So Nickers has done 100 days
As leader of us all
He’s made a decent fist of things
And kept us quite enthralled
The general public mood appears
To suggest he’s a hit
He’s been quite bold in speeches made
He’s given us some grit
In Parliament he’s mostly sure
Despite one hissy fit
And in his media profile
He’s avoided too much tabloid exposure.
Two cheers for Nickers thus, well done
‘The future’s bright and orange’
The only cloud to face quite soon’s
That nothing rhymes with ‘orange’…
Monday, 31 March 2008
GRAMMAR POLICE? QUICK, OVER HERE
One of the creeping grammar crimes in our media is the misuse of the word ‘protest’. The Indescribablyboring today has a headline thus: 'Violence in Nepal as Tibetans protest Olympics'
This is meaningless twaddle. I expect they mean that Tibetans in Nepal have protested against the Olympics but the extra word seems to be too much for this ‘quality’ newspaper.
I’m not perfect in my English but I find these days that when I pick up a book from even thirty years ago I find myself shifting uncomfortably at the richness of the language from even that recently. Pick up something older and it is even more stark. A bit of Wodehouse is enough to bring on a sigh of sheer delight.
The one exception is of course Charles Dickens, who remains execrable for his meandering writing, stupid names and over long tomes - which, I suppose, demonstrates clearly that we’re all different, we all have different standards and that I should probably keep my rants to myself…
Most assuredly so, Mr Muggletrousers, as the great man would never have written
This is meaningless twaddle. I expect they mean that Tibetans in Nepal have protested against the Olympics but the extra word seems to be too much for this ‘quality’ newspaper.
I’m not perfect in my English but I find these days that when I pick up a book from even thirty years ago I find myself shifting uncomfortably at the richness of the language from even that recently. Pick up something older and it is even more stark. A bit of Wodehouse is enough to bring on a sigh of sheer delight.
The one exception is of course Charles Dickens, who remains execrable for his meandering writing, stupid names and over long tomes - which, I suppose, demonstrates clearly that we’re all different, we all have different standards and that I should probably keep my rants to myself…
Most assuredly so, Mr Muggletrousers, as the great man would never have written
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
CARLA CURTSEYS COURTEOUSLY. CORRECT?
Here's an interesting aside to the visit of the French president. When they met the Windsors, Mrs Sarkozy, Carla Bruni, curtseyed to them. That is surely unnecessary as she is effectively their equal as the wife to the French head of state.
If this was appropriate, shouldn't Prince Philip have bowed to Sarko?
Which kind of makes you realise that the French revolution may not have achieved all it aimed to.
If this was appropriate, shouldn't Prince Philip have bowed to Sarko?
Which kind of makes you realise that the French revolution may not have achieved all it aimed to.
JAMES NAUGHTIE IS AN IDIOT, PART 95
Another red letter day for James ‘Hubris’ Naughtie on the Today programme as he interviewed two Scottish politicians. First he lamented with Nick Robinson over the fate of any of us poor wee scunners who dinnae live in Bonnie Scotland, which was clearly meant to charm the majority of his audience. Nick Robinson carried on like a professional as Naughtie blustered mindlessly.
He then asked Labour leader Wendy Alexander about the Barnett Formula and she mentioned Kenneth Calman in her response. The audience of the Today programme might reasonably be assumed to have a clue who this was but luckily Dim Jim was on hand to leap into action, cutting across her comment and blurting out that Calman was the blather blather blather and Chancellor of Glasgow University. I didn’t hear it all as he burbled so quickly. Ms Alexander was also clearly taken aback as she paused for a good few moments before continuing where she had left off.
The aim of the wee man’s intervention was clearly to show how jolly clever he is and how well versed he is in all things, including irrelevant job titles some people hold down. The outcome of his delivery was extreme irritation on the part of his interviewee and the listening audience as Dim Jim buggered it up once again.
Luckily he had a chance to make amends a few moments later as he interviewed French President Nicolas Sarkozy. One felt for the poor Frenchman as Dim Jim’s interminable questions kept coming. Luckily Sarko matched his blather with more blandishments than even Tony Blair would have dared to make on the radio, the result being that we ended the interview in the certain knowledge that Sarko loves us all, wants to be our friend and wants to run the world in a better, more constructive way, with America hand in glove, walking together etc etc ad nauseum.
Well, if I woke up to Carla Bruni every day I reckon I'd be as happy with the world as he clearly is...
