The Daily Mail has published a very thoughtful article by Jan Moir defending the scrapping of EMA (as well as an article about how breasts are “getting bigger” - a very serious biological think piece with great photographs).
Her argument is targeted against people like the “beautiful young woman” who she saw arguing for EMA on Newsnight. Firstly, I’m glad to see Moir is liberated enough to follow the Mail in being unable to mention a young woman without coming across as a pervy retired colonel at a supermarket checkout. Secondly, Moir is right to suggest that the girl “has probably never sliced a breaded gammon nor combed out a perm in her life”. I’m not sure what the stats are on gammon-slicing (Labour’s probably suppressed them), or quite what Moir’s point is, but it has an unsettling ring of truth about it. Thirdly, Moir’s right to slam Labour’s denial that EMA is a waste of money. Labour would probably even deny that breasts are getting bigger, if they thought it would win them an election. So let’s just take these non-gammon-slicing, breast-growth refuseniks to task.
“Under-18s are outraged that they might have to pay for their own beer, ciggies and Pret A Manger sandwiches. What do we want? Crayfish and mayo. When do we want it? Now!” Moir’s portrayal of today’s youth would be outrageous, if it were true. So I think it probably is true. Just to be clear - I wasn’t like that when I claimed EMA. Who the fuck buys crayfish when Pret do warm meatball wraps? I had principles. Juicy, spicy principles with melted cheese on top. But I used to see these other young fat cats – some of them in households earning as much as £33,000 – riding into college in carriages made out of gold and hypocrisy, swan blood dribbling from their mouths as they sang The People’s Flag.
Moir’s single, powerful argument is that EMA is an “expensive flop” designed to keep young people “off the unemployment register”. Too right. I suppose another way of putting it is that it keeps young people in education rather than on the dole, but I question whether we really want it that way round. This is a time of record youth unemployment, so young people clearly find something attractive about being unemployed. Let them have what they want.
Secondly, Moir’s right that EMA’s expensive. The IFS (probably at the behest of Greg Dyke or someone like that) did say the cost of EMA is “more than recouped by the increase in productivity” it provides. But the IFS is itself, most likely, run by paedophiles. And I have yet to see one report from the IFS on the recent shocking growth in breast size.
So, there you have it. I’m not saying that supporters of EMA are basically worse than Hitler. I’m writing it. The fact that I benefitted from it doesn’t mean I’m kicking the ladder out from underneath me. I’m just saying the ladder shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the ladder is morally wrong. And how are ladders going to help anyone through education anyway? The world’s gone mad.
I don't really have any strong opinions on EMA - it came in after I finished school, but I wouldn't have been eligible anyway because my parents bother work and I gather it's means tested. However, the only thing I would say is that the argument kids should just get a job and stop their moaning is easier said than done - there are bugger all jobs about and high school kids now have to compete with students (and sometimes recent graduates) to get them. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete