Posted this in response to Iain Dale's plea for big government to protect middle-class investments So Your House is About to go Over the Cliff
I'm sorry Iain but that sob story just doesn't cut it with me.
Di has been unlucky in that she's the one in possession of that property when it disappeared but she cannot be considered blameless.
Di probably got the property for cheaper than the going rate. In the article there are the examples of the Isle of Wight properties going for £65k when similar properties not threatened by erosion are worth 5 times that price. She was told at the time that it was safe for 100 years, but you can't predict the weather for 100 years. All it was and all it should have been treated as was an estimate.
If it had been really 100 years and in the 26 years since only a quarter of the garden had gone, then Di would have been happy. But she took a gamble against the weather and now the weather's won, she wants the state - me and you to pay out as if she'd won. As she herself says "Even then we thought someone would stop it before it got to us... I thought I'd be able to sell up and enjoy a nice retirement." Well, she can have a nice retirement, she can have a little council flat and a state pension like millions of other people have no choice but to do.
Also I have difficulty believing Di's account - David Will says that he's been concerned about Happisburgh since the 70s - that is during the time when Di lived in Happisburgh but before she bought the doomed houses. Note two houses - I would have more sympathy if it was just a home, but it was an investment.
And despite his concern David Will's still selling bungalows near the cliffedge. They are safe for 25 years he says, but as we both know, a bad storm this winter could cut that time in half. Will you be campaigning for state money for those new buyers too ten years down the road?
This is sadly typical of you, Iain. Antipathy against poor people but if middle class property owners might lose a bit of money then you want the state to step in. What about all the people who will never be able to buy property - near a cliff edge or not?
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Galloway - wrong again
I saw on BBC George Galloway repeating that old chestnut defending his decision to enter the Celebrity Big Brother house.
"More young people vote during Big Brother than in the general election. I hope they'll all be voting for me over the next few weeks."
I've blogged about it before and that myth was demolished by the BBC last May. Closing paragraph:
"But next time a politician appears on television claiming Big Brother is more popular than the general election among young voters, it is worth bearing in mind that they are almost certainly wrong."
Incidentally, if they vote for you this week, they'll be voting to evict. Don't you mean "I hope they'll all be voting for me, but not yet"
"More young people vote during Big Brother than in the general election. I hope they'll all be voting for me over the next few weeks."
I've blogged about it before and that myth was demolished by the BBC last May. Closing paragraph:
"But next time a politician appears on television claiming Big Brother is more popular than the general election among young voters, it is worth bearing in mind that they are almost certainly wrong."
Incidentally, if they vote for you this week, they'll be voting to evict. Don't you mean "I hope they'll all be voting for me, but not yet"
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Kennedy resigns
Well, he's gone and no surprise, but I feel immensely sorry for him. Living in Yeovil for the past nine years I have come to despise the two-faced character of many Lib Dem politicans (though I do respect a couple of them). Today Kennedy has fallen victim to the gutless cowards in his own ranks.
I think that after the next election, there will be many Lib Dems who will have that nagging doubt in their mind that they will have done better with Kennedy at the helm.
I think that after the next election, there will be many Lib Dems who will have that nagging doubt in their mind that they will have done better with Kennedy at the helm.
Friday, January 06, 2006
Kennedy
Just on the arithmetic with 24 MPs out of the Lib Dem 62 putting opposition to Kennedy on the record means he’s probably politically toast. But I do think that the way senior Lib Dem MPs are behaving is cowardly in the extreme.
Kennedy’s decided to issue a Major-style put up or shut up challenge to his MPs. They haven’t put up, or shut up, they are putting pressure on Kennedy to resign because they don’t want to face him in an election.
Can’t just one of them show an ounce of guts and say that he or she will make a better leader than Kennedy and stand against him in a vote of the membership?
UPDATE: BBC now reporting 33 MPs against Kennedy, that's got to be the point that he has to go.
Kennedy’s decided to issue a Major-style put up or shut up challenge to his MPs. They haven’t put up, or shut up, they are putting pressure on Kennedy to resign because they don’t want to face him in an election.
Can’t just one of them show an ounce of guts and say that he or she will make a better leader than Kennedy and stand against him in a vote of the membership?
