Sex in Heathrow Terminal 5

Tomorrow i have to rise at the exceptionally early (for a lazy fella like me) time of 5:45 in order to compete at a Dance Competition in Leeds. Naturally, before any big occasion i cannot sleep, so i thought i would write a blog. Now, in light of recent events in my life, namely a break-up, i have become self reflective, so i think to myself, surely if i bore my readers with the tales about my life so far, i might be able to bore myself to sleep while writing.

I choose the starting point of my life's chronicle at Summer 2008. Why? Well at the moment i'm reading "Brown at 10" by Seldon and Lodge, and i am up to the period of Summer 2008, and while reading i took a moment to remember what i was doing at that time. Brown had just got cosy with Madleson again, having had a summer of rebellion within the Cabinet, namely David Milliband sewing the seeds to run for Leadership...

Anyway, i find myself then locked in a rather curious online-relationship. The virtues of the online-relationship have many bounds and flaws, which frankly i may have been too blind to see at the time, however, at the time i was literally head over heels in love/lust with someone i had met twice. The girl in question lived far far away, however was returning to my hometown in September, and having spent every day of the last year talking on the old MSN chat system, i could not be happier. During this time, i had developed quite an infatuation for her, I had gotten to know her very well indeed in terms of what she liked and disliked, which seemed pretty on par with me. She had returned at easter, where we spent two hours making out, to then hear in the SUmmer of 2008 she would be returning "home" i began to phrase things like "Spielburg couldn't have written it better" and "she's the one". So much was i into this person we had agreed that when we met at Heathrow, we would tear each others clothes of like animals and take each other there and then (hence the title of the blog). Needless to say, we didn't have sex at Heathrow.

By October 2008 i had realised she wasn't the one (for now) and sought pastures new. Perhaps this was a grave mistake, perhaps a bit of selfishness. Frankly, having spent most of my childhood in a quiet manner, i was riding a crest of success (or so i felt), and thought my life would be best served as an independent (I.E i wanted as much tea and cake as i could possibly stomach). During this period, relationships bloomed and withered with such frequency it became almost a habit to have a weekly falling out with someone, before making up just in time for Monday morning.

Having "done my own thing" for near enough a year, i was back on Speilbergs doorstep, and back together with my online love. This time it went a lot better, and despite the constant strain of Sixth-Form work, we kept very close and enjoyed 9 months of near enough happiness. This time it was different, rather than referring to each other as "the one" i began to say things like "we're old enough and ugly enough to make it work". First time round, our relationship was riddled with jealousy on both sides, as well as the unavoidable elephant in the room that was the idea we'd go this distance. This time round, i think we both realised that it wasn't that simple.

Now, there were periods where i believed that we would stay together through the University stage of our lives. When applying via UCAS for our course, we weren't talking and i'd go as far as to say we hated each other. Spielberg was working his magic again, and low and behold we had made the same University choices (Her second choice was my first choice). When we got back together, i got a bit weird again and thought along the lines of "If she fucks up, and i do well, despite everything we've been through we end up at the same UNI, we're meant to be".

Well, she passed with flying colours and i fucked up big time. So much so, it seemed a great possibility i wasn't going to get to Uni. I was 1 point (on the International Baccalaureate system) from getting no Sixth-Form qualifications. So much was the scale of my fuck up, it wasn't really feasible for me to re-sit, because it would take a monster effort to get anywhere near where i wanted to be. Me and a friend had loosely arranged to go and do some farm work in New Zealand (for people helped move there only that summer) before coming back and becoming furniture movers.

This prospect, unfortunately led me down a bad road. Needless to say there were tears most nights as i became very depressed. During this period, my relationship hit a snag, and we called it off, because our futures were going in different directions.

I had had an enjoyable sixth form experience. During this time i had been to Prague, Corfu and Bologna. I'd been to the FA Cup final to watch Chelsea, my team, beat Everton 2-1. Thanks to some sweet coroporate hospitality digs i got to touch the trophy and meet childhood hero Gus Poyet. I'd gotten back into rugby after a year off contact sport. But, mid-august i am truly in a rut, no idea how to get out.

