital media and focus on physical appearance.
I don't know enough about Andy Burnham to comment really, but I think that speaks for itself. On the odd occasion I have seen him speaking, he has come across as startlingly mediocre. His ideas may be excellent, but unfortunately I have not heard too much about them, and so can comment no further.
In all honesty, I'd love to live in a society which would see Dianne Abbott get elected, and for it to be a good thing. But that isn't the world we're living in. If that happened, it would obviously be a disaster for Labour (and almost certainly a fluke!). So I'll leave it to the Milibands' mother and mark my hypothetical 'x' against her oldest son's name. Modernisation of Labour is crucial at this stage, and in less than half a day, we'll find out whether it's going to happen...
The fate of the Labour Party is in its members hands, and more specifically, pens.
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
Education desperately needs a shake-up. But not in the way the government is doing it.
It has been announced in The Guardian today that five leading universities are already completely full on all their courses, 9 days before A level results are even published.
This news, as shocking as it may initially seem, does not really come as a surprise when the coalition government's educational amendments are taken into consideration. By slashing the September student intake by 50% - from 20, 000 spaces to 10, 000, they have effectively deprived thousands of the nation's most academically able from fulfilling their dreams.
I understand that we are not living in the healthiest economic climate - to put things rather mildly, but something strikes me as completely unfair when top-achieving students are cast off from university, yet those with lower grades can still get in. The competition for top places has now completely spiralled out of control; such is the severity of the problem that Conservative MP David Willetts has suggested that should a student not secure a place at university, then he or she should consider "starting a business" or "going for an apprenticeship."
These ideas, as well as being absolutely ridiculous and unfair, also appear completely unworkable. How is an 18 year old - most I imagine without any background in business - with a primarily academic background, supposed to simply "start her own business", as Mr. Willetts so casually puts it? Or similarly, would this same individual be confident and happy about starting an apprenticeship? It's unlikely. Because the student has spent the past two years poring over academic textbooks and working extremely hard for those top grades, in order to get to university. To rob a child of her future in such a way at the drop of the hat is frankly unfair and downright mean. Mr. Willetts is not even being practical.
The amount of pressure we are exerting on this generation of students is phenomenal. I thank my lucky stars I wasn't born 10 years later, because education, which in my opinion pretty universally stands as a sad state of affairs in Britain, has been even further messed up now. The new award of an A* grade for those achieving over 90% - designed purely to mark out the 'academic elite' to university admissions tutors is a preposterous, soul-destroying measure which crucifies any remaining scraps of genuine education left remaining. Education is now so geared up to exams and ability-obsessed that we have lost all sight of other markers of intellect and are seeming to forget that there are many different types of intelligence, not to mention qualities, that are also sought after for competitive university courses.
It's no wonder that mental health problems are on the rise in this country. The pressures of the modern world are enough without forcing young people into studying themselves into insanity -and then not even being guaranteed a place at university. It must be completely demoralising for a whole generation.
Of course, these changes have been made without serious thought - because what is such a huge factor that always seems to be overlooked is the examining boards. These can differ drastically which therefore means that a student with 90% with OCR is in no means equivalent to a student with 90% on Edexcel. How can they be, when they don't ask the same questions, or even cover the same syllabus?
My own French exam board contained no French literature. Despite the fact we had to list our examining body on our UCAS forms, when I started at the first university I attended, many staff and students alike seemed very surprised that I'd never studied any French Literature before. Consequently I seemed to struggle a lot more with the course materials than many other students; my 'A' at A level had come from discussing current affairs in France, and no textual analysis or literary criticism whatsoever. I didn't mind learning this 'on the job' as it were, because it's what I expected. But it seems that the admissions tutors themselves did not. And all the time I couldn't help but feel I was still the lucky one - because there was no way anyone could deny that an A on WJEC was easier to come across than an A on AQA. And yet, because no-one seems to know the facts about examining bodies, I didn't even need to try to deny it, because it wasn't an issue.