UPDATE: BBC now reporting 33 MPs against Kennedy, that's got to be the point that he has to go.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Where's Happy Harry's money from?
From the Guardian:
Arkady Gaydamak, the father of Portsmouth's new co-owner Alexandre Gaydamak, was yesterday questioned by Israeli police on suspicion of money laundering. It was the third time the Russian-born billionaire has helped with investigations in the past six weeks and he is not free to leave Israel while the inquiry continues.
In a separate and significant twist police reportedly advised the Jewish Agency, an Israeli state organisation in charge of the relationship between Israel and diaspora Jews, not to accept a donation of $50m (£28m) from Gaydamak. Police said it would be unwise for the agency to take money from a suspect source, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv.
Redknapp’s not so picky
Arkady Gaydamak, the father of Portsmouth's new co-owner Alexandre Gaydamak, was yesterday questioned by Israeli police on suspicion of money laundering. It was the third time the Russian-born billionaire has helped with investigations in the past six weeks and he is not free to leave Israel while the inquiry continues.
In a separate and significant twist police reportedly advised the Jewish Agency, an Israeli state organisation in charge of the relationship between Israel and diaspora Jews, not to accept a donation of $50m (£28m) from Gaydamak. Police said it would be unwise for the agency to take money from a suspect source, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv.
Redknapp’s not so picky
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Ariel Sharon
Ariel Sharon may be a complete c**t, however for the sake of the Middle East, I hope that he makes a full and speedy recovery from the stroke he suffered tonight. He seems to me from this distance to me the only Israeli of any note who is hawkish enough to be able to conclude an equitable peace with the Palestinians.
First Rabin, now
Laws the hypocrite again
Our local MP David Laws received a letter from me early December asking for him to sign the early day motion supporting the pensions deal. He never even bothered to reply. No surprise there. What has surprised me is this comment which I missed at the time in the Independent.
"It is also time to reform public sector pensions to make them both fair and affordable."
I assume that reforming to make them affordable isn't going to make them more generous.
Maybe David Laws ought to be looking closer to home, When he was working for Barclays Bank, he enjoyed a pension scheme that was both more generous than either the Local Government (LGPS) or NHS pension schemes but also cost less to the employee. When they later closed the scheme to new employees Barclays did not force existing employees to switch schemes as Laws insists should happen to public sector workers. But when he joined Parliament, he hit the jackpot.
For David Laws, he doesn't have to wait until he's 60 for a pension like in the NHS, or follow the rule of 85 as the current rule is in the LGPS but when his age and years service add up to 80, in other words David Laws can retire when he's 57. Not only that, but while NHS and LGPS staff have an accrual rate of 1/80th and Barclays used to have 1/60th, MPs have an accrual rate of 1/40th. So Lucky Laws can not only retire three years earlier than a nurse can, but his pension has grown twice as fast.
Ah, but maybe he's principled and fought against such a generous provision for himself and his colleagues? No, when the change from an accrual rate of 1/50th to 1/40th took place in 2001, soon after Laws was first elected, the majority of Lib Dems and the majority of Labour MPs opposed the change which was passed due to the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs. What did Lucky Laws vote? He didn't bother to turn up.
What gives him the right to attack pensions for hard working public servants when he wallows in a pension that is far more generous? Maybe because he's a hypocrite?
"It is also time to reform public sector pensions to make them both fair and affordable."
I assume that reforming to make them affordable isn't going to make them more generous.
Maybe David Laws ought to be looking closer to home, When he was working for Barclays Bank, he enjoyed a pension scheme that was both more generous than either the Local Government (LGPS) or NHS pension schemes but also cost less to the employee. When they later closed the scheme to new employees Barclays did not force existing employees to switch schemes as Laws insists should happen to public sector workers. But when he joined Parliament, he hit the jackpot.
For David Laws, he doesn't have to wait until he's 60 for a pension like in the NHS, or follow the rule of 85 as the current rule is in the LGPS but when his age and years service add up to 80, in other words David Laws can retire when he's 57. Not only that, but while NHS and LGPS staff have an accrual rate of 1/80th and Barclays used to have 1/60th, MPs have an accrual rate of 1/40th. So Lucky Laws can not only retire three years earlier than a nurse can, but his pension has grown twice as fast.