Then, August-19th came along.....

What to do with the House of Lords?

The United Kingdom's unique system of Government finds itself located in the center of London, in a little place called Westminster. So famous is our system of government, is now referred to as the "Westminster Model" when used by other countries. Dickens writes in Our Mutual Friend that "We Englishmen...are very proud of our constitution...it was bestowed upon us by providence. No other country is as lucky as us". While intended to be satirical in nature, on the contrary are now true in what they echo, i propose.

The epicenter of political activity occurs in the House of Parliament, which is perhaps the most famous legislative arena in the world (i say Legislative because the most famous Political Arena would be the White House, but i find that more administrative than a law creator that is Parliament.) It provides the make up of our bicameral legislature, that is we live our lives as a result of the decisions made in two chambers: the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The House of Commons is an elected body, and is where the Prime Minister will be held accountable by the 648 MPs that sit in the Commons(The PM and Speaker of course excluded from the 650 seats in the Commons). Indeed, the Commons is favored as a political body because how it is elected, and hence in touch with the electorate when they hold MPs to account every 5 years at General Election. Decisions are constructed/made on the basis of a Party Manifesto which they were voted into government with, or as a reactionary measure. It is the epicenter of Party Politics, which as a result is the arena in which are Governed.

The House of Lords on the other hand, while just as important in the make up of our system, plays a supporting role. The Lords cannot create law. Parliament makes law, and very rarely the Commons on its own will make law, but this is very rare and tends only to relate to Bills which effect the Lords itself (hence it is not considered by the Lords).

The House of Lords is made up of 92 hereditary peers and just under 700 life peers (as well as 26 Lords Spiritual). They are all appointed to their posts, by means of either party nomination, independent Appointments Commission, or by virtue of Birth (Hereditary). Life Peers which make up the majority of the Lords Composition are said to be experts, hence their admission to the Lords.

The House of Lords however lives in a curious state of flux. All party's seem to agree that it should be replaced by a system of elected members, much like the United State's upper House, the US Senate. This is a bad idea, and here's why.

In order to best discuss my beliefs on the Lords, i'm going to break it down now into areas which need to be addressed.

• Legitimacy - One of the most frequent of all criticisms of the Lords is its "legitimacy." I'd recommend taking a moment and considering what this means. In terms of what people think/want it to mean, it would be better referred to as being "democratically legitimate". As an unelected body the decisions it makes arguably should bear no importance because it is an unelected legislative chamber. As aforementioned, it does not "make law", instead uses its expertise (since the introduction of life peers) to amend, comment and debate on the Bills which originate from the Commons. The Lords may introduce a Bill, but it cannot "make law" on its own, it must go through the Commons in order to gain Royal Ascent, which in theory would give democratic legitimacy to any Bill that was introduced by the Lords. By extension, the Civil Service plays a key role in policy development, but they are unelected/anonymous in their role, does that make the Civil Service illegitimate?
• Its Function - This follows on nicely from the last point. While not democratically legitimate, it IS legitimate in its output. Some, including myself, argue that its output legitimacy is justification for keeping the Lords as it is. Because the Lords have no constituency duties, this allows for much more time to get things done. As a result, debates can last longer and cover more ground. Further, because Lords have more time, they can sit on the relevant Select Committee (according to their area of expertise). The work of Lords Select Committees is indispensable in the process of Law making. In the last full length session to have data published (2008-2009 [2009-2010 shortened by general election]) the Lords tabled over three thousand amendments to Bills as a result of their Select Committees. The Scrutiny of Bills is a vital part of our democracy, and the Lords' role in it is wholly important.
• Composition - Again, moving nicely on to its composition. As of the House of Lords Act 1999, the Lords now sits with only 92 hereditary peers. Formally, the Lords only sat by virtue of a birth right. Now, the vast majority are Life Peers, given their status as a Lord for Life on the basis of their achievement. Lord Rees for example, sits on the Science and Technology Select Committee by virtue of his expertise in the field of Astronomy and Astrophysics, having won prizes in his field and taught at Oxbridge. The idea is that if anyone has a justification to comment on Bills and suggest amendments, its the experts in the Lords rather than the Party Politicians in the Commons. Given the Lords is now made up of many Cross-Benchers, there is no longer an overall majority in the Upper House. This means that Governmnets passage through Parliament now has a hurdle in the way, called the Lords. In other words, in order for a Bill to get through the Lords, it must appeal to more than just its minority members to get through. (It is also important to note, that on issues of manifesto policy [the manifesto being the basis of which a Government is eleced] the Lords do not reject the bill. This is called the Sailsbury convention).
• Weak Powers - realistically, the Lords cannot do much in terms of Governing. Ats biggest job is scrutiny, rather than initiation of Bills. They cannot reject manifesto Bills, hence their power really only lies in the rejection of any reactionary Bills it considers or in their delaying of a Bill. Bills (most of the time) will be struck down if they are not passed by the end of the session, hence if they delay a bill it might not pass. This is really their best hand in competing with the Commons.

