The English language is great, but...
There are some times when people just say completely the wrong thing. This can often have unintended consequences. I will explain this in more detail when I give specific examples. It is normally because the person has used an entirely inappropriate word for the situation but can also be down to a misunderstanding.
The first of these problems can be best explained by a time when I wasn't exactly thinking rationally. I would have been alright with being accused of being irrational as that was true. However, I was accused of being deluded. This made me think that those accusing me were not aware that I knew exactly what I was doing, was perfectly capable of making an informed decision, and was completely in acceptance of the consequences of said decision. I was actually perfectly competent in the whole decision making process so it offended me that I got accused of being deluded by those I was with. The choice of words was really not appropriate considering that this was at one of the lowest points of my life (hence the lack of rationality).
The second of these problems can be best explained by two separate things I was told when I tried to switch courses. A friend even informs me that one of these, if interpreted as I did, is a form of discrimination. I have, however, had quite an insight into the world of academics and I do not like what I have seen.
When I had the flu, about half way through term 2, my personal tutor decided to help me with my course switch by negotiating with the politics department that I could drop out for the rest of the year to regain my health. She forwarded the reply to me to keep me updated on how the negotiation was going. One sentence really stood out above all the rest - "we do not accept transfers on welfare grounds". Keep that in mind as it will come in again later after I have explained the potential discrimination.
This was earlier than when I was informed that welfare is not a valid reason to switch courses (when, in my mind, it is a very good reason). I was speaking to the department when I was informed that I could transfer in October if I passed my first year. That was not all I had to do though. I was informed that I could not transfer if I was depressed. I wasn't so informed them of this straight away. I quickly worked out that the reason for this policy was mainly to make the department look good and not so much for the welfare of the students. I may have completely misinterpreted this but I understood the policy of not allowing people to transfer if they were depressed as "we don't want anyone in our department if they're going to kill themselves within the first week of their course because it looks bad for the department".
Since applying to transfer, I have come to the conclusion that
the politics department do not have a conscience. I see it as though (and this is purely from interpretation of what I have been told this year) they see us as merely statistics and not so much as people. If someone had hit rock bottom on a course that they really hated and their only hope was switching to politics, I know I would not be able to stick to depart
mental policy. How could anyone live with themselves having turned this person away (as my interpretation of the politics department's admissions policy would suggest would happen in this situation)?
I guess it's a bit worrying that I still want to study in this department. They do not seem concerned about welfare to me. Originally, my transfer wasn't so much about welfare issues, just that I hated my course and it was making me miserable. This has since put me through hell and I did get to the point where being able to study something I was passionate about from October was pretty much all I had left to live for. I feel that if I had left it any later before I decided to switch then one of the two issues (either that I wanted to switch on welfare grounds or that my original course had made me depressed) would have meant that I would not have been able to switch courses and would have dropped out completely and
ended up working in McDonalds.
I guess I'm just glad that I didn't take any of this too seriously. I've interpreted all these times that someone has said completely the wrong thing to me and been offended by the meanings but I know that there is normally a reason for such a breakdown in communication.
I've only gone and done it!
Yes, I've dropped out of uni and am nearly done with all things maths and physics. There is only one more thing that I need to do and that is contact the student finance people. I am so happy! I hope to stay in the area but don't yet know how likely that will be.
My application to study politics is nearly finished now and that will be yet another thing off my mind once that is done. All this is so liberating. It may have taken a long time but things are finally starting to fall into place. It just feels so good. So good, in fact, that I want to act like a complete idiot by yelling random comments at the top of my voice.
I may hate evangelism but there are some times when I just feel the need to tell the world that God loves me.
Sometimes things are just meant to happen
As
I mentioned earlier today, I have been battling with some pretty serious personal issues over the last week or so. In fact, I have had many issues to deal with for most of this year. It was only in March that I realised that there was a problem that needed sorting. I hope you will understand that I do not wish to disclose any further information as this is something I will have to deal with in my own time and way. I just wanted to use this as an introduction to a post about my religious beliefs.
I've believed in fate for as long as I've believed in God. I've put many of my experiences down to fate. For example, I believe that I was not destined to study maths and physics and so decided to drop out of the course and switch to politics. I believe that if something was meant to happen then it will happen. How we get there, however, is not so well defined.