Ah, but maybe he's principled and fought against such a generous provision for himself and his colleagues? No, when the change from an accrual rate of 1/50th to 1/40th took place in 2001, soon after Laws was first elected, the majority of Lib Dems and the majority of Labour MPs opposed the change which was passed due to the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs. What did Lucky Laws vote? He didn't bother to turn up.
What gives him the right to attack pensions for hard working public servants when he wallows in a pension that is far more generous? Maybe because he's a hypocrite?
Goodbye Patient's Passport
According to the BBC, David Cameron is set to announce that the Tory “patient’s passport” policy is to be scrapped. About time too, but there’s not much information on what’s going to replace it.
The Patient’s Passport was clearly a bad idea, a means of redistributing wealth from the poor towards the middle-classes. That was why it was popular with the Tories so I can’t see this announcement going down well with them.
From the BBC report:
Mr Cameron rejects such calls but he will also use his speech to claim he would go further than Labour on reforming the NHS.
He will say he wants to give hospitals more autonomy and "break down the barriers" between private and public sector providers so the NHS becomes more efficient and effective.
I’m not sure how more autonomous than foundation hospitals trusts can be and breaking down the barriers sounds like something someone would say when they’re not really certain of what they are talking about. Much like a lot of David Cameron’s soundbites in fact.
There is a little bit of red meat thrown to the Tory base by Andrew Lansley who says there would be no limit on the amount of private companies being used as providers of NHS services. Maybe surprisingly, I completely agree, I can only speak about my experience here in East Somerset, but I know that given a level playing-field, there’s no private company that would be able to match us.
My fear is that private companies will be allowed to negotiate an artificial floor on the amount of business they get. So even if there’s patient choice and no-one chooses the private provider, they are guaranteed to receive the minimum payment. An example in the Health Service Journal (free registration required) shows Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT paying Netcare nearly £500,000 for 688 surgical procedures, but only 67 patients wanted to be treated there. Result, Netcare were paid for 621 procedures that they didn’t have to perform.
I have no philosophical objection on private providers in a free at the point of need NHS. If private companies can provide a more efficient service then it would be churlish to object. But if everyone else is expected to stand on their own two feet and get paid by results, then the likes of Netcare must be subject to the rigours of the free market too. Why don’t the Tories agree with that?
The Patient’s Passport was clearly a bad idea, a means of redistributing wealth from the poor towards the middle-classes. That was why it was popular with the Tories so I can’t see this announcement going down well with them.
From the BBC report:
Mr Cameron rejects such calls but he will also use his speech to claim he would go further than Labour on reforming the NHS.
He will say he wants to give hospitals more autonomy and "break down the barriers" between private and public sector providers so the NHS becomes more efficient and effective.
I’m not sure how more autonomous than foundation hospitals trusts can be and breaking down the barriers sounds like something someone would say when they’re not really certain of what they are talking about. Much like a lot of David Cameron’s soundbites in fact.
There is a little bit of red meat thrown to the Tory base by Andrew Lansley who says there would be no limit on the amount of private companies being used as providers of NHS services. Maybe surprisingly, I completely agree, I can only speak about my experience here in East Somerset, but I know that given a level playing-field, there’s no private company that would be able to match us.
My fear is that private companies will be allowed to negotiate an artificial floor on the amount of business they get. So even if there’s patient choice and no-one chooses the private provider, they are guaranteed to receive the minimum payment. An example in the Health Service Journal (free registration required) shows Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT paying Netcare nearly £500,000 for 688 surgical procedures, but only 67 patients wanted to be treated there. Result, Netcare were paid for 621 procedures that they didn’t have to perform.
I have no philosophical objection on private providers in a free at the point of need NHS. If private companies can provide a more efficient service then it would be churlish to object. But if everyone else is expected to stand on their own two feet and get paid by results, then the likes of Netcare must be subject to the rigours of the free market too. Why don’t the Tories agree with that?
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Review: WWE Know Your Role!
published by Comic Images, 144 pages hardbound, £24.99 or thereabouts.
