Discussion Of A Manifesto, Following Talk Of Thighs

I'm currently sitting in bed, typing, with my head positioned directly between Hugo Weaving's thighs.

Hehe. I stuck up my posters a couple of days ago, and was alarmed to discover during the night that rolling over to my right left me looking straight up into Agent Smith's crotch. It's rather... disturbing. I think I may have to swap him for a head-shot of Jack Sparrow.

Life is good. I'm sitting reading the Guardian's columnists whilst listening to the Fellowship of the Ring soundtrack, with my first attempt at dabbling my misguided creativity in the world of graphic novels. All I need is for some small flavour of Essence of Mathematics to seep into my mind without me actually having to do anything, and I've got the perfect blend of nearly all my worlds.

After surviving the long 24+ hours of net deprivation, (damn ntl), I have finally caught up with a few of the more political blogs I read. Over Christmas I more or less gave up on them due to the parental rationing of my net time, but I'm back now, and the people that seem to have endless opinions and write remarkably profusely are still there.

The main issue to have caught my eye is the question of lowering the voting age, and methods proposed for ending youthful political apathy.

Most of the comments on Newsround suggest that young people believe that it is a bad idea, as a 16-year-old is significantly less well equipped to decide such important matters than your average 18-year-old. That there is some magical enlightening event that occurs in the two years which will leave a dull-witted 16-year-old a well-rounded and opinioned citizen. Maybe it's something you learn whilst purchasing cigarettes legally and having stupid sex with the support of the law. Maybe there's something mystical about cigarettes. They are capable of inspiring wisdom, but only if bought legally.

The only thing these mini-adults seem to have yet to learn is that most immature/apathetic/bewildered 16-year-olds will still be exactly the same in two years' time. The people that are interested in politics at 16 will most likely be the same people that are interested in politics at 18. But most importantly, the people that have the confidence to have political opinions at 16 will be the same people that do so at 18.

It occurs to me that this is merely another reason to get people involved at a younger age, yet for some reason I am not convinced. I see no reason why a larger proportion of 16-year-olds than 18-year-olds would vote. I also believe that it is dangerous for a section of the voting population to still be under such severe and direct influence as that of a teacher. State schools still being state owned, presumably. Whilst stupid 16-year-olds in themselves may not be particularly more impressionable than stupid 18-year-olds, many of them are still in an environment that could potentially leave them wide-open to some extreme exploitation and indoctrination.

Frankly, from what I have heard of attempts to bring politics to the classroom, I have little respect for the venture. This article in the EducationGuardian leaves me apalled at the patronising and unimaginative exercises employed and suggested. In particular, under the heading "Activism In The Classroom" halfway down the page. It suggests:

• Draw up a class manifesto for change by encouraging pupils to prioritise topical issues in order of importance.

  A class manifesto? If you were to throw 25-30 random adults into a room together would you expect all of them to be able to agree on enough grand issues to be able to form a manifesto? Anybody in the minority with a differing opinion is stuck with a manifesto that by its very nature attaches a label to them, for there is no way you can leave the class on the basis of politics. I can imagine the very conversation.

  "This request is very unusual, why exactly do you wish to leave form group 9F? Are you being bullied? Has Mrs Butler unjustly punished you?"

  "No, sir, but I can't bring myself to identify myself as a part of that form anymore, as it would force me to subscribe to the opinion containted in line 4 of paragraph 2 of the 5th article of the Right and Political Manifesto of Class 9F."

  The grim truth is that the majority often seems to miss the point somewhat. Which leaves those that actually care about the subject and have therefore educated themselves upon it in the minority, and forced to give way on the issue. I still bitterly remember, sometime during year 8, when I had to acquiesce and voice the group's opinion that the Mirror was a better newspaper than the Telegraph. This judgement was based soley on the fact that there was a big advert on the 3rd page of whatever broadsheet it was we had looked at, and that the tabloid lacked this atrocity.

• Challenge students to design and plan a campaign to change something about their school.

  Most schools already have what is known as a school council. Having sat upon one, I feel fairly confident of the issues that would be raised. If it's a school with a uniform, it'll be the uniform. If it's a school with a sports uniform, it'll be the sports uniform only twice as ferociously. If it's a boarding school, I guarantee that someone will suggest getting Sky for the common room. There might also be suggestion of a basketball hoop, meal times, meal standards, and the heating. A possible mention for better board rubbers.

  None of this is the point. Aha, the elusive afrontery of an actual point! There is already a system in place to deal with these issues, and most get dealt with appropriately. The ones that are ignored, the uniform and tv issues mainly, are the ones that are rightfully ignored. They come up year after year, and I myself refused to bring them to the council's attention as I deemed it a thorough waste of time. Every year it would get a mention, and we'd here the same reasons why it wasn't practical, and every year the reasons would be agreed as good reasons and then passed on to the rest of the school. Which would reluctantly concede the point, only for the entire process to be repeated the next year.

  The last thing this completely banal but delicately balanced system needs is campaign to disrupt the entire school. The only two outcomes I would foresee would either be a swift quashing of the movement, which would discourage more than a few budding politcians, or... choas of some kind? The undermining of the school administration? Something like that, and nothing resembling something that we would view as either viable or disireable amongst mainstream politics.

  I also have to question the suggestion that each and every class should come up with something to change. Not even just for the sake of it, but as part of some carefully staged exercise. Not only patronising, but not at all practical, either. Think of the number of classes to be taught each year. Then think of the number of years that this number of classes must be taught this same programme.

So, yes, obviously better access to politics would be a good thing. But not necessarily this.

I think I just dropped my phone down the side of my bed. It joins my key to the university laundrette and two hazelnuts. The world is full of quandaries.