I am about to take over as prayer secretary for Christian Focus. This role includes a bit of spiritual guidance for those who need it. I believe that events since the beginning of March happened as they did to help prepare me to use this role for God's glory. My faith is really being tested to the limit right now and I will confess that it has not been easy. I gave in to temptation once and very nearly did another time. Yesterday, it was prayer that helped me to resist temptation and carry on as things were. I feel that someone might be coming to me at some point with a very similar problem, needing spiritual guidance. It might be that I will be better equipped to help this theoretical person having been through hell myself.
In a conversation last night, I explained what I was going through to another Christian. He told me that he thought there were 2 different types of Christians - the 'happy clappy evangelicals' who spread the Word but don't seem to have too many problems, and those who seem to have their faith constantly tested. Both of us fell into the latter category and as such he knew exactly where I was coming from. He helped me to see that I could work for God's glory and not have to give in to any kind of temptation. He helped me to see that I would come out of this situation as a much better person with much stronger faith.
I just get the feeling that some things were just meant to happen and that we should not get too concerned by the situations we end up in as, with God's help, anyone can get out of any dodgy situation. Having been there, I know how difficult it is and how easy I thought it would be to just give up but I also know that it is possible to get out of even the worst of situations.
Pros and cons of proportional representation
I
posted an article that I had written for the student newspaper at Warwick onto this blog a while ago. That is probably
what has attracted so many dropouts to my blog. That article did not get published, I believe because I had been a little too controversial.
I submitted another article that was inspired by an article someone had written about Angela Merkel. I thought that this article was much less controversial - after all, it was only an argument against proportional representation - than the previous one but this article also wasn't published. I have, however, decided to publish it on my blog.
Reading Sam Hancock’s article, ‘In the Lair of the Leitwolf’, in February 27th’s edition of the Boar inspired me to write an article commenting on the pros and cons of proportional representation. I remember the backroom deals mentioned in the first paragraph and how it seemed to take forever for Germany to form a government following their last election. In fact, I often use Germany as an example to explain why I do not support proportional representation and would rather that Britain stuck with first past the post.
At least as far back as 1997, moving towards a more proportional electoral system has been an issue in this country. Labour promised they would look into the possibility of adopting proportional representation in their 1997 election manifesto: ‘We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.’ The Lib Dems are keen supporters and the Conservatives are strong opponents of such a move.
I am not denying that there are some reasons why proportional representation could be a good idea. I live in one of the safest constituencies in the country. One person will never be able to even dent a majority of 19,000 votes. I do feel that my vote doesn’t actually count. I often think “why, therefore, did I spend half an hour of my time on a Thursday evening about three weeks before the start of my A-levels to vote?” when that time would have definitely been better spent revising. At least with proportional representation, every vote counts. The entire election would not be decided on the votes of a few thousand people (out of an electorate of approximately 45 million) living in a few key marginals.
An example often given by advocates of proportional representation is that, at the last election, more people in England voted Conservative than Labour but Labour have more English MP’s than the Conservatives. Situations like this would not happen under proportional representation. Advocates of first past the post say that this situation was caused by unevenly sized constituencies and can be easily solved by redrawing the boundaries.
There is no point in denying that proportional representation would mean that previously unrepresented minority parties could find themselves with a seat in Parliament. This can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who you are talking about. I am sure that nobody would object to the presence of a Green Party MP but even the thought of the BNP getting elected to Parliament would make most people cringe. I, for one, am yet to meet anyone who has anything good to say about the BNP, yet people still vote for them. There is a real possibility of extremists getting elected to Parliament if Britain switches to proportional representation.
To me, an important and perhaps the most important fundamental principle of democracy is that the average person on the street gets to choose who should run their country. A list system of proportional representation, as used in the European elections, hands over too much control to party headquarters and away from the voters. This means that our elected representatives are no longer accountable to the electorate, of whom only a tiny percentage are members of any political party. Even though I am a grass roots member of a political party, I feel far more disenfranchised by proportional representation than I do by first past the post. The thought of there being a small committee of only a few people deciding who should be in Parliament scares me.
In my opinion, proportional representation should actually be called proportional voting as there is no representation involved. One of the best parts of the first past the post system is the link between an MP and their constituency. This link would be lost with proportional representation. The constituency link is important because it means that it is easier for the people to know who their MP is and therefore be able to contact them. Representation would be lost if the constituency link was lost.
It is not only a lack of representation that would frustrate me about a Parliament elected by proportional representation but also the ineffectiveness of any government when compared to a Parliament elected under first past the post. Constant minority governments and coalition governments would mean that any legislation that is passed will end up watered down and far more legislation would not be passed.
