Having recently staggered down the stairs after dispatching two crotchety kids to dreamland, a thought occurred to me.
Rather than the clever, clever ads with lots of sexy youths involved in various acts with the names of STDs on their clothing, the government could probably reduce the teenage infection and pregnancy rate significantly by the simple expedient of having video screens in the toilets of clubs and bars where the poor innocents gather which show looped short clips of patient but frazzled parents negotiating with their respective darlings/terrors as they throw their food across the room/refuse to go to bed/refuse to get dressed/decide that beating their sibling with a plastic toy is a good idea etc etc.
I reckon the chances of that kind of video nasty making sex-obsessed young'uns think twice is far higher than the nonsense dreamed up in the boardrooms of adland.
Now where's the bottle opener...
Friday, 30 May 2008
Tuesday, 27 May 2008
HAULIERS PROTEST - BUT MISS THE UNDERLYING ISSUE
I posted this on another blog discussing the fuel protests today but I wanted to give others the opportunity to dismiss and damn my somewhat controversial comments...
On the question of fuel costs, can’t hauliers simply increase their prices, forcing their users to pass on the cost to consumers? That would surely be a more sustainable and market driven way to address demand while still addressing the urgent problem of climate change.
It’s clear that the oil companies are coining it in - they can as they have something we all want and there is insatiable demand globally. However, it’s hard to see what any government can do to address this, beyond starting now to think about a post-oil world. If they did that and assured people that the extra money raised from fuel would go into this project it might sweeten the pill a little.
Simple cuts in fuel duty are going to do very little and are a demand the hauliers are hiding behind to avoid the real question of how their industry modernises and responds to reduced oil supplies.
There is also the blindingly obvious need to use the railways - and a rejuvenated canal system - to transport the great majority of our goods, relying on smaller 7.5t lorries and vans to deliver them at each end. There could be a lot of jobs and investment across the country in setting up regional supply centres around rail (and canal) hubs but it would require a bit of initiative and investment from government and major businesses, such as supermarket leviathans.
We can’t just cut fuel taxes short term, we need to think about the consequences - and that thinking will need increasingly to be 'outside the box'.
To provide a personal context, I run a car and I wince at the pump when I fill up. I drive 46 miles a day to and from work so I am fully aware of the issue of petrol and diesel costs, particularly for companies whose business is transport but I also recognise that there is a 'bigger picture' to be considered as well.
Finally, it is always worth reflecting on what John Tory is proposing to do to alleviate the current problems. No doubt there will be promises of jam tomorrow fdrom Dave and George Osborne but I wonder if they will offer any concrete guarantees about future action...
On the question of fuel costs, can’t hauliers simply increase their prices, forcing their users to pass on the cost to consumers? That would surely be a more sustainable and market driven way to address demand while still addressing the urgent problem of climate change.
It’s clear that the oil companies are coining it in - they can as they have something we all want and there is insatiable demand globally. However, it’s hard to see what any government can do to address this, beyond starting now to think about a post-oil world. If they did that and assured people that the extra money raised from fuel would go into this project it might sweeten the pill a little.
Simple cuts in fuel duty are going to do very little and are a demand the hauliers are hiding behind to avoid the real question of how their industry modernises and responds to reduced oil supplies.
There is also the blindingly obvious need to use the railways - and a rejuvenated canal system - to transport the great majority of our goods, relying on smaller 7.5t lorries and vans to deliver them at each end. There could be a lot of jobs and investment across the country in setting up regional supply centres around rail (and canal) hubs but it would require a bit of initiative and investment from government and major businesses, such as supermarket leviathans.
We can’t just cut fuel taxes short term, we need to think about the consequences - and that thinking will need increasingly to be 'outside the box'.
To provide a personal context, I run a car and I wince at the pump when I fill up. I drive 46 miles a day to and from work so I am fully aware of the issue of petrol and diesel costs, particularly for companies whose business is transport but I also recognise that there is a 'bigger picture' to be considered as well.
Finally, it is always worth reflecting on what John Tory is proposing to do to alleviate the current problems. No doubt there will be promises of jam tomorrow fdrom Dave and George Osborne but I wonder if they will offer any concrete guarantees about future action...
Friday, 23 May 2008
FROM DEPRESSION, HOPE EMERGES
Having been in despair about the Tories apparent march back to power, this article by James Graham - http://tinyurl.com/67llkd [I still can't do hyperlinks I'm afraid...] - gives me more confidence.