A proper interviewer might have tried to interogate a bit more but unfortunately Dim Jim’s head was now so firmly ensconced in Sarko’s fundament that he couldn’t manage to think straight.
So it’s well done once again Dim Jim and well done the BBC for keeping on this tired, failed interviewer who never fails to underwhelm and annoy in equal measure.
He then asked Labour leader Wendy Alexander about the Barnett Formula and she mentioned Kenneth Calman in her response. The audience of the Today programme might reasonably be assumed to have a clue who this was but luckily Dim Jim was on hand to leap into action, cutting across her comment and blurting out that Calman was the blather blather blather and Chancellor of Glasgow University. I didn’t hear it all as he burbled so quickly. Ms Alexander was also clearly taken aback as she paused for a good few moments before continuing where she had left off.
The aim of the wee man’s intervention was clearly to show how jolly clever he is and how well versed he is in all things, including irrelevant job titles some people hold down. The outcome of his delivery was extreme irritation on the part of his interviewee and the listening audience as Dim Jim buggered it up once again.
Luckily he had a chance to make amends a few moments later as he interviewed French President Nicolas Sarkozy. One felt for the poor Frenchman as Dim Jim’s interminable questions kept coming. Luckily Sarko matched his blather with more blandishments than even Tony Blair would have dared to make on the radio, the result being that we ended the interview in the certain knowledge that Sarko loves us all, wants to be our friend and wants to run the world in a better, more constructive way, with America hand in glove, walking together etc etc ad nauseum.
Well, if I woke up to Carla Bruni every day I reckon I'd be as happy with the world as he clearly is...
A proper interviewer might have tried to interogate a bit more but unfortunately Dim Jim’s head was now so firmly ensconced in Sarko’s fundament that he couldn’t manage to think straight.
So it’s well done once again Dim Jim and well done the BBC for keeping on this tired, failed interviewer who never fails to underwhelm and annoy in equal measure.
Thursday, 13 March 2008
'CARRY ONS' CARRIED OFF
According to the BBC, plans are afoot for a new Carry On film, to be in cinemas later this year.
The original Carry On films were some of the most entertaining ever. I went to a film festival at the Barbican on the 1990s where the Carry On films were shown on the big screen once again. It was a glorious event as 300 people sat giggling in anticipation of jokes we all knew were coming up.
If any film is funnier that Carry On Up The Khyber, I'd like to see it because I cannot watch that film without hooting with delight at the sheer crass childishness of it all. It is sheer, unalloyed comedy of the old school and it works perfectly. Which is why making a new one will be a disaster of epic proportions.
The Carry On films were creatures of their time. They represented a simpler world view and a shared culture which simply doesn't exist now. The premise of the new film will be a limousine company ferrying celebrities around London for a pseudo-Oscars ceremony, the 'Herberts'. In-jokes about celebrities are bound to fall flat since the number of z-listers out there means that one person's star is another's relity TV nobody. Equally the name 'Herberts' is a clear throw back to the heyday of Carry On films.
I can only hope that someone, somewhere recognises that this simply won't work and that the money earmarked for this film could be used to make ten or more original films which would almost certainly be better made, funnier and more successful.
Give it up guys. It's finished.
The original Carry On films were some of the most entertaining ever. I went to a film festival at the Barbican on the 1990s where the Carry On films were shown on the big screen once again. It was a glorious event as 300 people sat giggling in anticipation of jokes we all knew were coming up.
If any film is funnier that Carry On Up The Khyber, I'd like to see it because I cannot watch that film without hooting with delight at the sheer crass childishness of it all. It is sheer, unalloyed comedy of the old school and it works perfectly. Which is why making a new one will be a disaster of epic proportions.
The Carry On films were creatures of their time. They represented a simpler world view and a shared culture which simply doesn't exist now. The premise of the new film will be a limousine company ferrying celebrities around London for a pseudo-Oscars ceremony, the 'Herberts'. In-jokes about celebrities are bound to fall flat since the number of z-listers out there means that one person's star is another's relity TV nobody. Equally the name 'Herberts' is a clear throw back to the heyday of Carry On films.
I can only hope that someone, somewhere recognises that this simply won't work and that the money earmarked for this film could be used to make ten or more original films which would almost certainly be better made, funnier and more successful.
Give it up guys. It's finished.
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
ANOTHER BLOW FOR FREEDOM...