The last time that Britain failed to elect a majority government was in February 1974. Less than eight months later the then prime minister, Harold Wilson, went back to the country in the second general election of that year. First past the post almost always produces a government with a workable majority – in the last 100 years there have only been six times (January 1910, December 1910, 1923, 1929, 1951, February 1974) that we have failed to elect a majority government out of twenty six general elections in the same period of time. Proportional representation, however, almost always produces no overall majority. Advocates of proportional representation may say that, in 2005, 34% of the vote somehow gave us 55% of the MP’s – the lowest proportion of the vote for any single party majority government in British history – but I would rather that than a government made up of 34% of the MP’s.
Trying to forge a coalition can be a lengthy process. It requires compromise from all sides involved. Incompatible manifesto promises are ignored and in the end we do not get the government that we voted for. All this goes on behind closed doors as every MP battles for their place in the government. It is likely that under proportional representation it will be the Lib Dems who are constantly in power as they are small enough that they won’t be fighting with their opponents but large enough that they could create a majority coalition. Whoever can form this coalition with the Lib Dems will form the rest of the government, regardless of how we voted. In my opinion, this is not a democratic solution.
I fear that it might not be too long before introducing proportional representation in Parliamentary elections is brought to the top of the agenda. There have always been supporters who have been ranting about such an idea in their free time but I have heard that the chances of the next election resulting in a hung Parliament are quite high. The Lib Dems will form their coalition with whomever they choose and introduce proportional representation. No future British government will have a workable majority and the resultant weak legislation will make the people on the streets want to return to first past the post and majority governments formed on the back of 34% of the vote. First past the post is by no means perfect and is in great need of reform but it is the best system we have.
I did quite a bit of research before putting together this article so I hope it was better than the previous one (which was pure opinion).
It's been a while
Well, I've had some pretty major issues to deal with recently. It just didn't seem appropriate to blog when things were as they were. You haven't missed that much though - just the fact that I am still angry with student politics and still trying to sort out the admin regarding dropping out of uni. I still haven't found out the results of the committee elections that were last week and the referendum didn't even come close to quorum - though the fact that I did not see any publicity until the last day of voting may have had something to do with this.
On a slightly different rant (and what I actually wanted to post today), there seems to be a bit of a them with how people come to my blog. It is supposed to be predominantly political but has included a lot of personal issues - most notably my realisation that I am on the wrong course and that I have decided to drop out and reapply to study politics. I regularly check
MyBlogLog to see how people are reaching my blog. It is normally a mixture of Facebook and Google with a few links on other blogs. The most occurring Google search that reaches this blog is anything remotely along the lines of dropping out of uni. I seem to be attracting all the dropouts. I don't mind that this is the case but please be aware that this is a blog and not an advice site. I can only speak from my personal experience which hasn't actually been too bad as my friends have been able to offer loads of support.
Getting annoyed with student politics
I really am. I spent all of yesterday stressing out about getting back to Coventry in time to stand in an election that I never realised was online. I had been ill over the weekend so never got around to submitting a manifesto which is more than likely going to go against me. Anyone who doesn't recognise my name will think "oh, she couldn't be bothered to submit a manifesto so why should I vote for her." There was another election that I was planning to stand in but somehow my nomination got lost. I decided to stand in week 6 but the meeting was inquorate so all business was postponed until week 9. Nominations from week 6, however, were not carried forward to week 9. I definitely don't have a chance of being on the officer team now. My chances of being on the committee I am standing for are also very slim. I'm going to have too much free time next year. I just hope that my exec positions (and essays, of course!) take up a good amount of time. I'm so annoyed. Oh, and to top it all off, referenda publicity is almost non-existent. What on earth do the proposers think they are doing when last term's referenda were inquorate. At least I wasn't too ill to vote though.
Sorry about that really annoying rant, it was just something I had to get off my chest.
So we're to have an elected House of Lords
Why???
What is the point?
OK, I might have controversial views on this topic but I believe that an elected Lords is
bad for democracy. It will mean that the Lords just rubber stamp any bills passed in the Commons rather than scrutinising them and keep sending them back if they are rubbish. This is because if Labour (for example as they are currently in government) have a majority in the Commons then they are more than likely to have a majority in the Lords.
This is not the only reason that I am so against an elected Lords. I think that we have too many elections as it is and cannot see myself wanting to vote in yet another election, despite being someone who thinks that voting is really important.
Personally, I think the hereditary system was the best. It may not have been perfect but at least it worked.