He makes two excellent points. First, there is all to play for in Henley and the Tories are going to have to give it everything to hold on to the Blond Bombshell's seat. Second, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that the Tories remain a largely mindless, divided bunch with about as much to unite them as a room full of Frenchmen discussing cheese.
If Dave manages to steer the Tories to victory in 2010 his main task will begin on day 1 in office as the Nasty Party comes out of the closet once more in the proverbial stockings brandishing a whip and sporting a strap-on to remind people just how odious they were before.
My advice to Brown is to get a European argument going. That normally causes the Tories to self-destruct.
He makes two excellent points. First, there is all to play for in Henley and the Tories are going to have to give it everything to hold on to the Blond Bombshell's seat. Second, and perhaps most significant, is the fact that the Tories remain a largely mindless, divided bunch with about as much to unite them as a room full of Frenchmen discussing cheese.
If Dave manages to steer the Tories to victory in 2010 his main task will begin on day 1 in office as the Nasty Party comes out of the closet once more in the proverbial stockings brandishing a whip and sporting a strap-on to remind people just how odious they were before.
My advice to Brown is to get a European argument going. That normally causes the Tories to self-destruct.
JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES! THE TORIES ARE BACK!
Seeing a Tory win a by-election is somewhat akin to drinking from a cup of slurry. It leaves a very nasty taste in your mouth and promises worse to come, as the animal waste works its way through your system. A long night perched on the edge of the toilet bowl of destiny looms.
Perhaps the old New Labour joke can be revisited: How many Tories does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer: the Tories won't change anything.
Perhaps the old New Labour joke can be revisited: How many Tories does it take to change a lightbulb. Answer: the Tories won't change anything.
Thursday, 22 May 2008
WHY I'M REALLY, REALLY GLAD TO BE MONGREL ENGLISH
The US election continues to throw up jaw dropping stories. Fresh from trying to woo the 'white working class' in Mulligatawny, New Mexico, or some such place, the headline has it that Barack Obama 'arrives in Florida hoping to win over Hispanics and Jews'.
Quite how racially divided the 'land of the free' still is, astonishes me. Imagine if a British party leader went to Peckham to woo the 'Black Working Classes', or to Hampshire to win over the 'chinless Audi drivers'.
My advice to anyone with a gripe about England is to bring on the critism of this country - it is after all what we do best and there is always much to criticise - but then fall to your knees, whatever their class, gender or ethnic group, and thank your lucky stars you live somnewhere where such considerations are not the first thing to define you.
Quite how racially divided the 'land of the free' still is, astonishes me. Imagine if a British party leader went to Peckham to woo the 'Black Working Classes', or to Hampshire to win over the 'chinless Audi drivers'.
My advice to anyone with a gripe about England is to bring on the critism of this country - it is after all what we do best and there is always much to criticise - but then fall to your knees, whatever their class, gender or ethnic group, and thank your lucky stars you live somnewhere where such considerations are not the first thing to define you.
Friday, 16 May 2008
DAVE DOES HOMELESSNESS - DON'T GET YOUR HOPES UP
David Cameron has announced a new Homelessness Foundation on which the heads of many national homelessness charities will sit. He spoke of looking at the root causes of homelessness, including poverty, mental illness, employment and housing shortages. In response, Labour minister Caroline Flint has said the Tories were not serious as they had opposed the government’s laughable house-building targets.
This is an interesting exchange since Dave has hit the nail on the head by identifying the need to look more widely than simply a roof over someone’s head. Caroline Flint’s response suggests that the Labour government’s approach is rather one-dimensional along precisely these lines.
If John Tory is going to be in government some time in the future it is good that the party is developing some sense of society again, although I, like many others no doubt, remain deeply sceptical of any practical ideas coming from their camp.
What this has brought into focus for me is the completely disjointed nature of public services, which I’d say lies at the heart of numerous issues. The BBC ran a programme on the NHS last year in which a management guru (whose name escapes me) marvelled at how different departments in a major hospital simply didn’t communicate with each other or among senior and junior staff. By simply improving communications between staff he helped them to improve efficiency massively. It was an eye opener.