To be honest, this was a bit of a joke, some money burning a hole in my pocket at GenCon and a cheesy game to buy. But then I read it and it does not deserve the derision that a WWE roleplaying game usually attracts.
144 pages isn't a lot for £24.99 but it's well put together and well presented, full colour throughout. I'm not convinced that the binding will be up to serious use though, my copy is just starting to fail a couple of months after I bought it.
First things first, it's a D20 game in terms of the basics, weight classes from Light Cruiserweight to Ultra Heavyweight take the places of races and the classes are 5 types of wrestler and a manager class. The Wrestler classes are split into Power, Aerial, Rough, Technical and Savvy, each associated with a different attribute.
So we've got a game of hand to hand combat, using Dungeon and Dragon rules, what's to stop the game being hit, miss, miss, hit? That's where the cunning action count system comes into play. In the book there's around 100 different manoeuvres (also split into different classes) and an easy system for designing new moves. Manoeuvres are rated on difficulty from +6 for a simple pin attempt on a prone target to -3 for something like a Tornado Slam. Each wrestler announces a manoeuvre and rolls a d20, plus attack bonus, plus the rating of the move. Then the highest score is the move that takes effect in that round, the losing player's move fails.
I've done some practice bouts with this system and it really adds to the atmosphere of the game. Players don't tend to try for finishing moves immediately, because it's difficult to pin an opponent, it's best to stun them first, or to build up Heat from successful moves to cash them in for a special move.
That's the heart of the system and it swiftly becomes more complex, rules for distracting a referee (which could be run by another player) before doing an illegal move, the classic pick up a chair move and the getting another character to run in to help out. Rules for promos, vignettes, interviews and even getting a movie role are included, adding to the game's long time success.
Campaign-wise, the game's divergence from basic D20 is most apparent. Each player is encouraged to create at least 5 or 6 characters to populate the roster and also the campaign does not need a GM, it can run easily without one, abiding by a group consensus to resolve any rules conflict.
So I like the game, but I'm just not sure who will play it. Older roleplayers will tend to scoff at anything so childish as the WWE and younger roleplayers may be intimided by the complexity of the system, which could have been better presented. Still for those players, like me, that embrace their inner geek, the game might fit the bill.
* lost points for occassionally contradictory rules and for the book being less than well-bound
Overall 8/10
To be honest, this was a bit of a joke, some money burning a hole in my pocket at GenCon and a cheesy game to buy. But then I read it and it does not deserve the derision that a WWE roleplaying game usually attracts.
144 pages isn't a lot for £24.99 but it's well put together and well presented, full colour throughout. I'm not convinced that the binding will be up to serious use though, my copy is just starting to fail a couple of months after I bought it.
First things first, it's a D20 game in terms of the basics, weight classes from Light Cruiserweight to Ultra Heavyweight take the places of races and the classes are 5 types of wrestler and a manager class. The Wrestler classes are split into Power, Aerial, Rough, Technical and Savvy, each associated with a different attribute.
So we've got a game of hand to hand combat, using Dungeon and Dragon rules, what's to stop the game being hit, miss, miss, hit? That's where the cunning action count system comes into play. In the book there's around 100 different manoeuvres (also split into different classes) and an easy system for designing new moves. Manoeuvres are rated on difficulty from +6 for a simple pin attempt on a prone target to -3 for something like a Tornado Slam. Each wrestler announces a manoeuvre and rolls a d20, plus attack bonus, plus the rating of the move. Then the highest score is the move that takes effect in that round, the losing player's move fails.
I've done some practice bouts with this system and it really adds to the atmosphere of the game. Players don't tend to try for finishing moves immediately, because it's difficult to pin an opponent, it's best to stun them first, or to build up Heat from successful moves to cash them in for a special move.
That's the heart of the system and it swiftly becomes more complex, rules for distracting a referee (which could be run by another player) before doing an illegal move, the classic pick up a chair move and the getting another character to run in to help out. Rules for promos, vignettes, interviews and even getting a movie role are included, adding to the game's long time success.
Campaign-wise, the game's divergence from basic D20 is most apparent. Each player is encouraged to create at least 5 or 6 characters to populate the roster and also the campaign does not need a GM, it can run easily without one, abiding by a group consensus to resolve any rules conflict.