I understand that we are all supposed to be petrified of anyone with a beard at the moment and that our country is overrun by fanatics – according to the government - but the news story today (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7289709.stm) of a man in Leeds being sentenced to prison for posessing an ‘al qaeda training manual’ is a little alarming. The story notes that the man knew two of the 7/7 bombers but he still does not appear to be guilty of any recognisable crime, in old money.
I bought a copy of the Communist Manifesto in the 1980s, during the Cold War. Did that make me a Soviet spy? I read a newspaper recently which explained how Iran is allegedly planning to develop a nuclear bomb, with diagrams and everything. Am I now a potential bombmaker?
The story only seems to have got a small amount of media attention but it seems a line has been crossed with this case. 16 months’ imprisonment for owning a book, however depraved or potentially threatening it might be, seems simply wrong if our society is to have any sense of freedom.
The ultimate question is, how will that man feel when he is released after, say, 10 months. Will he have ‘learned his lesson’ and never buy a book again? Or will he perhaps be just a little bit aggrieved with this country? If the latter, might that make him less inclined to want to join in with our national life? Perhaps he will look towards people who convince him they share his grievance and wish to do something about it. Perhaps...
Maybe the answer is to get all convicted owners of ‘al qaeda training manuals’ to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and country. That’ll soon stop their nonsense, won't it?
I bought a copy of the Communist Manifesto in the 1980s, during the Cold War. Did that make me a Soviet spy? I read a newspaper recently which explained how Iran is allegedly planning to develop a nuclear bomb, with diagrams and everything. Am I now a potential bombmaker?
The story only seems to have got a small amount of media attention but it seems a line has been crossed with this case. 16 months’ imprisonment for owning a book, however depraved or potentially threatening it might be, seems simply wrong if our society is to have any sense of freedom.
The ultimate question is, how will that man feel when he is released after, say, 10 months. Will he have ‘learned his lesson’ and never buy a book again? Or will he perhaps be just a little bit aggrieved with this country? If the latter, might that make him less inclined to want to join in with our national life? Perhaps he will look towards people who convince him they share his grievance and wish to do something about it. Perhaps...
Maybe the answer is to get all convicted owners of ‘al qaeda training manuals’ to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen and country. That’ll soon stop their nonsense, won't it?
PURRRRRRR
A colleague of mine mentioned the fact that, apparently, women under 25 who own cats tend to support the LDs. As he put it rather well, 'Go back to your constituencies and look for the cat flaps!'
THOSE WHO WANT TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, THERE'S A PLANE LEAVING FOR NEW YORK IN TEN MINUTES.
So Lord 'over the top lads, lawyers last' Goldsmith says 16 year olds should all have to pledge allegiance to queen and country.
No.
This is a complete waste of time, it won't instil an iota of pride, patriotism duty or any other Daily Mail watchword into anyone who doesn't have it already. It is a stupid, pointless idea.
This isn't America - and if bored politicians are looking for something to celebrate, perhaps it could be that.
No.
This is a complete waste of time, it won't instil an iota of pride, patriotism duty or any other Daily Mail watchword into anyone who doesn't have it already. It is a stupid, pointless idea.
This isn't America - and if bored politicians are looking for something to celebrate, perhaps it could be that.
Monday, 10 March 2008
THE BOOK OF NICKERS, CHAPTER 4: ON WORKING WITH THE OTHER PARTIES
And there was a dazzling light from the heavens and in it a host of angels who descended to the earth and sang, “Alleluia, alleluia, a Lib Dem leader has for once been clear and unequivocal about any future power sharing deal”. And the people around fell to their knees, weeping and praising their chosen deity – for the Lib Dems would never seek to limit the belief options available – crying out “Thank [deity name or expletive here] for that, now perhaps the media will put the subject on ice until such time as it actually becomes an issue”. And there was feasting throughout the land.
Now I may still want us to declare our intention to win the next election outright, however outlandish this may seem but this is a very clear statement of principle from Nickers which every can understand and which cannot sensibly be misinterpreted (although Simon Carr in the Independent and his ilk will no doubt have a damned good try…).
I still think joining up with the Tories or Labour would be the equivalent of ‘drinking from a cup of poison’ (R. Khomeini, 1988) but at least this sets out the stall well.
Now I may still want us to declare our intention to win the next election outright, however outlandish this may seem but this is a very clear statement of principle from Nickers which every can understand and which cannot sensibly be misinterpreted (although Simon Carr in the Independent and his ilk will no doubt have a damned good try…).