Perhaps a solution to the problem - as well as re-examining the examining boards process - would be to change the requirements for admissions to all universities. I broadly believe that education should be available to all, but when it comes to Higher Education, it is slightly different. You are entering into an academic institution and selected on your ability. It therefore is only fair to be upfront and honest with people and only admit people who are suitable to the degree programme. But with so many completely suitable candidates being turned away because courses are 'full up', we have to look at students entering 'lower end' institutions with 3 Ds with no problem. There does seem to be an injustice there, and it's not one that makes sense. Perhaps what we need is an approach as with the transfer from GCSEs to A levels - if you do not achieve upwards of a C grade, you simply cannot enter into an academic future. There are many other alternatives; academia is by no means 'the only way forwards'. And while I'm not as unrealistic as David Willetts and would not casually suggest setting up your own business to these people, there are indeed other things that would probably suit these students more, instead of focusing on something which does not appear to be moving them very far forwards.
Something has to be done here. The bottom line is is that things cannot continue to go on in this way, where children are forced to stay on at school until they're 18, and those who were likely to have chosen to anyway then be deprived of their envisaged future because they have not achieved 100% in an exam (but became clinically depressed trying to). The issue of exam boards really needs to be assessed, but most importantly, the most academically minded and hardest working of A level students should get what they deserve; not the other way round.
We are in the process of letting down a generation.
This news, as shocking as it may initially seem, does not really come as a surprise when the coalition government's educational amendments are taken into consideration. By slashing the September student intake by 50% - from 20, 000 spaces to 10, 000, they have effectively deprived thousands of the nation's most academically able from fulfilling their dreams.
I understand that we are not living in the healthiest economic climate - to put things rather mildly, but something strikes me as completely unfair when top-achieving students are cast off from university, yet those with lower grades can still get in. The competition for top places has now completely spiralled out of control; such is the severity of the problem that Conservative MP David Willetts has suggested that should a student not secure a place at university, then he or she should consider "starting a business" or "going for an apprenticeship."
These ideas, as well as being absolutely ridiculous and unfair, also appear completely unworkable. How is an 18 year old - most I imagine without any background in business - with a primarily academic background, supposed to simply "start her own business", as Mr. Willetts so casually puts it? Or similarly, would this same individual be confident and happy about starting an apprenticeship? It's unlikely. Because the student has spent the past two years poring over academic textbooks and working extremely hard for those top grades, in order to get to university. To rob a child of her future in such a way at the drop of the hat is frankly unfair and downright mean. Mr. Willetts is not even being practical.
The amount of pressure we are exerting on this generation of students is phenomenal. I thank my lucky stars I wasn't born 10 years later, because education, which in my opinion pretty universally stands as a sad state of affairs in Britain, has been even further messed up now. The new award of an A* grade for those achieving over 90% - designed purely to mark out the 'academic elite' to university admissions tutors is a preposterous, soul-destroying measure which crucifies any remaining scraps of genuine education left remaining. Education is now so geared up to exams and ability-obsessed that we have lost all sight of other markers of intellect and are seeming to forget that there are many different types of intelligence, not to mention qualities, that are also sought after for competitive university courses.
It's no wonder that mental health problems are on the rise in this country. The pressures of the modern world are enough without forcing young people into studying themselves into insanity -and then not even being guaranteed a place at university. It must be completely demoralising for a whole generation.
Of course, these changes have been made without serious thought - because what is such a huge factor that always seems to be overlooked is the examining boards. These can differ drastically which therefore means that a student with 90% with OCR is in no means equivalent to a student with 90% on Edexcel. How can they be, when they don't ask the same questions, or even cover the same syllabus?
My own French exam board contained no French literature. Despite the fact we had to list our examining body on our UCAS forms, when I started at the first university I attended, many staff and students alike seemed very surprised that I'd never studied any French Literature before. Consequently I seemed to struggle a lot more with the course materials than many other students; my 'A' at A level had come from discussing current affairs in France, and no textual analysis or literary criticism whatsoever. I didn't mind learning this 'on the job' as it were, because it's what I expected. But it seems that the admissions tutors themselves did not. And all the time I couldn't help but feel I was still the lucky one - because there was no way anyone could deny that an A on WJEC was easier to come across than an A on AQA. And yet, because no-one seems to know the facts about examining bodies, I didn't even need to try to deny it, because it wasn't an issue.
Perhaps a solution to the problem - as well as re-examining the examining boards process - would be to change the requirements for admissions to all universities. I broadly believe that education should be available to all, but when it comes to Higher Education, it is slightly different. You are entering into an academic institution and selected on your ability. It therefore is only fair to be upfront and honest with people and only admit people who are suitable to the degree programme. But with so many completely suitable candidates being turned away because courses are 'full up', we have to look at students entering 'lower end' institutions with 3 Ds with no problem. There does seem to be an injustice there, and it's not one that makes sense. Perhaps what we need is an approach as with the transfer from GCSEs to A levels - if you do not achieve upwards of a C grade, you simply cannot enter into an academic future. There are many other alternatives; academia is by no means 'the only way forwards'. And while I'm not as unrealistic as David Willetts and would not casually suggest setting up your own business to these people, there are indeed other things that would probably suit these students more, instead of focusing on something which does not appear to be moving them very far forwards.