In reforming/replacing the Lords, the is speculation that some form of Elected Senate is the best idea if we are to have continued use of a bicameral system. However, principle questions such as "what role would it play?", "would it rival the commons?" and "On what basis to people stand for election?". The "rivalry" question is the most important, where would it fit within our constitutional framework? If it continues to the be the "upper house" and gains democratically legitimate status, surely its powers (already weak) would have to be lowered even more considerably in order to confirm its status as a subordinate. Otherwise, Bills would bounce back and forth, with potential for a Power Struggle within Westminster?

I propose therefore that we keep the Lords as it is. We continue to allow the Lords to play the supporting role it has, and continues its vital scrutiny work. In a recent Seminar (with Lord Norton) we asked the question would you retain/reform/replace/remove the House of Lords. The same question was asked across three different 12 person groups. All but 1 voted for retain.

I welcome comments/questions on the matter, and again i ask the question: Retain, Reform, Replace or Remove?

Religion.

Religion is a curious subject for me, typically i find myself lost in a world of differing opinions, where in this particular case i seem to stand alone in my beliefs. This blog has been put together in response to Baroness Warsi's claims about Religion today in the Daily Telegraph. You can read it here. I'd just add this probably will not come out at all as a coherent or persuasive argument, it is more comments about my point of view with regard to Warsi's comments.

I disagree with referring to how Religion seems to be viewed as "totalitarian" (surely choice to reject the notion of religion is the opposite of totalitarian) , I do agree that religion and a religious voice(s) should have a seat at the policy table.

Warsi's comments came in light of a the High Court ruling prayers are not lawful practice within Local Council meetings. I have no problem with prayers before a meeting of minds providing they are not forced upon people to partake in them. Providing freedom of expression and freedom of faith is maintained within this country, the practice of praying in a public meeting should perhaps be now: "arrive at the meeting five minutes early should you want to pray, before we begin at 9am." Parliament, the arena in which the UK is governed, begins each day with prayer, it is not forced upon MPs. The practice begins with the doors being open to those who wish to take part in joint prayers within the chamber. The doors are then closed as prayers take place. Once finished, the doors are opened again and the Parliamentary day proper begins.

The comments also come in light of a recent story that public sector workers are banned from wearing a Cross at work. I'd perhaps echo comments made by my former head of Sixth Form and suggest that while what you were is your choice, it should be chosen so not to offend others around you. While we can make comparisons such as "what is the difference between wearing a cross on a chain and a swastika on a chain?" I make the case that, while inevitably some will find a cross or a star of David just as offensive as a swastika, the choice of symbol you wear is yours and yours alone, and while free to wear it you should respect the environment you are in so as to protect the dignity of the wearer and those around you. However, if we live in a society where one is wholly offended by a religious symbol as to ban it, then i simply would not know what to say, put it that way.