So I like the game, but I'm just not sure who will play it. Older roleplayers will tend to scoff at anything so childish as the WWE and younger roleplayers may be intimided by the complexity of the system, which could have been better presented. Still for those players, like me, that embrace their inner geek, the game might fit the bill.
* lost points for occassionally contradictory rules and for the book being less than well-bound
Overall 8/10
Monday, January 02, 2006
Darts, yes really
To avoid the crushingly boring round of TV over the Christmas period I've been watching quite a lot of the World Championship Darts. Normally when the final comes around, I'll cheer on whoever's playing Phil Taylor, he's just won too many times already - but this year will be different.
His oppponent this year is Peter Manley, so I'll have to cheer on Taylor. Manley's a good player, he hit a 3-dart average of nearly 100 in his defeat of Wayne Jones. Noticably, as he was outclassing Jones he didn't have to resort to his usual backtalk. So it's not something that's just Peter Manley, it's something he brings when he's in a tough match, as against Adrian Lewis and against Dennis Smith. Muttering and swearing to an opponent about to throw is not acceptable and not the sign of a worthy champion.
So come on the Power.
Update: Phil the Power never gave Manley a sniff and won 7-0 and a prize of £100,000.
His oppponent this year is Peter Manley, so I'll have to cheer on Taylor. Manley's a good player, he hit a 3-dart average of nearly 100 in his defeat of Wayne Jones. Noticably, as he was outclassing Jones he didn't have to resort to his usual backtalk. So it's not something that's just Peter Manley, it's something he brings when he's in a tough match, as against Adrian Lewis and against Dennis Smith. Muttering and swearing to an opponent about to throw is not acceptable and not the sign of a worthy champion.
So come on the Power.
Update: Phil the Power never gave Manley a sniff and won 7-0 and a prize of £100,000.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Happy 2006
2006 will be a transitional year for me, I'm stepping down as branch secretary at the end of January and hopefully I'll be able to move back into my old job full-time with little problem. One of my new years resolutions are to make better use of my time and that includes blogging. Let's see how long this will last.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Congrats McMenemy MBE
Not well reported but Lawrie McMenemy, Saints boss from 1974 to 1985 got an MBE for services to football and charity. It's probably got more to do with a successful season as manager of the Parliamentary Football Club than anything he did for Saints but well done anyway.
Robert Baehr - BNP tosser
Well known local BNP supporter, Robert Baehr of New Close, Haslebury Plucknett, Crewkerne was found not guilty of racially aggravavated harassment at Taunton Crown Court. I'm not going to advertise what he was cleared of saying but this is what he admitted to saying to a Mr Kamal, working in the One Stop Shop in Crewkerne.
"I don't like West Africans, half of them are criminals."
"What are you still doing in my country?"
"I hope you're not a Muslim because all Muslims are thieves and liars"
and to police later "I don't like foreigners taking people's jobs in the area"
I agree it's not harassment in the legal sense of the word, but I want to take this opportunity to exercise my free speech to Mr Baehr. He is a tosser, and a disgrace to the good name of Somerset.
UPDATE - The BNP themselves have put their own spin on the news here. It's important to remember that all the quotes above are things that Mr Baehr freely admits saying.
"I don't like West Africans, half of them are criminals."
"What are you still doing in my country?"
"I hope you're not a Muslim because all Muslims are thieves and liars"
and to police later "I don't like foreigners taking people's jobs in the area"
I agree it's not harassment in the legal sense of the word, but I want to take this opportunity to exercise my free speech to Mr Baehr. He is a tosser, and a disgrace to the good name of Somerset.
UPDATE - The BNP themselves have put their own spin on the news here. It's important to remember that all the quotes above are things that Mr Baehr freely admits saying.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Oh No it's Wise
So we get rid of Jason Dodd, a great servant of the club in the grounds he's too old and slow and we get in Dennis Wise, the 38-year old because Redknapp likes characters? What the hell is going on there?
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Random Comment
From the Sunday Telegraph's leader today:
"As a result of the chef Jamie Oliver's recent campaign, the Government agreed to increase the amount it spends on school meals from 37p a day to 50p for primary school children and 60p for secondary school children. That's still less than half what it spends on feeding prisoners."