Something has to be done here. The bottom line is is that things cannot continue to go on in this way, where children are forced to stay on at school until they're 18, and those who were likely to have chosen to anyway then be deprived of their envisaged future because they have not achieved 100% in an exam (but became clinically depressed trying to). The issue of exam boards really needs to be assessed, but most importantly, the most academically minded and hardest working of A level students should get what they deserve; not the other way round.
We are in the process of letting down a generation.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Gideon can get his grubby hands off Incapacity
A week since the Budget was announced, and things are looking pretty hairy (to put it lightly). Indeed, it has been described by many as "the toughest budget in decades", which can't fare well for British society by any stretch of the imagination. We were warned all along that this was going to be tough, but reassured that "we are all in it together." Pfft. Ha, bloody ha.
The cuts keep coming thick and fast, and at the moment every waking day seems to be bringing in more painfully depressing news about what important major services are going to see cuts and further unemployment. The sight of Gideon 'George' Osborne's smirking face now actually makes me nauseous.
But then what else could we expect from the ex-member of Oxford's Bullingdon Club? Sadly, little.
But I fail to see how we are "all in this together", as Mr. Cameron is intent on telling us all, time and time again, when the poorest people in society are the ones who are being affected most; who the cuts are really going to bite for, when in fact it was the richest people who got us into the mess of the recession anyway. Typical Conservative logic. Which isn't even logical.
Worst of all though, is the focus on minimising Incapacity benefit and Disability pay, and re-assessing everyone on it in the hope that at least 1 in 5 can be taken off it - which is going to take a lot of money anyway. But that's not even the point. Not everything is about economics. Mr. Osborne here is actually targetting some of the most vulnerable people in society, and making their lives stressful and worse. Terminally ill cancer patients, people with life-affecting heart conditions, the disabled, plus many more, are all to be subjected to vigorous re-assessments and possible/ probable cuts in their benefits, at a time when what we all really need is a boost in morale, and something to look forward to.
Though it may sound extreme, I think this move will go as far as to kill some people. Some of those on incapacity benefit need around-the-clock care, and a move as daring and as extreme as this is really not the kind of stress they can deal with.
It's alright for Dave & George of course, who won't even feel any of these cuts. But you could at least hope for a slice of empathy. Apparently that's out of the question too. "We're all in this together", are we? Then why are they sitting up in Westminster shining their shoes and sipping cocktails while more and more of us are becoming cash-strapped? Did we REALLY vote for this?
The cuts keep coming thick and fast, and at the moment every waking day seems to be bringing in more painfully depressing news about what important major services are going to see cuts and further unemployment. The sight of Gideon 'George' Osborne's smirking face now actually makes me nauseous.
But then what else could we expect from the ex-member of Oxford's Bullingdon Club? Sadly, little.
But I fail to see how we are "all in this together", as Mr. Cameron is intent on telling us all, time and time again, when the poorest people in society are the ones who are being affected most; who the cuts are really going to bite for, when in fact it was the richest people who got us into the mess of the recession anyway. Typical Conservative logic. Which isn't even logical.
Worst of all though, is the focus on minimising Incapacity benefit and Disability pay, and re-assessing everyone on it in the hope that at least 1 in 5 can be taken off it - which is going to take a lot of money anyway. But that's not even the point. Not everything is about economics. Mr. Osborne here is actually targetting some of the most vulnerable people in society, and making their lives stressful and worse. Terminally ill cancer patients, people with life-affecting heart conditions, the disabled, plus many more, are all to be subjected to vigorous re-assessments and possible/ probable cuts in their benefits, at a time when what we all really need is a boost in morale, and something to look forward to.
Though it may sound extreme, I think this move will go as far as to kill some people. Some of those on incapacity benefit need around-the-clock care, and a move as daring and as extreme as this is really not the kind of stress they can deal with.
