During the last couple of months, I've become fascinated with University Challenge on BBC2. Now every Monday evening, half an hour of watching two UK university teams tackle fiendish, mind-numblingly difficult questions is routine. Not your standard, multiple choice questions, but University standard trivia: rocket science to 15th century poetry, Chinese ancient history to islands in the Caribbean and even scientific plant families. The kind of topics people would expect only university students to be aware of. However, I believe this programme can appeal to many, gaining a wide audience.
Though the average viewer will have no idea what the majority of answers are, there is something so satisfying about getting just one question correct. The feeling of being on a university level for just one minute second beats nothing. For me, it was the knowledge of what land was given away to which countries in the Treaty of Versailles (Belgium gaining Eupen & Malmedy, if you're interested). Sitting on the edge of your seat throughout waiting for a question that might be guessable is so gripping. Or just shout out random answers to every question. Jeremy Paxman, as a host, is excellent. Though nobody would want to go up against him, he appears good mannered and friendly, compared to his previous ruthless Newsnight demeanour. Thankfully, Paxman doesn't explain the rules every episode, gets straight to the point and rightly hurries teams for an answer if they're taking too long. From reading his book, the topics teams are questioned on have certainly expanded his knowledge. His effective use of deducting five points for incorrect interruptions certainly makes the starters more intense & is necessary to stop people guessing anything. While many shows have modernized, I like how the format and overall appearance of University Challenge has remained untouched. Apart from set colour changes, the overall format of starters and bonuses, 2 teams one above the other, rooting for your home university and the gong at the finale have remained, all vital parts of a unique game show. Many quiz shows fail for a flawed format, incorrect host or a lack of originality. University Challenge, with its distinguished alumni, testing questions and renowned long serving host, looks set to continue for many years to come. ****************************************************************************************************************** One History lesson, our teacher was explaining the differences between left and right ideology. An example was asking people to put their hand up if they 'believed all mass murderers, rapists & those who commit heinous crimes should be killed'. Unsurprisingly, I kept my hand down, personally believing in tougher, harsher prisons rather than flawed execution methods. I was surprised to see at least half my class putting their hand up, believing in the death penalty for the most horrific of crimes. This was described as being right-wing on crime, which of course it is. But its right-wing sterotype is not why I oppose it. On the contrary, I wonder why so many, from a young age, still support that method of punishment. The death penalty is seen as the most necessary form of punishment for the worst, most dangerous, most evil criminals. I presume those in my class who supported capital punishment did so out of anger and repulsion towards criminals; sighting the death penalty as a way of ensuring they cannot kill again. This argument is flawed, as the worst criminals are usually given life sentences, therefore not being on the streets again. I also believe life imprisonment - in basic, humane conditions run by prison officers not prisoners - is far more of a deterrent than the death penalty. The death penalty, where used, costs vast amounts of unnecessary money. For example, in Kansas, cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. In Maryland, The costs for a non-death penalty murder case is $1.1 million ($870,000 in imprisonment, $250,000 in trial), while the costs for a death penalty case are $3 million ($1.3 million in imprisonment, $1.7 million in trial). Due to the number of appeals, vast lengths of trials and time spent on death row, I believe the price of a death penalty will stay the same. However, in prison, with the most basic of conditions (basic food & necessities), I believe life imprisonment could cost even less to the taxpayer, and be far more effective. Nationwide, the death penalty is still favoured, over 50 years after its abolition. 2014 YouGov polls show 45% surveyed support its reintroduction with 39% oppose. While this is a reduction in support from previous polling, the element of punishment by death is still wanted. I feel this is an issue that can unite Tories on the right with working class, socially conservative Labour voters. Whilst I will always oppose its reintroduction, I intend to gain more knowledge for its support, to develop my own arguments. Instead of smearing supporters as inhumane, fellow abolitionists should be listening. ****************************************************************************************************************** As part of rebranding himself as a Donald Trump populist figure, Jeremy Corbyn announced his support for a maximum wage on earnings. This would mean any person could only earn up to a certain limit, anything higher being illegal. The Labour leader stated the party was reviewing this policy and may be on offer at the next election, whenever that is. While this policy may be highly popular among the far left, I utterly oppose the idea of Government capping the amount someone can earn, or aspire to earn. The policy has been proposed as part of Labour's plan to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest. A maximum wage only limits the amount a poorer, working class citizen could aim to earn, trapping them in their current situation rather than increasing their wealth. The money gained in taxes may not be spent effectively, and only fuel hatred and discontent towards a Government, for the lack for wealth on offer. Where a maximum wage has been tried, it has nearly always failed. In Cuba, a communist dictatorship, there is a maximum wage of 20 US dollars per month. However, doctors and people in high places can earn an extra 10 US dollars more. This shows how, even in a country which adopts the policy, people are still able to earn more, increasing corruption. In Egypt, a maximum wage has lead to a brain fade of those with top jobs, desperate to instead work elsewhere. I fear the same could occur in the UK, were this policy introduced. The issues facing economic inequality in the UK are large. Nobody could disagree that those who are poor should be richer and allowed to prosper. The question is the way that is achieved. I personally think raising wages, taking more people out of paying income tax altogether & demanding that huge TNCs pay their fair share when they are not. The proposal of ratios, where the chief executive of a company would earn no more than 20 times the lowest paid worker, looks interesting, as it would provide incentives for wages to be raised. The debate surrounding economics, left and right, must be had.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|