Via Iain Dale (who is somewhat scathing), I have come across this very wonderful Daily Mirror column by young Fiona Phillips, in which she lays out her vision for the world. Are you interested to know what it might be? You are? Excellent. Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin...
My Dear readers, as you may know I am in high demand in high places.
As a high-class hooker? You've got that look about you...
Having already been offered a health minister's job by our Prime Minister which, because I have two very young children, I felt I could not accept, another offer has come in.
You know the other, more important reason why you should not accept that job, Fiona? It's because you have no democratic legitimacy: no one elected you, no one has ever elected you. If you want power over others, you damn well stand in front of them and ask them whether they want you.
On Wednesday, while having his make-up done at GMTV, the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne chuckled: "So if we pay you more will you come and work for us?"
"Er no, I replied, it's not about money."
Oh, what a principled little woman, you are...
"Ok, we'll make you a Duchess instead of a Baroness then."
No dice George. He clearly has no regard whatsoever for my very own 10-point manifesto for a Better Britain, which, readers, I want to share exclusively with you...
Fuck me, I really can't wait. But before we begin, I should point out that Fiona's 10 Point Plan for a Better Britain is a strange thing; some of it is evidently tongue-in-cheek, some of it not. If you feel that I have missed where something is, in fact, a joke, do feel free to point it out to me.
In the meantime, I'll go with my judgement as we enter... [drum roll]... Fiona's Better Britain!
My 10-point manifesto to make us great
Oh, don't, Fiona: the tension's killing me!
- EXTRADITE Jose Mourinho from Portugal and force him to manage the England team, while boarding at my house (rent free).
Obviously tongue-in-cheek this one; I don't know how we could force him to manage the England team. However, Fiona, we can have him extradited; all you have to do is accuse him of rape, and we have him extradited to Britain—without having to provide any prima facie evidence—on a European Arrest Warrant.
We did try to get you extradited to Portugal, but Timmy slapped me down, pointing out that he didn't want "a fucking Lefty shithead like her cluttering up this nice country, thank you."
- BAN all titles, including Baroness and Duchess, and scrap the Honours system.
Well, very much a point of opinion, obviously; however, since the House of Lords seems to be the only part of government standing up for our liberty, I would hold fire on that right now. However, darling Fiona is not overly concerned about liberty. As we shall see...
- SHUT all private schools. What's good enough for the rest of us is good enough for those who think they're better than us. It'll improve education for all.
Fiona, let us be clear about what you are proposing here: when you say "shut all private schools" what you actually mean is "ban private business from operating in education in any way, remove the business, by force, from the owners and hand the assets to the state."
Let's not be coy, Fiona; what you are advocating is the nationalisation of all education. You are demanding that the state steal private property from the rightful owners, are you not?
You are demanding that parents be denied any kind of choice and you are doing it because you are paranoid that they "think they're better than us". It's very good of you to be so open about your repulsive jealousy motive for your totalitarianism, but it just makes you a stupid cunt.
Because I am willing to bet that the vast majority of parents who send their children to private school do not do so because they think that they are better than you, Fiona; in fact, I really doubt that most of them have any idea of who you are (I certainly had no idea).
No, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of parents send their children to private school because they want the best possible education for their children: and many of them are prepared to make considerable financial sacrifices to ensure that.
And why on earth do you think that banning private schools will "improve education for all"? Do you have any evidence for this? Or even any proposed machanism by which it would happen?
Let me tell you what would happen, Fiona: there would be no more funding for state schools than there is currently because those who send their children to private school already pay tax. But what you would have is another few million children shoved into an already financially stretched system. And if more money is the key to good public services—as most statists claim—then you are going to end up with worse education and bigger class sizes.
Are parents going to give more money to state schools? No, because they are receiving nothing extra for that money. Will they put in more unpaid effort? Possibly but can this really help when those who actually run the school have almost no control over budgets or resources? No.
The trick is, Fiona, to make the state schools so good that parents do not want to spend an extra £20k a year on private school fees; for if state schools were as good as private schools, parents would have to be insane to spend that extra money, wouldn't they?
Fuck off, you stupid, totalitarian bitch; you are fit only to read an autocue.
- BRING back lost childhood by raising school entry to age seven. Yes I know this'll cause havoc for working mums and dads but, er... let me come back to you on that one.
Raise school entry age to seven? I don't have a particular problem with that. After all, some 20% of those leaving school at 16—after 11 years of compulsory (state) education—are functionally illiterate, so I doubt that only sending them to school for 9 years is going to make the slightest bit of difference.
And it'll cause problems for working parents and you'll "come back to [us] on that one"? How fucking dare you come to us with your ill-thought-out manifesto for a Better Britain and admit that you have barely thought about the problems; for fuck's sake, woman, you only had to come up with ten fucking points. Only ten! I'm actually shocked at your breath-talking gall.
- BAN selection in schools - no creaming off the brightest pupils. Local schools for local people.
Again, your attitude is entirely misplaced. I mean, "no creaming off the brightest pupils"? What about if putting bright pupils with other bright pupils benefits those pupils, as all the evidence suggests that it does? What about if putting not-so-bright pupils with other not-so-bright pupils enables them to learn more effectively (which it does)?
Selection in school entrance is, as I have said before, coarse streaming. All schools should then have streaming within subjects too. Why? Because the fucking pupils benefit: that is the entire fucking point of schooling, you dumb cow; to educate the pupils.