Now, i have read many opinion and comment recently that religion and the state should not mix. However, what does this mean? Does this mean religion should hold no position in the designing of public policy? Surely the leader of a Political party and his election manifesto team should thus be atheist in order to truly separate religion and the state? Or do we go further and say that any sort of religious mind clearly bastardises polity in all dimensions, hence we ban the religious from voting altogether? (of course not i hear you cry). Given in the 2001 census over 71% of people claimed to have a religion perhaps there is the need to give religion a seat at the very least on the Kids table.

When debunking the role of religion, i get wholly uncomfortable because i ask, what are the alternatives? Take the teachings found in religion, morality, how to behave and all of this. Put simply in one camp you have people like myself who respect things that can be learnt from religious texts. In the other camp you have people who will argue that you do not have to be religious to be moral or a good citizen (by good i mean you do not break the law). Presumably in the latter camp, rather than learning it from the Bible for example, you learnt it from the development of etiquette conventions or the common law?

I would propose that the two camps (learn from religion/learn from society) have ties, namely one takes is teachings from a divine individual(s) and the other takes it teachings from divine individual(s). For the purpose of this argument, i'd suggest that doing "right" is to abide by the law of a country. In the UK (fundamentally) the law comes from statute or the common law. Statute has been developed over hundreds of years in Parliament by well to do individuals (not divine but near enough as) and by the judges (who are again are not divine at all, but hold a position in society which makes them near enough as). I hope you see what i am trying to get at, that whether society is based on religious text, or public policy and the common law, it comes regardless from a sources very distant to the common man, in either spiritual sense or socio-economic sense.

The point here is that while debunking religion seems to be the order of the day these days, i consider it grossly unfair to sideline it altogether. I've spent a long time on this blog, and i've lost my way a little bit, so i'm going to leave it here and open it up for comment and then if needs be i'll write a sequel.

(As is my policy, i like to have a picture for my blogs, and rather than choosing a symbol of religion or Baroness Warsi as my picture i went for something close to my heart, Cans of Red Bull <3 )

Formula One 2012 preview

Ah yes, my first foray of the year into sporting commentary!

The difficult in making predictions about Formula One is they will most likely be wrong. The difference between Football previews and Formula One previews is that while teams in Football may change, more often than not you get a good idea of how they will perform by comparing last years squad with this years: a few players are a bit older, they're best striker went a bit mental, but they signed Aguero, so probably about the same as last year. In Formula One however, there's no way to know what's coming. Pre-Season testing provides some clues, but even then the car can change drastically between then and the first race. In Formula One the case usually is that by the third race, or the first European Race you get a good idea of what's to come.

The reason is simple. The Car. While some wish to argue the driver is the most important aspect of the F1 team, it is only half true. The car and whats in it or on it makes up for the bulk of performance. Hence a a new wing might appear or a new engine. It are these unknowns of car construction and design that make it predictable. David Silva did not grow a third leg over the summer, whereas a car might...

Anyway, to the matter at hand. I can only see Red Bull continuing to dominate the sport, which is a shame from a purist point of view. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with how the Bulls go about their business, they tend to win pretty legitimately, and have built a sound car with no cheats. However, they represent a change in Formula One towards corporate and financial superiority ruling the roost. Yes, McLaren and Ferrari have money, and that's why they're up there every year, but they have the history and heritage to justify it. Redbull are coming into their 8th year in Formula 1, challenging for their 3rd World Title.

Elsewhere, Mclaren and Ferrari will be the biggest rivals. Fernando Alonso at Ferrari will have had two years now to shape the car to his needs, and will be hoping for his 3rd World title. Both Jenson Button and Lewis will be hoping to rubber stamp their place in history with a 2nd world title.

My interest however, as was the case in 2011, lies in the midfield of Formula One. As it became obvious that Sebastian Vettel would win easily in 2011, my eyes shifted to the battle of the midfield, a compelling tustle between Lotus Renault (now just Lotus), Force India, Mercedes and Sauber.