It's alright for Dave & George of course, who won't even feel any of these cuts. But you could at least hope for a slice of empathy. Apparently that's out of the question too. "We're all in this together", are we? Then why are they sitting up in Westminster shining their shoes and sipping cocktails while more and more of us are becoming cash-strapped? Did we REALLY vote for this?
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Disrespect shouldn't mean 'wish for death'
Labour backbencher John McDonnell made headlines this week with his 'assassinate Thatcher' jibe. Many brushed it off as a joke, but it happens that he is no longer standing for the Labour leadership.
A joke it may have been, and as reassuring it is to realise that there are to my knowledge no aspiring, would-be murderers in the Labour party, it was a joke made in extremely poor taste.
While I do not agree with Conservative claims that it was merely a way to try to grab votes 'from the left' in his run-up to the leadership campaign - ironically he is now standing down, and John McDonnell is hardly known for 'pandering to the party' anyway - I do agree on claims that it was insensitive and just downright distasteful. Humour only works when supported by at least small undercurrents of truth, and so I think to even allude to killing anyone - no matter how much you detest their views or the way they are as a person - is extremely unsavoury and by no means a laughing matter.
The ruptuous applause and laughter that followed his comment, however, spoke volumes, and was perhaps even more worrying. What is it in British society that makes us think it's OK to joke about the loss of life? Especially when being pragmatic, taking into account that Margaret Thatcher is now a very frail old woman. Was this really an appropriate comment to make?
Unfortunately it seems that jokes about 'killing off' those we don't like is just commonplace nowadays in British society, and it's one of the many things that I find repulsive about this nation. Only a few weeks ago, I was at a political gathering and overheard jokes - well, I presume they were jokes - but they were certainly said with extreme seriousness - about wanting to shoot David Cameron. I didn't manage to hide my shock and disgust; it was a natural reflex reaction. But as I sat aghast, I couldn't help but witness the smiles and the smirks that surrounded me. I could barely believe everyone was just letting it go as a casual comment, but then I remembered what country we're in, and England's horrible 'laughing stock' culture where people are targeted to such extremes that jokes often lead to talk and speculation about issues completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the issue, such as their 'ugliness', their warped hair style, and casual chinwagging about the most appropriate and interesting way to have them slaughtered.
Perhaps I'm just oversensitive, but I don't think so. As much as you dislike a person, there is a line you can cross. In my mind it is important to always keep perspective and remember to say the things you really mean.
A joke it may have been, and as reassuring it is to realise that there are to my knowledge no aspiring, would-be murderers in the Labour party, it was a joke made in extremely poor taste.
While I do not agree with Conservative claims that it was merely a way to try to grab votes 'from the left' in his run-up to the leadership campaign - ironically he is now standing down, and John McDonnell is hardly known for 'pandering to the party' anyway - I do agree on claims that it was insensitive and just downright distasteful. Humour only works when supported by at least small undercurrents of truth, and so I think to even allude to killing anyone - no matter how much you detest their views or the way they are as a person - is extremely unsavoury and by no means a laughing matter.
The ruptuous applause and laughter that followed his comment, however, spoke volumes, and was perhaps even more worrying. What is it in British society that makes us think it's OK to joke about the loss of life? Especially when being pragmatic, taking into account that Margaret Thatcher is now a very frail old woman. Was this really an appropriate comment to make?
Unfortunately it seems that jokes about 'killing off' those we don't like is just commonplace nowadays in British society, and it's one of the many things that I find repulsive about this nation. Only a few weeks ago, I was at a political gathering and overheard jokes - well, I presume they were jokes - but they were certainly said with extreme seriousness - about wanting to shoot David Cameron. I didn't manage to hide my shock and disgust; it was a natural reflex reaction. But as I sat aghast, I couldn't help but witness the smiles and the smirks that surrounded me. I could barely believe everyone was just letting it go as a casual comment, but then I remembered what country we're in, and England's horrible 'laughing stock' culture where people are targeted to such extremes that jokes often lead to talk and speculation about issues completely arbitrary and irrelevant to the issue, such as their 'ugliness', their warped hair style, and casual chinwagging about the most appropriate and interesting way to have them slaughtered.
Perhaps I'm just oversensitive, but I don't think so. As much as you dislike a person, there is a line you can cross. In my mind it is important to always keep perspective and remember to say the things you really mean.
Friday, 4 June 2010
The loss of millions (of lives) is the greater expense.