Working in local government, I always smile at the fact that, in my part of the world, the District Council collects household rubbish and recycling while the County Council disposes of it. Now the two sides work well together but this kind of divide between two organisations is frankly stupid. I always imagine that there is some kind of border at which the District Council’s contractor hands over the rubbish to a County Council representative with a formal handshake and a brass band playing.
Another classic tension in this part of the world is between the John Radcliffe Hospital behemoth and the various community hospitals which are part of the trust. They have a mutually dependant relationship, with the community hospitals relieving the pressure on the JR and helping to deal with elderly patients who may need longer care. However, there is mistrust and suspicion on both sides as the trust desperately tries to cut costs, save money and ‘rationalise’ the services it provides, threatening the existence of community hospitals. The result is that fewer patients are dealt with effectively while the number of meetings and arguments multiplies.
It has long struck me that local government does not necessarily need to provide any services directly – and many services have of course been contracted out since the days of the Tories in the 1980s. That was a classic example of a good idea being driven by ideology so that it simply went too far. A market approach to service provision and good value is sensible but it should not be the overriding concern. Public service should have equal weight, not just the bottom line. In my LD authority we manage to achieve good value and good services with external contractors, proving that it can be done - and done well.
What local government could perhaps evolve more into doing is providing a comprehensive bridging service between all the various local bodies, such as hospitals, day centres, hostels, social workers, the police and the armed forces, for example (since a disturbingly large number of homeless people, to return to the original theme, come from the armed forces) without necessarily having to provide the services directly. Councils could become co-ordinators rather than service providers primarily and thus seek the best outcomes alongside the best value.
Perhaps the key to improved public services is not the usual root and branch review and pledge to change everything, bringing in internal markets and instigating deep cleans. The key may simply be to improve communciations and understanding between all the various agencies so that they all speak to each other and they all know what the others are doing – and perhaps to provide a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels – perhaps with a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels, natch. Eventual savings would doubtless more than offset the investment.
Finally, a prediction about the Tories’ Homelessness Foundation. It will work well and produce a series of thoughtful recommendations. The recommendations will be spoken of warmly by Dave and by the homelessness charities until the moment (should that moment ever arise) when Dave wins power. He will then launch a ‘further review’ of the review and the majority of the recommendations will be watered down, resulting in the Homelessness Foundation breaking up in acrimony and mutual recrimination. Its work will then be quietly forgotten until, some years later, the opposition decides to launch a further review.
Thus does politics work.
This is an interesting exchange since Dave has hit the nail on the head by identifying the need to look more widely than simply a roof over someone’s head. Caroline Flint’s response suggests that the Labour government’s approach is rather one-dimensional along precisely these lines.
If John Tory is going to be in government some time in the future it is good that the party is developing some sense of society again, although I, like many others no doubt, remain deeply sceptical of any practical ideas coming from their camp.
What this has brought into focus for me is the completely disjointed nature of public services, which I’d say lies at the heart of numerous issues. The BBC ran a programme on the NHS last year in which a management guru (whose name escapes me) marvelled at how different departments in a major hospital simply didn’t communicate with each other or among senior and junior staff. By simply improving communications between staff he helped them to improve efficiency massively. It was an eye opener.
Working in local government, I always smile at the fact that, in my part of the world, the District Council collects household rubbish and recycling while the County Council disposes of it. Now the two sides work well together but this kind of divide between two organisations is frankly stupid. I always imagine that there is some kind of border at which the District Council’s contractor hands over the rubbish to a County Council representative with a formal handshake and a brass band playing.
Another classic tension in this part of the world is between the John Radcliffe Hospital behemoth and the various community hospitals which are part of the trust. They have a mutually dependant relationship, with the community hospitals relieving the pressure on the JR and helping to deal with elderly patients who may need longer care. However, there is mistrust and suspicion on both sides as the trust desperately tries to cut costs, save money and ‘rationalise’ the services it provides, threatening the existence of community hospitals. The result is that fewer patients are dealt with effectively while the number of meetings and arguments multiplies.
It has long struck me that local government does not necessarily need to provide any services directly – and many services have of course been contracted out since the days of the Tories in the 1980s. That was a classic example of a good idea being driven by ideology so that it simply went too far. A market approach to service provision and good value is sensible but it should not be the overriding concern. Public service should have equal weight, not just the bottom line. In my LD authority we manage to achieve good value and good services with external contractors, proving that it can be done - and done well.