I still think joining up with the Tories or Labour would be the equivalent of ‘drinking from a cup of poison’ (R. Khomeini, 1988) but at least this sets out the stall well.
Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Britain is Repossessing the U.S.A.
The following is, quite simply, brilliant. How I wish I could claim it as my own.
A Message from John Cleese
To the citizens of the United States of America :
In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Colony, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.
Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.
There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.
Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $10 per US gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An official from Her Majesty's Inland Revenue (i.e. tax collector) will be with you shortly to ensure the collection of all monies due (backdated to 1776). Until these are paid, there will be no representative government in the USA , in line with the policy: "No representation without taxation".
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups and saucers (never mugs), and with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.
18. Some tea has gone missing, and we expect it back. We'll be searching Boston first.
God save the Queen.
She should be saved, and only He can.
John Cleese
A Message from John Cleese
To the citizens of the United States of America :
In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy).
Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections.
Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.
A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown Colony, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.
Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').
3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.
There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.
4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.
5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.
Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.
6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.
7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.
8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.
9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $10 per US gallon. Get used to it.
10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.
11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.
12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.
13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.
14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.
15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.
16. An official from Her Majesty's Inland Revenue (i.e. tax collector) will be with you shortly to ensure the collection of all monies due (backdated to 1776). Until these are paid, there will be no representative government in the USA , in line with the policy: "No representation without taxation".
17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups and saucers (never mugs), and with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.
18. Some tea has gone missing, and we expect it back. We'll be searching Boston first.
God save the Queen.
She should be saved, and only He can.
John Cleese
OF COURSE A VOTE ON LISBON IS A WASTE OF TIME
A rather clever friend of mine (she is an academic) asked me the following this morning:
'I heard your Leader on Radio 4 this morning trying to explain why the Lib Dems are planning to abstain at tonight's vote on the Europe referendum. Completely baffling! This means that the Government will probably get its way after all, so that there will be no public debate about Europe except in the Eurosceptic media. Is this what the LDs really, really want.........??
'As a pro-European I am actually in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (as in, 'far from perfect but better than nothing'); as a democrat, however, I also favour genuine public debate about major issues so just have to express my extreme frustration with your Party's stance on this.'
A good question, to which I replied as follows (edited for brevity):
As a student of European history you more than anyone will be aware that we have had a deeply schizophrenic relationship with the organisation since we joined in 1973. Both the Tories and Labour have never quite nailed down if they are in favour or against us being members. We on the other hand have always been 100% pro, though with a strong desire to reform the abysmally run EU from top to bottom.
The vote on the Lisbon treaty is irrelevant since this is now just an amending treaty, not the fundamental constitution which was planned and which crucially would have swept away all of the preceding treaties. This therefore would have been vital for British people to get a vote on.
The simple point to consider is this: if a referendum was held on the Lisbon treaty and people voted in favour we would remain in the EU; if people voted against Lisbon we would still remain in the EU, only it would be a less efficient EU since the planned reforms would not have been put in place.
Our position is unpopular – as it so often is – but quite principled. We believe in the EU but we also believe in democracy and we want people to have a genuine say over whether we remain in the EU or out. A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would not offer people that choice. It would change nothing.
The final point to make is that if we did have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, how many people would actually read and understand what they were voting on? Would the debate be worthwhile or would the two camps merely be reduced to discussing the issue we actually want voters to have a say on?
That’s why I support our position completely and I hope you will too.
'I heard your Leader on Radio 4 this morning trying to explain why the Lib Dems are planning to abstain at tonight's vote on the Europe referendum. Completely baffling! This means that the Government will probably get its way after all, so that there will be no public debate about Europe except in the Eurosceptic media. Is this what the LDs really, really want.........??
'As a pro-European I am actually in favour of the Lisbon Treaty (as in, 'far from perfect but better than nothing'); as a democrat, however, I also favour genuine public debate about major issues so just have to express my extreme frustration with your Party's stance on this.'
A good question, to which I replied as follows (edited for brevity):
As a student of European history you more than anyone will be aware that we have had a deeply schizophrenic relationship with the organisation since we joined in 1973. Both the Tories and Labour have never quite nailed down if they are in favour or against us being members. We on the other hand have always been 100% pro, though with a strong desire to reform the abysmally run EU from top to bottom.
The vote on the Lisbon treaty is irrelevant since this is now just an amending treaty, not the fundamental constitution which was planned and which crucially would have swept away all of the preceding treaties. This therefore would have been vital for British people to get a vote on.
