'Arts degrees. Obviously I mean arts degrees,' says Sunak

RISHI Sunak has confirmed that when he refers to low-value, rip-off degrees, he does indeed mean anything concerning the arts. 

For the avoidance of doubt, the prime minister has clarified that poor-quality university courses are those which wrestle with the complexities of the human experience and do not require maths A-level.

He said: “We’ve got AI to do all the arty-farty stuff like drawing and writing. This means you’re free to do valuable and thrilling degrees like chemical engineering.

“Limiting student numbers in the arts is in everyone’s best interests. There’s no money in pursuing your dreams and talents when you’re not starting out rich. You’re better off filing your creative aspirations away in the bin where they belong.

“My vision is for everyone who isn’t in the top one per cent to conflate education with profit while studying in STEM. A nation of number-crunching, Tory-voting factotums making us a technology hub for the globe while lefties with English degrees sicken and die.

“At the weekend you can go to the cinema and watch a piece of content made by an algorithm. If that sounds bad, look at the numbers that have pre-booked for Barbie.” 

He added: “History of Art degrees will continue, as they’re for the posh, as will Philosophy, Politics and Economics lest Britain be deprived of talents like myself and Liz Truss.”

Sign up now to get
The Daily Mash
free Headlines email – every weekday

Six rules of the road that don't apply to cyclists: a cyclist explains

RIDING a bicycle means you can ignore rules that apply to other road-users, like cars, motorbikes, buses or pedestrians. Cyclist Tom Logan explains: 

Riding on the pavement

A bike is like a Transformer – it gets the best of both worlds. On the road? You should be accorded the same respect as a car. Road busy? Mount the pavement and you’re a two-wheeled pedestrian. After all, it’s not like you’ve got a polluting motor. Nobody complains about wheelchairs on the pavement, do they?

Optional traffic lights

I’m all in favour of cyclists stopping at red lights if they need a bit of a breather. It sets a good example to motorists, after all. But it’s by no means a necessity and they’re a better judge of whether it’s safe to go through or not than any mere system of lights. And come on, there’s no law against it.

Warning others of your approach

It’s your duty, whether you’re in a car or on foot, to be alert for cyclists. A full-grown man in Lycra riding a £1,500 carbon-fibre hybrid can’t be ringing a little bell like he’s an eight-year-old girl. If you don’t move out of the way fast enough and you’re hit by a cyclist, you’re fully liable. That helmet cam will have recorded all the evidence and it’ll be on Instagram.

Ignoring one-way signs

Those restrictions are for idiots driving death machines, not sober, responsible cyclists. We’re above all that, and have a perfect right to weave in and out of oncoming traffic to show off our silky skills. If you hit us you’ll lose their licence, and it’ll be your own fault when you have to get the bus to work.


Cars are forbidden from passing each other in the inside lane, and rightly so, the ignorant, dangerous petrolheads. It’s different for cyclists because we’re so much more important. Yes, drivers find it humiliating and emasculating when we zips by as you wait in traffic, and so you should. You’re inferior by every measure that counts.

Being visible

If a cyclist wants to wear six lights, flashing aggressively and confusing everyone, on their hi-viz that’s their right. If they want to wear all black and go lights-free like a stealth bomber, it remains a cyclists’ perogative. They’re our roads. We merely allow you to share them.