What local government could perhaps evolve more into doing is providing a comprehensive bridging service between all the various local bodies, such as hospitals, day centres, hostels, social workers, the police and the armed forces, for example (since a disturbingly large number of homeless people, to return to the original theme, come from the armed forces) without necessarily having to provide the services directly. Councils could become co-ordinators rather than service providers primarily and thus seek the best outcomes alongside the best value.
Perhaps the key to improved public services is not the usual root and branch review and pledge to change everything, bringing in internal markets and instigating deep cleans. The key may simply be to improve communciations and understanding between all the various agencies so that they all speak to each other and they all know what the others are doing – and perhaps to provide a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels – perhaps with a sizeable dollop of funding to grease the newly churning wheels, natch. Eventual savings would doubtless more than offset the investment.
Finally, a prediction about the Tories’ Homelessness Foundation. It will work well and produce a series of thoughtful recommendations. The recommendations will be spoken of warmly by Dave and by the homelessness charities until the moment (should that moment ever arise) when Dave wins power. He will then launch a ‘further review’ of the review and the majority of the recommendations will be watered down, resulting in the Homelessness Foundation breaking up in acrimony and mutual recrimination. Its work will then be quietly forgotten until, some years later, the opposition decides to launch a further review.
Thus does politics work.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
TORIES IN SENSATIONAL NEW IDEAS SHOCK
The news today is full of Tory ‘initiatives’ such as ‘cutting red tape for police officers’, ‘giving head teachers powers to smarten up teachers’, opposing a ‘bin tax’. What is telling from all these ideas is firstly that they are about as novel as the gramophone, secondly that they demonstrate a shocking absence of a ‘big picture’ for the Tories.
Hasn’t every Tory Home Secretary since the Ark said they would ‘cut red tape for police officers’? Didn’t crime rise exponentially under the Tories between 1979 and 1997? Hasn’t every Tory Education Secretary wanted to smarten up teachers, go back to basics or some such jargon? And wasn’t education simply fantastic in the 1980s and 1990s? (I know: I endured it.) As for the ‘bin tax’, which party introduced the laughable Council Tax which is at the very heart of local government’s financial problems which require a bin tax to be considered?
Now its true that the Tories have never claimed to have a strong philosophical basis for their approach: they simply want to win power but it is surprising that the blessed Dave is content with this. Having started off with ‘Vote Blue, Go Green’, which is a bit naff but which works quite well, he has now abandoned any desire to hug the planet or any passing huskies thereon.
Numerous questions still need to be asked therefore: what would a Tory government actually do? What would it be for? What would it believe in? The answers currently seem to be little; itself and disgruntled voters; nothing beyond gaining and holding on to power.
Inspiring? Er…
Unfortunately the real story is perhaps that all these ‘initiatives’ have once again got the press rolling over to have its collective tummy tickled while we are once again pushed to the sidelines. We have proper ideas for government, the Tories get fulsome media coverage for blather. We have intelligent, pro-active MPs, the Tories have George Osborne and Boris Johnson. We have a good image but the Tories have a core of mindless voters who would support them even if they planned to invade Estonia and ban cheese.
What's a political party got to do to get noticed?
Hasn’t every Tory Home Secretary since the Ark said they would ‘cut red tape for police officers’? Didn’t crime rise exponentially under the Tories between 1979 and 1997? Hasn’t every Tory Education Secretary wanted to smarten up teachers, go back to basics or some such jargon? And wasn’t education simply fantastic in the 1980s and 1990s? (I know: I endured it.) As for the ‘bin tax’, which party introduced the laughable Council Tax which is at the very heart of local government’s financial problems which require a bin tax to be considered?
Now its true that the Tories have never claimed to have a strong philosophical basis for their approach: they simply want to win power but it is surprising that the blessed Dave is content with this. Having started off with ‘Vote Blue, Go Green’, which is a bit naff but which works quite well, he has now abandoned any desire to hug the planet or any passing huskies thereon.
Numerous questions still need to be asked therefore: what would a Tory government actually do? What would it be for? What would it believe in? The answers currently seem to be little; itself and disgruntled voters; nothing beyond gaining and holding on to power.