If you didn't read the bit in brackets, what would you expect this blog entry to be about? I suppose the abstract, figurative association of 'expense' collocates nicely with the idea of money anyway, so it isn't an entirely fair question. But I still think it highlights an important point: Britain is obsessed with dosh.
Sometimes I get a little tired with this country's obsession with money. No doubt many will see (or WOULD see, if 'many' people actually read this blog!) this entry as naive and ill-informed, but I think such critics would be missing the point.
While the expenses scandal is obviously important and needed to be discussed, I think the past tense of 'need' should really be noted here. We've had discussion after discussion about this and they have led to many new laws in parliament to stop such a thing from happening again. It's not as if it's been treated lightly.
But I have heard so much about it that I am almost sick of it now. I think things like this clearly show a huge loss of perspective, and this saddens me deeply.
The revelation of David Laws' so-called shady activities and expenses claims have brought the issue back into the spotlight this past week (as if they ever went away). But they miss the point. I completely agree with Times columnist Matthew Parris that the issue here is not about money; David Laws clearly wasn't doing this for money - it was purely because he wanted to hide his homosexual relationship, and I think the whole thing is really quite tragic.
It angers me that this is so normal; so common-place in our society, that whenever there's a story or a scandal that involves money, that is what is generally perceived as the key issue, no matter what. And it is really for that reason that I am sick of hearing about expenses. Because that is one of the few cases which really is about money, and yet the ongoing row over it is only causing people to confuse its issues even more with other stories which are completely irrelevant to finance and expense.
But then that is not even really the point of this blog entry. What I wanted to highlight was how people lose all sense of perspective. The expenses scandal was awful, and give politicians a bad name. But as bad a name as they should earn for murdering millions in Iraq? For taking human lives away? Come on. We need to remember the issues that REALLY matter; the issues that TRULY *destroy* lives. While we sit and bitch and moan about 'thieving' politicians, the same MURDERER politicians are supporting a barbaric war in Iraq. The expenses scandal was awful and embarrassing and rightly lost politicians a lot of trust. But it WAS about money. You know, that empty medium that buys us material things but has no value in itself. It is an ideological concept. It's a vacant substance; it's only money, for Christ's sake.
The bottom line is that we should think about what matters to us more, really; losing millions of pounds or losing millions of lives.
Britain is an extremely self-centred nation to live in at times.
Sometimes I get a little tired with this country's obsession with money. No doubt many will see (or WOULD see, if 'many' people actually read this blog!) this entry as naive and ill-informed, but I think such critics would be missing the point.
While the expenses scandal is obviously important and needed to be discussed, I think the past tense of 'need' should really be noted here. We've had discussion after discussion about this and they have led to many new laws in parliament to stop such a thing from happening again. It's not as if it's been treated lightly.
But I have heard so much about it that I am almost sick of it now. I think things like this clearly show a huge loss of perspective, and this saddens me deeply.
The revelation of David Laws' so-called shady activities and expenses claims have brought the issue back into the spotlight this past week (as if they ever went away). But they miss the point. I completely agree with Times columnist Matthew Parris that the issue here is not about money; David Laws clearly wasn't doing this for money - it was purely because he wanted to hide his homosexual relationship, and I think the whole thing is really quite tragic.
It angers me that this is so normal; so common-place in our society, that whenever there's a story or a scandal that involves money, that is what is generally perceived as the key issue, no matter what. And it is really for that reason that I am sick of hearing about expenses. Because that is one of the few cases which really is about money, and yet the ongoing row over it is only causing people to confuse its issues even more with other stories which are completely irrelevant to finance and expense.
But then that is not even really the point of this blog entry. What I wanted to highlight was how people lose all sense of perspective. The expenses scandal was awful, and give politicians a bad name. But as bad a name as they should earn for murdering millions in Iraq? For taking human lives away? Come on. We need to remember the issues that REALLY matter; the issues that TRULY *destroy* lives. While we sit and bitch and moan about 'thieving' politicians, the same MURDERER politicians are supporting a barbaric war in Iraq. The expenses scandal was awful and embarrassing and rightly lost politicians a lot of trust. But it WAS about money. You know, that empty medium that buys us material things but has no value in itself. It is an ideological concept. It's a vacant substance; it's only money, for Christ's sake.
The bottom line is that we should think about what matters to us more, really; losing millions of pounds or losing millions of lives.
Britain is an extremely self-centred nation to live in at times.