The simple point to consider is this: if a referendum was held on the Lisbon treaty and people voted in favour we would remain in the EU; if people voted against Lisbon we would still remain in the EU, only it would be a less efficient EU since the planned reforms would not have been put in place.
Our position is unpopular – as it so often is – but quite principled. We believe in the EU but we also believe in democracy and we want people to have a genuine say over whether we remain in the EU or out. A referendum on the Lisbon treaty would not offer people that choice. It would change nothing.
The final point to make is that if we did have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, how many people would actually read and understand what they were voting on? Would the debate be worthwhile or would the two camps merely be reduced to discussing the issue we actually want voters to have a say on?
That’s why I support our position completely and I hope you will too.
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
GREAT HEADLINES OF OUR DAY
From the BBC News website:
'Frog skin diabetes treatment hope'
Full details at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7270714.stm
'Frog skin diabetes treatment hope'
Full details at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7270714.stm
MARGARET HODGE, CULTURE MINISTER. LET'S ALL RETIRE TO BEDLAM...
So here we go again. Former socialist and now 'Barking' MP, Margaret Hodge, has said that the Proms should 'engender new common values' , according to the Grauniad. Apparently the Proms attract a narrow, unrepresentative audience and this should be addressed.
Now there is a lot of truth in this. The gene pool which is represented in the average Proms concert is often smaller than Tony Blair's conscience but the BBC, the sponsor of the Proms, has done its utmost to spread the net more widely with its outside broadcasts on the last night and the sheer range of music played during each season.
The Last Night is a flag waving event but it is hardly a Nuremburg rally. One of the most striking things about the Last Night is the abundance of flags from other countries. Sure, the chinless inbreds have occasional bouts of their mind-numbing shouting and some dick always takes a hooter in (rubber gloves and a pot of Vaseline should be made available to deal with the offender) but this isn't America or France - thank God. We're always mildly embarrassed by this show of patriotism so we play it down - and long may it remain so. In the country that gave the world understatement, the apology as catch-all question/statement/answer and the weather as the ultimate conversation piece, this fits in with the national mood.
Hodge also says that the 500th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Henry VIII next year should be a time for reflection about the good and the bad bits of what he achieved. Why, precisely? Is it really evil to focus on the good stuff? Do we always have to be negative.
Henry VIII was clearly trouble, not least in his somewhat careless treatment of his wives. He was a grade A b*st*rd in many respects but he was also an inspired leader who gave us a common language, clear borders, a religion separate from the dominance of Rome and the makings of a navy. It would be nice, just for once, to actually be positive about a major English historical figure without having to bemoan the fact that he could eat Rutland for Breakfast and still be peckish, for example.
It would be good for ex-Comrade Hodge and her fellows to celebrate the often odd traditions of our country for what they are and perhaps only to seek to develop them or to add more. We do have a dominant culture and that's not a bad thing as long as it does not exclude other traditions.
We really don't need to change everything - apart, that is, from the government of course. Wouldn't it be lovely if the Barking MP was one of those to get the chop next time round...Where's Henry when you need him?
Now there is a lot of truth in this. The gene pool which is represented in the average Proms concert is often smaller than Tony Blair's conscience but the BBC, the sponsor of the Proms, has done its utmost to spread the net more widely with its outside broadcasts on the last night and the sheer range of music played during each season.
The Last Night is a flag waving event but it is hardly a Nuremburg rally. One of the most striking things about the Last Night is the abundance of flags from other countries. Sure, the chinless inbreds have occasional bouts of their mind-numbing shouting and some dick always takes a hooter in (rubber gloves and a pot of Vaseline should be made available to deal with the offender) but this isn't America or France - thank God. We're always mildly embarrassed by this show of patriotism so we play it down - and long may it remain so. In the country that gave the world understatement, the apology as catch-all question/statement/answer and the weather as the ultimate conversation piece, this fits in with the national mood.
Hodge also says that the 500th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Henry VIII next year should be a time for reflection about the good and the bad bits of what he achieved. Why, precisely? Is it really evil to focus on the good stuff? Do we always have to be negative.
Henry VIII was clearly trouble, not least in his somewhat careless treatment of his wives. He was a grade A b*st*rd in many respects but he was also an inspired leader who gave us a common language, clear borders, a religion separate from the dominance of Rome and the makings of a navy. It would be nice, just for once, to actually be positive about a major English historical figure without having to bemoan the fact that he could eat Rutland for Breakfast and still be peckish, for example.
