I was a tad bored last evening, and, while flipping throught the channels, found that a QT Special was on, with Boris Johnson and Jimmy Carr on the panel. So I thought I’d watch.
It was a special because it was being produced by school kids, with a corresponding slant towards all issues “yoof” and student. Hence having a hip, hot’n’happenin’ comedian and the current NUS President on the panel. I thought I’d post a couple of things that struck me, because it’s my blog, and I can.
One: Jimmy Carr wasn’t funny. He was going on about how he wants more and more people to go to uni, because they’ll help him in his old age. Sorry, Jimmy, but I sure as shit don’t want graduates to look after me in my old age, I want people who know what they’re doing. The two aren’t necessarily related. Also, a degree is supposed to set the holder apart from the rest; if 50% or 60% of the population has one, then there isn’t a whole hell of a lot of point to the whole exercise, except to provide 3 or 4 years of subsidised drinking. Which is nice, yes, but not, on the whole, good value for money.
Two: Boris Johnson answered the above well: we need people who can do, rather than people who have a certificate. Boris rocks.
Three: The NUS President is a whiny wench. Apparently
Labour will be fighting for their seats at the general election because of the introduction of top-up fees.
Nah, if they’re fighting for seats, it’ll be because of the higher taxes, a percieved lack of improvement in the public sector, higher taxes, and Iraq. Top-up fees aren’t in the top 10 for the vast majority of people.
Four (and the main annoyance): Yon *spit* Liberal Democrat *spit* person said, basicially, that it was a disgrace that she was, at 30, the youngest MP, that there should be people in their 20’s in parliament, and that the vote should be given to people at 16.
My reply is in two parts, simple and long winded.
Simple: So what, no there shouldn’t, and FUCK NO!
Long winded: I have this idea that people who have the power of MPs should have some experience behind them of life. Most MPs (especially the newer breed) are university educated, and thus sheltered from real life until they’re 22 or so. Eight years of life in the real world isn’t a lot to have the level of responsibility that they’d be given if elected. I like the US rule (ie, the constitutional requirement) that a person must be of a certain age before representing at a national level. These levels are 25 (House of Representatives), 30 (Senate) and 35 (POTUS), and these levels were set 200 years ago when people lived less and learned quicker. I’d say 30 should be the absolute minimum for someone in parliament.
And giving 16 year olds the vote is going to make voter fatigue hit earlier, and it’s going to politicise issues that 16 year olds hold dear. Which changes with every issue of Smash-fuckin’-Hits. For the love of God, please don’t give Smash-fuckin’-Hits that kind of power.
That is all.
Plus, in their naivety (sp?), they would vote for stuff they didn’t really know anything about. It’s great when you’re 16 and you think you can solve the worlds problems, but the fact is that you can’t. I never thought I’d say this but there is one thing worse than not voting: voting for the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
[…] Sorry, blogging is evil Bad ideas, revisited A good while ago, I mentioned that I was less than enthralled by the movement to give 16 year olds the vote. Why? Because kids […]
Pingback: I didn’t quite catch that… » Oh, Gawd, don’t let them near it