Phrases I hate
Over the last few days in the
Telegraph there has been a list of words and phrases that readers really hate. This has inspired me to make my own list of some words and phrases that I hate.
Positive discrimination - surely discrimination, by definition, is negative.
Liberal Conservative - I may be one of these but surely you can be either Liberal or Conservative and not both.
The government will pay X amount of money for X - errm, no, we will.
Democratically elected - surely the word "democratically" is superfluous to requirement.
Actually - I use it all the time but I find it so annoying.
Oh my God - sorry, I had to put that one in but as a Christian I hate when people use the Lord's name in vain.
Prospective Parliamentary candidate - considering you only become a PPC when you are actually standing, what on earth is the point of adding "prospective" here?
You're entitled to your opinion but... - roughly translates as "you're wrong and I know better than you".
Thinking outside the box - what on earth is that supposed to mean?
Blue sky thinking - I'd rather think with my brain than the sky.
I actually hate 99.99...% of corporate jargon. Please, please, please speak in plain English.
The social stigma of dropping out
This is an article that I decided to write for the Warwick Boar, our student newspaper at Warwick. It is because I have decided to drop out of the maths and physics course I was studying until about a week ago. I have ambitions that I hope I can still achieve and disagree with what I see as a social stigma against those who made a mistake when they were 17 or 18. I really hope that it is just a misconception of the situation.
It may be controversial me suggesting that drop outs are not necessarily destined to end up as social rejects but here goes.
I have decided to write about this topic following my own personal experience. I started a maths and physics degree last October with great expectations. I soon, however, realised that these were never going to be fulfilled. Over the course of my gap year and the first few weeks of last term I had discovered that I was more interested in politics than either maths or physics.
I started off happy with the arrangement that I would study what was considered by society as a “useful” subject whilst getting involved in politics in my free time. By about half way through last term, however, politics had taken over my life at the expense of my degree. I tried to continue as I had started out at the beginning of the term but I couldn’t escape from the lure of more political involvement. By now I was an active member of Union Council and I was also an active member of Warwick Conservatives. My political involvement was increasing whilst my attendance at lectures was decreasing.
It took another three weeks or so before I got the courage to consider switching courses. I was no longer enjoying the maths and physics course and knew that I didn’t want to be spending the next three years as I had spent the previous three weeks.
I spoke to my personal tutor first, then Advice and Welfare. That same day I sent an email to the economics department applying for a transfer to economics, politics and international studies. This application was rejected in January so I had to spend quite a bit of time reconsidering my options. I had never considered that I could end up dropping out of uni but this was now becoming a real possibility. I did not want to end up being a social reject. I was worried how my parents would react and also that I would end up spending the rest of my life in McDonalds and coming home smelling of chip fat. That was not the life I wanted.
Thankfully, things started to look up. I got a transfer to study politics and international studies if I passed the year. Then I went down with a nasty case of the flu and missed three weeks of lectures as a result. I returned to health in time for the Union elections but, as a candidate, I put far more priority on my campaign than I did on attending lectures. The following week I was back in bed with yet another bug. I was now advised that I should drop out and reapply for the politics course that I really wanted to do.
This was the course of action that I went for. I could have ended up reasonably high on the social ladder but I had dropped out of uni. The stigma of being a drop out was going to go against me. I hope one day to stand for Parliament but bad decisions I made as a teenager might work against me if they ever become known by my potential constituents.
Perhaps controversially, I do not believe that there should be any social stigma attached to dropping out. I do not believe that making a bad decision when you are seventeen or eighteen should count against you for the rest of your life. I am going to make it right to the top of the social ladder. One day I will be helping to run this country. I know that I have done the right thing. Why should I aim for lower aspirations just because I made a mistake and wanted to put it right? I want to say to my potential constituents on the day before the election:
“My name is Kerri Parish and I am your Conservative candidate for Parliament. I have made some bad decisions in the past but I put them right. It is true that I dropped out of uni half way through my first year but that was because the course I was studying was not right for me. I went back and gained a good degree and really enjoyed it. This experience does not make me any worse of a person. It has helped me to realise how committed I am to representing you all in Parliament because no longer will I take any important decisions lightly.”
Now that, in my opinion, is a good election speech!
This is an opinion piece so I might have got some facts wrong but I really do want to be honest about my past when I eventually get round to standing for Parliament. I don't want to end up feeling that it is better to just pretend that this year didn't happen. It was one of the most important years in shaping my future plans. It is because of this year that I know what I want to do, both now and in the distant future.