It would be good for ex-Comrade Hodge and her fellows to celebrate the often odd traditions of our country for what they are and perhaps only to seek to develop them or to add more. We do have a dominant culture and that's not a bad thing as long as it does not exclude other traditions.
We really don't need to change everything - apart, that is, from the government of course. Wouldn't it be lovely if the Barking MP was one of those to get the chop next time round...Where's Henry when you need him?
Monday, 3 March 2008
DAVE GOES TO PRISON AND HAS A 'BIG IDEA'
So David Cameron became leader of the Conservative Party promising to transform their prospects. He reached out to supporters of other parties and called on them to support his new vision. He sat in some snow and looked meaningfully at a bunch of dogs. He rode a bike. He generally did ‘good things’.
Then the nasty Real World broke through the aura of invincibility and general loveliness he had surrounded himself with and forced some thorny issues onto his radar. One of these was prison overcrowding, which is a daily problem as the current government introduces a new law every minute and gives away new types of crime with Corn Flakes at the supermarket.
Step forward Dave, teeth glinting, hair coiffed admirably, to propose a new, more liberal approach to the prisons crisis. Taking as his inspiration every policy on prisons the Tories have come out with for the past 30 years he boldly suggested, er, building more prisons.
It is almost impossible to put into words how radical this proposal is for the Tories. Michael Howard would never have thought…[what, did he?] Well, William Hague would never have…[oh, he did too?] I bet IDS wouldn’t have conceived of such a bold…[really? When?]
Of course the difference with Dave’s new policy is that the thousands more prisoners to be banged up by the mythical future Tory government will be better cared for, given proper jobs and rehabilitated so that, having served their minimum sentence - and if they've been good - they will emerge blinking into the new Tory Jerusalem with real opportunities.
If only.
Year one: bold new promises for solving the prisons problem, as outlined by Dave on the news media today. More prisons, more rehab programmes, better work for prisoners, lollies for good behaviour, tuck shops on every wing.
Year two: some problems with funding, blamed on the previous government and the world ecomony. Some rehabilitation programmes curtailed
Year three: a range of programmes starved of funding, reduced in applicability and generally run down.
Year four: prison overcrowding gets worse. Government announces bold new scheme (see above, cf. Michael Howard, William Hague, IDS, etc etc ad nauseum)
I suppose Dave should be credited for being a bit more practical than most Tories in recognising the need for better rehabilitation programmes. His problem, as ever, is that he leads a party whose views don't quite stretch to seeing prisoners as part of the human race.
Then the nasty Real World broke through the aura of invincibility and general loveliness he had surrounded himself with and forced some thorny issues onto his radar. One of these was prison overcrowding, which is a daily problem as the current government introduces a new law every minute and gives away new types of crime with Corn Flakes at the supermarket.
Step forward Dave, teeth glinting, hair coiffed admirably, to propose a new, more liberal approach to the prisons crisis. Taking as his inspiration every policy on prisons the Tories have come out with for the past 30 years he boldly suggested, er, building more prisons.
It is almost impossible to put into words how radical this proposal is for the Tories. Michael Howard would never have thought…[what, did he?] Well, William Hague would never have…[oh, he did too?] I bet IDS wouldn’t have conceived of such a bold…[really? When?]
Of course the difference with Dave’s new policy is that the thousands more prisoners to be banged up by the mythical future Tory government will be better cared for, given proper jobs and rehabilitated so that, having served their minimum sentence - and if they've been good - they will emerge blinking into the new Tory Jerusalem with real opportunities.
If only.
Year one: bold new promises for solving the prisons problem, as outlined by Dave on the news media today. More prisons, more rehab programmes, better work for prisoners, lollies for good behaviour, tuck shops on every wing.
Year two: some problems with funding, blamed on the previous government and the world ecomony. Some rehabilitation programmes curtailed
Year three: a range of programmes starved of funding, reduced in applicability and generally run down.
Year four: prison overcrowding gets worse. Government announces bold new scheme (see above, cf. Michael Howard, William Hague, IDS, etc etc ad nauseum)
I suppose Dave should be credited for being a bit more practical than most Tories in recognising the need for better rehabilitation programmes. His problem, as ever, is that he leads a party whose views don't quite stretch to seeing prisoners as part of the human race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