This year, Lotus seem to be going all guns blazing with a dream driver line up of former champion Kimi Raikonnan and Romain Grosjean. However, in the last week their active suspension unit was banned by the FIA, so that may through a spanner in the works somewhat.

Force India appear to be rising and rising, each season improving on the last. Paul Di Resta has the difficulty now of proving he is a fully fledged driver, not just a talented Rookie.

Mercedes are perhaps my dark horse of the year. Two years of Ross Brawn and i'm wondering if he has brought it all together for Schumi's final season.

Drivers to watch out for are:

Filipe Massa - under much pressure at Ferrari. No doubt he is number 2 to Fernando, but he needs to up his game big time in order to justify his spot on the team. He is aging, at 31 this year he might find himself out of a drive in 2013, as teams say, we'd rather have a young gun with financial backing, than "that guy who was World Champion for 30 seconds in 2008".

Mark Webber - I can see this being his last year too. 36 this year, and will not challenge Vettell. Same case with Massa, teams will be looking for young guys with a big sponsor rather than the Aussie.

Kimi - Can the '07 world Champ return with the hunger to really challenge in that Lotus?

Toro Rosso guys - Ricciardo and Vergne are both pretty much new guys in the team this year. Ricciardo impressed so much last year in the HRT that he was promoted to the Red Bull junior team.

and finally Bruno Senna - Bearing the name of probably the best driver ever, he has a job to prove he is in F1 for the long run. A few impressive performances in the 2nd half of last year justified his selection for Williams, can he (and i hope he does, because i like Williams) bring Williams back to where they want to be?

There are a lot of drivers on the grid this year, young and old, with some notable exits: Sutil (who is caught in a legal battle), Barrichello (who retires) and Petrov (once touted for a Ferrari seat) all leave the sport because their seats have been taken by other drivers. Indeed, the current crop need to be on their game, there is a long list of drivers willing to take their seat, most likely with Petrov at the front!

I'm looking forward to the new season as i always do. I'll of course be rooting for my beloved Ferrari boys to be on the top step of the podium more often than not this year. I'll also be keeping an eye on Lotus, my "2nd team."

Fuck me, Maggie T.

I'm back.

Last night I watched The Iron Lady. Put it this way, £7 would have been better spent elsewhere. Good films engage you,great films make you think. Unfortunately this did neither. In fairness, when writing a historically accurate/true story film it is hard keep the audience guessing, but this film whilst littered with good performances, it lacked the script to make it a must have on DVD. As i mentioned in person yesterday, i was more concerned about whether or not McDonalds would be open at the end of the film, rather than how Michael Heseltine was going to stick the knife in when ousting Maggie.

As someone reasonable political knowledge, the film really was disappointing. The majority of the film was spent in the present day, as Thatcher's frail health is accompanied by flash backs of semi-relevance to her career as politician. This did not really work. Her life as Prime Minister was far more interesting than present day. Indeed, i wanted to know about how she became leader elect when Callaghan lost a vote of no confidence, not who was coming for dinner that evening in the 2012 Thatcher household.

The main problem however was that the actually political events barely scratched the surface. Perhaps the most interesting of all premierships was never really documented as thoroughly as i would have liked. Indeed, her downfall was touched up in a 5 to 10 minute segment, that in the end rather made her look like the victim. Interesting take, but perhaps the wrong one. I wanted to see heated cabinet discussion as a flailing leader clung to power, as the other ministers grow increasingly restless at her presence, before they all one by one push her towards the edge, when finally Heseltine see's her fall all the way to the bottom.

Further, there were too many slap you in the face lines that were meant to be subtle metaphors. Like when teaching Carol to drive, Maggie is urging her to drive round a cyclist "to the right" with Carol saying "you must not drive to far to the right!!". I rather assumed the director, Phyllida Lloyd, would have given her audience more credit. Then again, she did direct Mamma Mia.

By all means watch this, but if you're after some hard hitting, exciting, heart racing political confrontations...stick BBC Parliament on television, Wednesday at 12pm.