Inspiring? Er…
Unfortunately the real story is perhaps that all these ‘initiatives’ have once again got the press rolling over to have its collective tummy tickled while we are once again pushed to the sidelines. We have proper ideas for government, the Tories get fulsome media coverage for blather. We have intelligent, pro-active MPs, the Tories have George Osborne and Boris Johnson. We have a good image but the Tories have a core of mindless voters who would support them even if they planned to invade Estonia and ban cheese.
What's a political party got to do to get noticed?
Monday, 12 May 2008
FOOD FOR THOUGHT OR A GENERAL RAMBLE - YOU DECIDE
I am currently listening to Andrew Marr's 'History of Britain' in the car on my way to work and it is very good: informative but not too laden with details about specific Cabinet meetings which added 1p to the tax rate to appeal only to sad politicos.
I'm now up to the 1990s and the moment when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair started to plot to take over the Labour Party. Marr gives a limited amount of detail as this is an abridged version for the audiobook but it is significant that they started to work ouit where they were going years ahead of achieving their sensational result in 1997.
I find this kind of detail fascinating because it demonstrates that you don't just walk out with a few Focuses and win an election, you have to work bloody hard, usually for years. Buit more than that is the fact that it seems the greatest success comes from a real root and branch rethink of what you're about.
We are an impressive, effective party which has successfully dragged itself back from the brink of extinction in the 1980s to running real government across the country. We will fight great campaigns in both Crewe & Nantwich and in Henley and activists will come from all over to help. It is a tribute to the effectiveness of such campaigns that the others fear us so much in by-elections.
However, I humbly suggest, we may have plateaued.
In common with all other parties we need more members, money and commitment to avoid standing still and I worry whether that can continue indefinitely based on the current model. Our activists are our not-at-all-secret weapon but the pool inevitably needs to be constantly refilled. Will the type of labour-intensive, all out campaign which we do so well always be possible?
I think the crux of this post is that I hope (and quietly expect) that our upper echelons are thinking ten years ahead and looking at developing our successful machine for another era, an era of postal voting, even more diffuse political 'tribes' and an all-encompassing internet. There is much which has been done, as the countless blogs and LD Voice attest in a small way.
Perhaps it is worth reflecting that New Labour wasn't anything special, just a massive effort, 100% commitment and a clear idea, which was, quite simply, victory. Plus, New Labour was able to ride exuberantly on the mighty wave of a Tory Party tearing itself to pieces to the delight of everyone else.
I also don't buy the inevitability of a Tory victory in the next General Election. They've done well but they remain a house of sand, built on nothing solid at all. Dave's quietly dropped the environment - it served its purpose, he's now the huskies' pin-up. But what else is there?
Typically, I don't have any answers, just a lot of uncertainty. What is reassuring is that the core LD party remains uniquely united, which is a superb basis for growth. Bring on Crewe and Nantwich!
I'm now up to the 1990s and the moment when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair started to plot to take over the Labour Party. Marr gives a limited amount of detail as this is an abridged version for the audiobook but it is significant that they started to work ouit where they were going years ahead of achieving their sensational result in 1997.
I find this kind of detail fascinating because it demonstrates that you don't just walk out with a few Focuses and win an election, you have to work bloody hard, usually for years. Buit more than that is the fact that it seems the greatest success comes from a real root and branch rethink of what you're about.
We are an impressive, effective party which has successfully dragged itself back from the brink of extinction in the 1980s to running real government across the country. We will fight great campaigns in both Crewe & Nantwich and in Henley and activists will come from all over to help. It is a tribute to the effectiveness of such campaigns that the others fear us so much in by-elections.
However, I humbly suggest, we may have plateaued.
In common with all other parties we need more members, money and commitment to avoid standing still and I worry whether that can continue indefinitely based on the current model. Our activists are our not-at-all-secret weapon but the pool inevitably needs to be constantly refilled. Will the type of labour-intensive, all out campaign which we do so well always be possible?
I think the crux of this post is that I hope (and quietly expect) that our upper echelons are thinking ten years ahead and looking at developing our successful machine for another era, an era of postal voting, even more diffuse political 'tribes' and an all-encompassing internet. There is much which has been done, as the countless blogs and LD Voice attest in a small way.
Perhaps it is worth reflecting that New Labour wasn't anything special, just a massive effort, 100% commitment and a clear idea, which was, quite simply, victory. Plus, New Labour was able to ride exuberantly on the mighty wave of a Tory Party tearing itself to pieces to the delight of everyone else.