And "local schools for local pupils"? We have that system, you shithead. That is why people in poor areas are forced to send their children to shitty fucking schools, and why rich parents move to areas with good schools (as I bet you have—I bet your children don't go to Hackney Shit Comp, do they?).
Release all schools from state control and implement a voucher system, as the Swedes have done so very effectively; the model of success is there—why aren't we using it?
- BRING back the right to be a mother by upgrading the status of stay-at-home mums. The majority of mums want to care for their pre-school children but can't afford not to work. Maybe instead of tax allowances for childcare, cash incentives for staying at home? Er... I'll come back to you on that one, too.
Oh, who would'a thunk it? When Fiona said "upgrading the status of stay-at-home mums" she actually meant "giving free money to stay-at-home mums"! I didn't see that coming at all: did you?
Basically, Fiona, you want those who do not have children to subsidise the life-style choices of those who do. Well, fuck you: why should I? I already subsidise your children because my taxes pay for your Child Benefit, your £250 Children's Trust cheque, your childrens' schooling and a myriad other aspects of your child-bearing lifestyle.
And you know what? Fuck you and your fucking kids: why the fuck should I subsidise your choice?
Oh, and I've already talked about that "I'll come back to you..." shit. It still applies.
- BAN all private medical work in NHS hospitals.
How much private work is done in NHS hospitals? I would imagine that one of the reasons that people get private health insurance is so that they don't have to spend any time in a fucking NHS hospital.
If you mean that NHS workers should not be allowed to do private work on the side, well, may I suggest that you implore the government to put that into their contracts. And then we can see how many consultants, for instance, will still sign up.
- GET rid of contract cleaners and make Matron and nurses responsible for hospital hygiene.
What, you mean personally? You mean that, instead of having contract cleaners doing the rounds and cleaning everything, you would like to see nurses doing it. Instead of actually, y'know, nursing?
Or do you mean that Matrons and nurses should be responsible for hiring and firing cleaners? OK, fair enough; but as numerous commenters on this blog—not least our own Dr De'Ath, lost_nurse and A&E charge nurse—have pointed out, there are a good number of procedural problems inherent in the cleanliness of hospitals. They point, for instance, at the swift turnaround in bed occupancy, bed proximity, and various other problems which I have no doubt they will be happy to amplify.
- RENATIONALISE Britain's rail network. It's never been the same since John Major privatised British Rail, splitting it into over 100 separate companies which resulted in profits over safety and efficiency.
Yes, Major undoubtedly fucked up the railways. For sure, infrastructure of this type is very difficult to put out to competition: no one is going to go to the capital cost of building another east-coast mainline from London to Edinburgh (for instance) in order to charge lower fares.
However, it is also worth remembering that the railways were built by private companies, as was the Tube; they were not built by the state. In fact, the state was responsible for closing an awful lot of lines and stations.
The Beeching Axe is an informal name for the UK Government's attempt in the 1960s to reduce the cost of running the British railway system.
Over 4,000 miles of railway and 3,000 stations were closed in the decade following the report, being a reduction of 25% of route miles and 50% in the number of stations.
The closures failed in their main purpose of trying to restore the railways to profitability, with the promised savings failing to materialise. By closing almost a third of the rail network, Beeching managed to achieve a saving of just £7 million, whilst overall losses were running in excess of £100 million. These losses were mainly because the branch lines acted as feeders to the main lines and this feeder traffic was lost when the branches closed. This in turn meant less traffic and less income for the increasingly vulnerable main lines. The assumption at the time was that car owners would drive to the nearest railhead (which was usually the junction where the closed branch line would otherwise have taken them) and continue their journey onwards by train, but in practice, having once left home in their cars, they used them for the whole journey.
I don't know what the solution to the rail problem is. The Englishman maintains that they are a pointless anachronism, "a 19th Century solution to a 21st Century problem".
I don't know: as someone who has spent his entire adult life living in cities—one of which you could walk across in short order and the other well served by an underground system—and who has thus never owned a car, they are the only way—other than hiring a car—to travel medium distances. Plus, I have to admit that I still find trains fascinating and, yes, romantic.
A solution might be to make those running the train services also responsible for the tracks themselves, rather than retaining the tracks under state control (or as a totally separate company). It might be that renationalising rail would be a good idea (although I really wouldn't like to bet on that). Anyone with any ideas, do, please, try to convince me of a solution in the comments.
- PROPER local authority care in the home for the elderly. Reinstate full home-help and meals-on-wheels services.
Sure, whatever. As long as you tell us how to find the money, Fiona. But, generally speaking, since these people had a contract with the state, which the state has subsequently broken, I feel that it should, indeed, honour that contract.
But, may I also suggest that those who are not presently elderly take out insurance to cover such services in their old age? Given the state's propensity to renege on its promises and leave no method of redress, I would say that this would be a sensible measure.
P.S. And, I know it's supposed to be a 10-point plan, but none of us can rest safely in our beds until we...Take George Bush to Iraq and shoot him.
Er... OK. So, Fiona, you advocate the execution of the elected leader of the USA? And that, to you, is how we rest safely in our beds? Surely we should start with our own politicians—and you, you totalitarian shitbag.
Readers, I commend this to your house. Now I need to go away and prepare for office.
Yeah. Well, if you want to prepare for office, how about you actually stand for election.
Now, fuck off, you unpleasant little sow, and never darken my sight again.