2011 - a News Review

As always, i like to be queen bee or whatever the masculine form of that title is, i have taken someone else's idea and I am going to attempt to make it my own. Yes indeed, you have already seen a news review, so i feel i should plug said innovators wonderful blog here: Harry's Blog.

Let this blog serve as a reintroduction into the blogging scene, before we attempt far more indepth posts which got me something like 750 hits this summer.

1) The year began with a reminder why we don't do drugs. Indeed, on a drunken New Years Eve (or New years day by this point) in attempting to rescue a lost member of the Trampoline Club we ran into a gentleman who can only be described as "trippin' balls" and was very much aghast at our attempts to reclaim our friend who had wandered into a party uninvited to steal some booze. And here, i thought we were the adults. Anyway, having defused the situation, we moved on to leave this child to writhe in pain at the inevitable stomach pumping that what his 2011.

2) I returned to Uni a changed man. A larger man. Rather like the banking crisis, it started as something manageable, like Northern Rock's collapse. Then, the shit hit the proverbial fan and RBS went right down the proverbial shitter, and we knew we had a huge problem. Yes ladies and gents it was at this point i looked into the mirror and accepted i was now classed as over-weight. Thankfully, i have been able to manage this and haven't continued to balloon. If only the incumbent Tories could manage their crisis.

3) After a pedestrian year in terms of effort, i got a pedestrian mark, which i was happy with. A 2.2 is not what i'm going for, but it is a stepping stone from the disappointment that was sixth form. In fact, i look back and i'm not proud of what I have done beyond academia. At the time i was a man looking to live university life independently from barriers and constraints. Now, i wish i had treated as a stepping stone to something huge, which ideally my life will be. We are back on course i can confirm.

4) This summer i went to my first gig! How is this?! Well, i've never been one to seek music beyond the sound that comes from my head phones, but the opportunity came along to watch Jamiroquai at the marvelous o2 Arena, and my response was why not? Ordinarily i'm inclined to spend my money on sporting fixtures, Football, Rugby and Cricket mostly, which i enjoy. The concert was fantastic though, really good fun and one of those moment i'll look back on for years to come. Such a shame it was my friend was spoken to by Jay Kay rather than myself!

5) I asked a question to a friend, which i wont publish. I will publish his answer. "Nothing with Robots or Animals". Say no more.

6) I returned to Uni a changed man again, this time after lengthy summer recess, where i had a chance to assess my options and make a decision about my life. This time round, i was somehow more chiseled, more experienced. I've been through this, i know this. In light of this i approached the year differently, less gung-ho, less Fresher-Fodder and more measured and calculated. I chose the societies i joined with the here and now, and the future in mind. Go Karting for pleasure. Politics for the Future and Dancing...well tell you the truth i was trying to pull, how chauvinistic, but i can announce it is something more to me now, as i sit on the Executive Committee.

7) The year ended on a sad note, as my mother and aunt had split from their respective partners. It made for an interesting Christmas, as they both toasted themselves into a new year with new men. I worry about mum, she is after a perfect man, which as we all know doesn't exist. I just want her to stop fretting and be happy, and be settled. Coincidentally, she has found a man who is football mad and supports Leeds United, sound familiar? (....my father, her first husband is a football mad Leeds fan).

We live and learn. This time next year, hopefully i'll be a millionaire. In all seriousness, this latest semester i have had a different outlike on life. It's not that i'm happier, it's something more than that. I have an energy at the moment, a fire that is getting me going. It's not something i do, nor someone i know that lit it, but it's there. With this in mind, take 2012, and grab it by the horns.

Lets make it a good one. (Also, i couldn't think of a nice picture for this blog, so i've chose a picture of a robot).

Comments on my visit to the House of Parliament.

Houses of Parliament

After what can only be described as a very pedestrian start to what would otherwise have been a well desired day off, I made it into Westminster at about 10:45.

The first comment i would make is how much I love the layout within the depths of Westminster Underground station. To most I imagine the innards of the station to be dull. However if you treat the rather industrial look (the grey beams and pillars make the whole thing look like a machine) with an open mind, you might just conjure up a nice metaphor along the lines that those otherwise dull objects represent the wheels of the economic, social and legislative functions turning, in what goes on above ground in the Houses of Parliament.