I also don't buy the inevitability of a Tory victory in the next General Election. They've done well but they remain a house of sand, built on nothing solid at all. Dave's quietly dropped the environment - it served its purpose, he's now the huskies' pin-up. But what else is there?
Typically, I don't have any answers, just a lot of uncertainty. What is reassuring is that the core LD party remains uniquely united, which is a superb basis for growth. Bring on Crewe and Nantwich!
CREDIT WHERE DUE FOR ALAN JOHNSON
It's only fair when having a general whinge about politicians to credit those who perform well, especially in the kindergarten of the Today programnme where the general dunderheadedness of the presenters - Evan Davies excepted - catches out interviewees who just can't believe what they are being asked. Alan Johnson on the Today programme this morning was just such a politician. He was interviewed by the excellent Evan Davies, so no dumb questions or pointless tangents of the type Dim Jim Naughtie loves.
Evan Davies started by asking Johnson about the comments of serial also-ran Frank Field about Gordon Brown. As Alan Johnson pointed out rather combatively, Frank Field and Gordon Brown don't like each other. That's the beginning and the end of it. Field has also never got over being given the power to 'think the unthinkable' on welfare early in Blair's reign and, er, not being able to think of anything.
After a few minutes of pointless chit chat around this subject, with Evan Davies second guessed all the way by Johnson, they got on to the issue of social care and, throughout the interview Johnson argued his case well, clearly and without falling into any of the mindless Today traps which presenters try for.
Davies was trying to make something of the fact that the government has been talking about social care changes for years and Johnson's reply was clear and to the point: its a huge, intractable issue which needs a lot of thought. Now that may be seen as fudging the issue but to me it seems like reasonable candour about one hell of an issue which will affect everyone for decades to come.
Johnson made one cheap jibe at the Lib Dems for apparently abandoning our poicy of free care, the truth of which I don't know but, that aside, he was extremely effective.
Still, he'll never be leader as he's neither Scottish nor Posh.
Evan Davies started by asking Johnson about the comments of serial also-ran Frank Field about Gordon Brown. As Alan Johnson pointed out rather combatively, Frank Field and Gordon Brown don't like each other. That's the beginning and the end of it. Field has also never got over being given the power to 'think the unthinkable' on welfare early in Blair's reign and, er, not being able to think of anything.
After a few minutes of pointless chit chat around this subject, with Evan Davies second guessed all the way by Johnson, they got on to the issue of social care and, throughout the interview Johnson argued his case well, clearly and without falling into any of the mindless Today traps which presenters try for.
Davies was trying to make something of the fact that the government has been talking about social care changes for years and Johnson's reply was clear and to the point: its a huge, intractable issue which needs a lot of thought. Now that may be seen as fudging the issue but to me it seems like reasonable candour about one hell of an issue which will affect everyone for decades to come.
Johnson made one cheap jibe at the Lib Dems for apparently abandoning our poicy of free care, the truth of which I don't know but, that aside, he was extremely effective.
Still, he'll never be leader as he's neither Scottish nor Posh.
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
TODAY’S TRAINING COURSE
From the International Quality and Productivity Centre, that famous organisation renowned for, er, precisely nothing but which has the resources, paid for by ludicrously priced training courses, to send out junk mail advertising for courses entitled:
‘Partnering and Engaging for Safer, Stronger Communities 2008: developing citizen-focused, multi-agency partnerships to realise empowered, socially responsible & assured communities.’
I suppose you need to attend the training to find out just what a 'citizen-focused, multi-agency partnership to realise empowered, socially responsible & assured communities' actually is.
Or you could just refer to the dictionary, searching somewhere between 'bollard' and 'boloney' for an adequate description.
‘Partnering and Engaging for Safer, Stronger Communities 2008: developing citizen-focused, multi-agency partnerships to realise empowered, socially responsible & assured communities.’
I suppose you need to attend the training to find out just what a 'citizen-focused, multi-agency partnership to realise empowered, socially responsible & assured communities' actually is.
Or you could just refer to the dictionary, searching somewhere between 'bollard' and 'boloney' for an adequate description.
HAIL THE DEMOCRATS
Let's start the week with a controversy. The BBC reported on Dave's plans to keep the pressure on Gordon and mentioned the fact that Labour had polled below the Lib Dems on Thursday. I was immediately struck by how fussy our name is.
