No Funding For Stupid Students

There has been much discussion recently as to how the Con-Dem coalition should handle student debt. The debate is largely between higher tuition fees and a graduate tax.

As far as I’m concerned both suggestions justify an instant face-palm.

The future of this country is dependent on well-educated young individuals to be our doctors, scientists, solicitors, politicians… (Okay, that last one is debatable).
Surely it is in our best interest, and the best interest of future generations, for our best and brightest to be awarded the opportunity to learn and acquire the skills in order to do these jobs? Jobs that we as a nation rely upon?

Certainly.

Why then, should we exect these students to pay through their noses to do so, when ultimately it is Britain that benefits rather than merely the graduates.

It is not about the quantity of students that we need to worry about funding, but the quality.

Rather than subscribe to the New Labour notion of putting everybody through University, why are we not funding only those who’ll repay their debt ten-fold through invaluable service to this country?

In Layman’s terms, careers in beauty therapy are not an invaluable service. Careers in teaching are.

Courses such as English, Philosophy, Economics, History, Medicine, Politics; courses that lead onto crucial careers, should be free for students seeking to persue a career in aforementioned services. Not only would this measure regenerate an interest in these traditional and vital subjects which are becoming increasingly less popular year after year, but a rigorous admissions policy admitting only the very brightest students into these courses would ensure that they would not be swamped by any Tom, Dick or Harry. A more refined suggestion would be that such subjects are publicly funded when they are to be studied at the top Universities.

“Leisure” courses such as Advertising Design (for heaven’s sake…), Asian Cinema, Leasure and Tourism Management, etc. should be privately funded for obvious reasons.

R.I.P. Michael Keith Smith

It is my deepest regret to inform you of of the passing of Michael Keith Smith on the 3rd of July 2010.

Born in 1953, Smith was the founder and Chairman of the (now defunct) Conservative Democratic Alliance (CDA) as well as a member of the Conservative Monday Club‘s Executive Council.

He was expelled from the Conservative Party in 2002 for bravely proposing three motions at the CDA’s AGM: to reaffirm the Club’s opposition to mass immigration, to empower Club officers to take legal action against the Conservative Party and called fort eh sacking of John Bercow, former Monday Club member, for “hypocrisy”.
Smith also threatened to stand CDA candidates against the Conservatives. Following legal action, Smith’s membership was reinstated but Iain Duncan Smith was heard to state he “had plans to make the Conservative Democratic Alliance a proscribed organisation”.

He was one of the top-table guests at the Traditional Britain Dinner held at Simpson’s-in-the-Strand on 7 November 2003.

Michael Smith soon left the Tories to join the UK Independence Party and stood as UKIP’s parliamentary candidate for Portsmouth North.

He died aged 57.

Why the Alternative Vote is Pointless

For any of you hoping that with the promised referendum on First Past The Post we will be able to look forward to a more proportional voting system – think again.

AV works in such a way that constituents rank their candidates according to preference – 1,2,3 etc. (an excellent way to further confuse the electorate). A candidate that get’s more than 50% of the vote becomes and MP. if not, those with the fewest numbers of 1st votes are eliminated and the votes redistributed until one candidate has a majority.

Now, statistics show that an Alternative Vote would be hardly more proportional than our current system. Indeed, the only parties that would benefit (albeit barely) are the Liberal Democrats and even less so, Labour. Smaller parties such as the UK Independence Party, Green Party, British National Party etc., etc. are not set to make any gains from such a system whatsoever, as the tables/graphs below show:

As one can see, under AV the Conservative Party would lose several seats (explaining why Cammy ain’t keen) with slight gains for Labour and Lib Dems. The number of seats for other parties (based on votes from the May 2010 election) would remain the same.

It may be beneficial for those truly in favour of a more proportional voting system to – if we do indeed get a referendum on the issue – scribble ‘STV’ on their ballots. Currently we are faced with a choice between a rock and a pebble.

Waycism From Prospective Labour Leader?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Now, we’re all familiar with politicians skirting round difficult questions put to them by those pesky interviewers and members of the public, but sometimes, just sometimes there’s nothing they can say to hoist themselves out of one of the many holes they’ve dug ‘emselves into – and it’s at times like that when we can really lie back and enjoy a good laugh!
That is of course, before we remember that these are the people who pull the strings in our lives…

During last week’s ‘This Week’ we saw an utterly cringeworthy performance by that sea-urchin Diane Abbott when Andrew Neil grilled her regarding her expenses (yes, that again!) and apparent racism. Shock, horror!

Yup, the Labour MP and Party leadership contestant was heard to say that “West Indian mothers would go to the wall for their children” – obviously quite unlike British, Italian, Chinese, Pakistani etc. mothers.
Apparently she had “nothing more to say” on the matter when dear old Mr Neil gently yet consistatly probed the matter.

Now, PoliticsJunky has absolutely nothing against anything un-politically correct, but just think, Ladies and Gents, that if, as Mr Neil pointed out, Michael Portillo had gone and said something so frightfully near the mark (by todays unfortunate standards of course) he’d surely be up against the wall! Facing a PC firing squad rather than a board of education, mind.

Anyway folks, have a watch of the clip for yourselves. Go on, you deserve a giggle after that pun…

Where To Begin…

The purpose of this blog, really, is to report on, revel in and ridicule current events, mostly of the political variety.

If you’re easily offended – do not read.
If you’re adverse to tongue-in-cheek humour – do not read.
If you’re uncomfortable with un-PC articles – do not read.
If you have some sort of problem with the unrestrained use of  free speech – do not read.

If you are none of the above – do have a gander.