Leaving through Exit three of the Station, you find yourself emerging from underneath perhaps the UK’s most famous Landmark, Big Ben.

After wading through the inevitable security measures in place at the Cromwell Entrance, you emerge into a very dull room, otherwise known as Westminster Hall. Had it not been a cloudy day or perhaps if they had turned the lights on, what looked like a glorified Barn of a structure might have been a little more spectacular. However, this was not the case and was just a large dull hall.

Me and a fellow student made our way to the House of Commons Gallery, after a queuing a short while and checking some bags, we ended up in the gallery. It all looked very grand on first impression, and further it looked rather small. Perhaps the TV makes it looks fat, because in reality from my perspective it seemed incredible tight. Perhaps a good selling point for the reduction in of fifty MPs come the next election will result in a more spacious chamber for our representatives.

What we viewed as the extension of Question Time, where the house questions the work of the Minister of a particular department. After the scheduled questions have been answered, the floor was opened to “urgent questions”. Urgent Questions are a new feature in the proceedings of Parliament, implemented by the Backbench Business Committee, something I will discuss later.

We then left to view the House of Lords. There was much less ‘to and fro’ between members, as to be expected, and more long winded, thoroughly prepared speeches and comments from the members to the House. The impact of Creative Industries (media sources to you and I) was what was discussed and despite being not fully up to speed on for example local Newspapers or Children’s Television, the experience was still quite interesting.

We then left for Lunch. The only detail I shall give is that I had a very over-priced Cheese Baguette from a Pub across the road.

We then returned into Parliament, again with the hassle of going through security.

At 2:30 we had a discussion scheduled with three different Parliamentarians.

The First, John Whittingdale, was Chair of the Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport. Of all Select Committees, this one has had particularly large media exposure in recent weeks because these have been the Parliamentarians involved in investigating the Phone Hacking scandal of the News International Group, which as can be imagined led to some interesting discussion.

We then had a visit from Peter Bone MP, who describes himself as the 2^nd most rebellious MP in the Conservative Party. He is a member of the earlier mentioned Backbench Business Committee, a newly formed Committee. In a nutshell they make life difficult for the House of Commons, tabling debates that the House otherwise doesn’t want to talk about. They have three criteria, which if all are fulfilled means a topic is primetime for discussion. 1: If all Parties agree on something, it’s wrong, we must debate this topic. 2: If they disagree on something within the party, they must debate the topic. 3: If the public are talking about it, and express their desire to discuss it with 100,000 signatures on a petition, they must debate it. Things like the European Union Referendum fulfilled all three criteria, and came about because of a petition supported by the Daily Express.

Finally, Sir George Young discussed the changing role of the House of Commons. Perhaps the most recognisable figure seen today, the Conservative Front Bencher is the Leader of the House of Commons.

All in all it was a thoroughly enjoyable and enlightening day. I consider myself quite lucky in some of the opportunities that have been given to me. For example, I had an experience very similar to today’s events two years ago on a School Trip to Prague. At the time I did not really appreciate how lucky I was, only now do I realise how good an experience it was.

I had to rather dash out however to catch my train. I did however spend a moment watching David Dimbleby prepare for tonight’s Question Time Broadcast, which will be shot from the afore mentioned Westminster Hall.

I did discuss with some friends, that despite being a learning trip, I also wanted it to be a motivational one. Did the day succeed in sending me the vibes of: Alex, you want to be here, you need to work hard so you can end up here. Yes it did. I look forward massively to being there next year, working for an MP. Bring it on, and bring on a career in Public Office of some kind.

I’ll leave you with the final thought that I am travelling back First Class, because it was Cheaper than standard, which comes with a free evening meal or Sandwiches. I can confirm how thoroughly disgusted at the fact the meal involved Goats Cheese. East Coast will receive a sternly word letter in the morning from me with regards to their thoroughly vile meal options on board.