Is this a big problem for voters, I wonder? Would a name change be a good idea or would it cause too much controversy?
The obvious name for us would be Democrats, which is not exactly propitious given the fiasco of the Democrat primaries in the USA, which are all but handing victory to the Republicans. (Please, no comments on this: I really couldn't care less about the USA elections...)
A name change for us would mean losing the blessed 'Liberal' title which has defined the party for over a century and which I and many others hold dear, having joined the original Liberal Party. However, that's a sentimental issue which we would do well to avoid. Are we a political party or a history club?
We could also be pilloried by other parties who would sneer that they are democrats as well. However, that could be addressed by a sensible rebranding campaign.
Perhaps the key issue is how easily this could be rolled out across the country. Everyone would need to buy into the new name, new branding, new posters, badges etc etc. There would be bound to be those who would use the old name in election literature and posters and a few who would take their ball home and insist on staying as LDs.
However, we are a very consensual party so those losers would almost certainly be a tiny minority.
To my mind it's worth considering if we ever want to be in government, even if it makes many of us - me included - uncomfortable. Perhaps the only serious question which needs to be considered is what would work with voters?
Is this a big problem for voters, I wonder? Would a name change be a good idea or would it cause too much controversy?
The obvious name for us would be Democrats, which is not exactly propitious given the fiasco of the Democrat primaries in the USA, which are all but handing victory to the Republicans. (Please, no comments on this: I really couldn't care less about the USA elections...)
A name change for us would mean losing the blessed 'Liberal' title which has defined the party for over a century and which I and many others hold dear, having joined the original Liberal Party. However, that's a sentimental issue which we would do well to avoid. Are we a political party or a history club?
We could also be pilloried by other parties who would sneer that they are democrats as well. However, that could be addressed by a sensible rebranding campaign.
Perhaps the key issue is how easily this could be rolled out across the country. Everyone would need to buy into the new name, new branding, new posters, badges etc etc. There would be bound to be those who would use the old name in election literature and posters and a few who would take their ball home and insist on staying as LDs.
However, we are a very consensual party so those losers would almost certainly be a tiny minority.
To my mind it's worth considering if we ever want to be in government, even if it makes many of us - me included - uncomfortable. Perhaps the only serious question which needs to be considered is what would work with voters?
Monday, 5 May 2008
'RWANDA DAVE' TO SOLVE OXFORDSHIRE FLOODING PROBLEMS FROM LONDON
Time to retire to Bedlam. Dave has called a meeting to discuss the flooding in Oxfordshire last July. The meeting will be held in Westminster Hall in, er, London on Wednesday.
This is the first time Dave appears to have recognised that the flooding happened. He famously was in another continent when his constituency was under several feet of water but, as the leader of the new Tories, Dave now cares.
I am sure that many of my neighbours will make the special trip to London to listen to this important debate. It is a shame no suitable venue could be found in his constituency...
Rwanda Dave might care to reflect that Evan Harris MP held a public meeting in Abingdon last year to hear the concerns of his residents who had been severely hit by the flooding. He also managed to remain in the country while the crisis was ongoing.
Still, it's clear that Dave cares and there should be no suggestion that this is being done for the benefit of national media.
There may be a moral here: elect a Tory MP in Oxfordshire and expect him (it is always a he) to spend all his time in London. Tea and buns at City Hall, anyone?
This is the first time Dave appears to have recognised that the flooding happened. He famously was in another continent when his constituency was under several feet of water but, as the leader of the new Tories, Dave now cares.
I am sure that many of my neighbours will make the special trip to London to listen to this important debate. It is a shame no suitable venue could be found in his constituency...
Rwanda Dave might care to reflect that Evan Harris MP held a public meeting in Abingdon last year to hear the concerns of his residents who had been severely hit by the flooding. He also managed to remain in the country while the crisis was ongoing.
Still, it's clear that Dave cares and there should be no suggestion that this is being done for the benefit of national media.
There may be a moral here: elect a Tory MP in Oxfordshire and expect him (it is always a he) to spend all his time in London. Tea and buns at City Hall, anyone?
Saturday, 3 May 2008
IF I WERE GORDON...
Fiest I'd have to seriously countenance retiring to Skye to make matchstick models.