Friday, 21 May 2010
My Moment of the Week
Thrilled as I am to hear that Diane Abbott is standing for Labour party leader, not having witnessed the announcement first-hand as of yet, I am unable to deem it as my moment of the week. But it sounds truly inspirational. I am both proud and happy that someone has stood up to what she sees as a bad thing, and dived in to make a difference.
But my personal political moment of the week has to be the response that Andrew Neil gave to Michael Portillo on This Week when discussing Diane's shock leadership bid - his own moment of the week (and yes, that's where I stole the idea from). Michael Portillo said 'we both went to the modest schools of Harrow School for Boys and Harrow School for Girls'. It was at this point that Andrew Neil pointed out, "I'm sorry, but these are not modest schools, they are elite, highly selective grammar schools" which left Michael a bit stuck for things to say. I could have applauded him for making this point, for it is what I want to say to every person I meet who went to a plush, competitive grammar school and talks about it like it's the 'norm.' Even these days, when we have seen a huge rise in children attending private schools (probably due to the dissolution of the grammar school system, in all fairness), it annoys me to hear grammar school kids talking about their 'modest' schooling. But for Portillo, a product of the 11+ system of the '50s, to sit there and say it, I feel is ludicrous. The grammar schools were for the creme de la creme of the population; only a small minority actually got into them - in a sense you could even analogise them to how it is with grammar/ comprehensives v. public/ private schools now. So for him to make this statement I feel was not really saying much, especially considering the fact that the two Milibands went to a substandard comprehensive (albeit in the post-grammar school era).
It was a point well made by Andrew Neil, and for that, I highly commend him. I believe the dissolution of the grammar school system was a good thing and caused and still CAUSES a rift between people and exacerbates social divisions on the grounds of perceived 'intelligence.' You only had to watch this week's 'This Week' to see that the rift is still strong between that generation, with the remark of 'Well, I don't know that technical phrase Diane, but then I didn't go to a grammar school' by one of the guests. A wounded response, maybe, but a fair and valid point all the same: these highly elite, selective schools divided society. I am eva thankful to the Labour government that we no longer have the compulsory 11+ exam which pretty much decided for you your station in life, as well as how much self-esteem you'd have to gear you through it.
And I am thankful to Andrew Neil for highlighting the inaccuracy of Michael Portillo's point, on a purely factual basis. It was something that was screaming to be said, and I am glad that for once, somebody involved heard its call.
But my personal political moment of the week has to be the response that Andrew Neil gave to Michael Portillo on This Week when discussing Diane's shock leadership bid - his own moment of the week (and yes, that's where I stole the idea from). Michael Portillo said 'we both went to the modest schools of Harrow School for Boys and Harrow School for Girls'. It was at this point that Andrew Neil pointed out, "I'm sorry, but these are not modest schools, they are elite, highly selective grammar schools" which left Michael a bit stuck for things to say. I could have applauded him for making this point, for it is what I want to say to every person I meet who went to a plush, competitive grammar school and talks about it like it's the 'norm.' Even these days, when we have seen a huge rise in children attending private schools (probably due to the dissolution of the grammar school system, in all fairness), it annoys me to hear grammar school kids talking about their 'modest' schooling. But for Portillo, a product of the 11+ system of the '50s, to sit there and say it, I feel is ludicrous. The grammar schools were for the creme de la creme of the population; only a small minority actually got into them - in a sense you could even analogise them to how it is with grammar/ comprehensives v. public/ private schools now. So for him to make this statement I feel was not really saying much, especially considering the fact that the two Milibands went to a substandard comprehensive (albeit in the post-grammar school era).
It was a point well made by Andrew Neil, and for that, I highly commend him. I believe the dissolution of the grammar school system was a good thing and caused and still CAUSES a rift between people and exacerbates social divisions on the grounds of perceived 'intelligence.' You only had to watch this week's 'This Week' to see that the rift is still strong between that generation, with the remark of 'Well, I don't know that technical phrase Diane, but then I didn't go to a grammar school' by one of the guests. A wounded response, maybe, but a fair and valid point all the same: these highly elite, selective schools divided society. I am eva thankful to the Labour government that we no longer have the compulsory 11+ exam which pretty much decided for you your station in life, as well as how much self-esteem you'd have to gear you through it.
And I am thankful to Andrew Neil for highlighting the inaccuracy of Michael Portillo's point, on a purely factual basis. It was something that was screaming to be said, and I am glad that for once, somebody involved heard its call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)