However, if I decided against that what I wouldn't do is rush into a series of 'initiatives', or re-announcements of previous commitments. Instead, I'd bring together my second rate team and get everyone looking at a vision for the next two years. Once the various dunderheads in my Cabinet had had a good think I'd tell them what I wanted and expect them to play ball.
I'd start to sell that idea in a more grandiose way than the managerial Brown seems capable of. This is the party that sold us Tony Blair, after all, so they must have some spinners left.
I'd also start asking many more questions of the Tories than the dispirited Labour Party has managed so far. Dave has made his people electable but they still lack any serious ideas. I mean, the ludicrous plans for buses aside, what is Mayor Boris actually going to do now?
Luckily, I know that Gordon reads this blog so this is bound to make an impression.
By the way, I don't actually like Labour but, faced with a rejuvenated Tory Party, I'm inclined to consider supping with the devil...
However, if I decided against that what I wouldn't do is rush into a series of 'initiatives', or re-announcements of previous commitments. Instead, I'd bring together my second rate team and get everyone looking at a vision for the next two years. Once the various dunderheads in my Cabinet had had a good think I'd tell them what I wanted and expect them to play ball.
I'd start to sell that idea in a more grandiose way than the managerial Brown seems capable of. This is the party that sold us Tony Blair, after all, so they must have some spinners left.
I'd also start asking many more questions of the Tories than the dispirited Labour Party has managed so far. Dave has made his people electable but they still lack any serious ideas. I mean, the ludicrous plans for buses aside, what is Mayor Boris actually going to do now?
Luckily, I know that Gordon reads this blog so this is bound to make an impression.
By the way, I don't actually like Labour but, faced with a rejuvenated Tory Party, I'm inclined to consider supping with the devil...
THE END FOR LONDON
So Boris won. I've never been so glad to have left London - not that he'll get anywhere near power. The Tory suits will ensure he doesn't slip up.
It's a sad day when you hanker after the liar as Mayor, in place of the bumbling blond buffoon.
I was profoundly disappointed to see how far behind Paddick came. He deserves credit for his performance and I'd like to see him stand for Parliament for us.
I can't help wondering how the Mighty Vince would have fared in this contest...Has our overweening internal democracy delivered us a defeat we might not have had, as we couldn't ditch Padick for Vince at short notice?
We'll never know. In the meantime, Goodbye London and thanks for all the memories...
It's a sad day when you hanker after the liar as Mayor, in place of the bumbling blond buffoon.
I was profoundly disappointed to see how far behind Paddick came. He deserves credit for his performance and I'd like to see him stand for Parliament for us.
I can't help wondering how the Mighty Vince would have fared in this contest...Has our overweening internal democracy delivered us a defeat we might not have had, as we couldn't ditch Padick for Vince at short notice?
We'll never know. In the meantime, Goodbye London and thanks for all the memories...
Friday, 2 May 2008
THE BBC SEEMS TO BE LOSING IT
Emily Maitlis on Newsnight said that the fact that the LDs got 25% of the vote on May 1st, beating Labour into third place, meant that we are 'treading water'.
The only word which seems appropriate is cobblers.
The only word which seems appropriate is cobblers.
MORE VOTES FOR LDS THAN FOR LABOUR
The BBC has announced that we got 25% of the vote nationally against 24% for Labour. That is the best news so far.
The BBC has gone bonkers!
Watching the BBC's coverage of the election results, it is hard to put into words how unutterably appalling Jeremy Vine's attempts to upstage the delightfully eccentric Peter Snow are.
The tumbling stone/ice Tory leaders, who arose as developing human species was bad but the Lib Dem leader gunslingers was quite simply unintelligible. What the [expletive] is the BBC up to with my licence fee?
They just don't get it, do they? Peter Snow was a one off and should not be imitated.
Hats off to Alix Mortimer for providing the best up to the minute info so far. As to whether she's dishy or not, it may perhaps be too sexist for a good Lib Dem to comment...
The tumbling stone/ice Tory leaders, who arose as developing human species was bad but the Lib Dem leader gunslingers was quite simply unintelligible. What the [expletive] is the BBC up to with my licence fee?
They just don't get it, do they? Peter Snow was a one off and should not be imitated.
Hats off to Alix Mortimer for providing the best up to the minute info so far. As to whether she's dishy or not, it may perhaps be too sexist for a good Lib Dem to comment...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