Yes, but prisoners don't go home for an evening meal do they?
"As a result of the chef Jamie Oliver's recent campaign, the Government agreed to increase the amount it spends on school meals from 37p a day to 50p for primary school children and 60p for secondary school children. That's still less than half what it spends on feeding prisoners."
Yes, but prisoners don't go home for an evening meal do they?
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Latest from the Christian States of America
I'd be interested to know what Lewis's opinion of this is:
"An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth."
I can understand a conflict between two divorcing parents of different faiths getting to the point that a judge has to intervene, but in this particular case the parents agree that they wish their nine-year old to be brought up as a practicing Wiccan, what can possibly be wrong with that?
"An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge's unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth."
I can understand a conflict between two divorcing parents of different faiths getting to the point that a judge has to intervene, but in this particular case the parents agree that they wish their nine-year old to be brought up as a practicing Wiccan, what can possibly be wrong with that?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Why Liverpool have to be in the Champion's League
I cannot believe that anyone in the media is still discussing this. The UEFA Champions League regulations (here in pdf format) make things completely clear.
"1.03 At the request of the national association concerned, the UEFA Champions League title-holders may be entered for this competition, as an additional representative of that association, if they have not qualified for the UEFA Champions League via the top domestic league championship. If, in such a case, the title-holders come from an association entitled to enter four teams for the UEFA Champions League, the fourth-placed club in the top domestic league championship has to be entered for the UEFA Cup." (my emphasis)
It's even happened before, Real Madrid won the Champions League and finished 5th in La Liga in 2000, they were entered into the Champions League by the Spanish FA and the team that finished 4th, Real Zaragoza, dropped into the UEFA Cup. So by the regulations and precedent, Liverpool must be in next season's Champions League and Everton must be in next season's UEFA Cup.
Then there is the vain hope that UEFA will somehow break their own rules and allow both Liverpool and Everton into the Champions League. I can't imagine UEFA doing that (I've stopped believing in Father Christmas for years). True, the original reason for no more than 4 teams per country (the 2nd group stage) has gone, but it still says in black and white.
"1.01 UEFA member associations may enter a certain number of clubs for this competition, in accordance with their position in the rankings listed in Annexe Ia, and subject to the approval of the UEFA Administration. However, no association may enter more than four clubs for the competition." (again my emphasis).
Whoever loses out on their Champions League place because of UEFA bending their own rules will be in court themselves within moments.
"1.03 At the request of the national association concerned, the UEFA Champions League title-holders may be entered for this competition, as an additional representative of that association, if they have not qualified for the UEFA Champions League via the top domestic league championship. If, in such a case, the title-holders come from an association entitled to enter four teams for the UEFA Champions League, the fourth-placed club in the top domestic league championship has to be entered for the UEFA Cup." (my emphasis)
It's even happened before, Real Madrid won the Champions League and finished 5th in La Liga in 2000, they were entered into the Champions League by the Spanish FA and the team that finished 4th, Real Zaragoza, dropped into the UEFA Cup. So by the regulations and precedent, Liverpool must be in next season's Champions League and Everton must be in next season's UEFA Cup.
Then there is the vain hope that UEFA will somehow break their own rules and allow both Liverpool and Everton into the Champions League. I can't imagine UEFA doing that (I've stopped believing in Father Christmas for years). True, the original reason for no more than 4 teams per country (the 2nd group stage) has gone, but it still says in black and white.
"1.01 UEFA member associations may enter a certain number of clubs for this competition, in accordance with their position in the rankings listed in Annexe Ia, and subject to the approval of the UEFA Administration. However, no association may enter more than four clubs for the competition." (again my emphasis).
Whoever loses out on their Champions League place because of UEFA bending their own rules will be in court themselves within moments.
Can you believe everything you read
From the Independent 25th May 2005
"In another decision that signals his opposition to PR, Mr Blair formally abolishing the Joint Consultative Committee (JCC), he set up with the former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown as a vehicle to discuss PR... Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, expressed disappointment at the move and paid tribute to The Independent's Campaign for Democracy."
From BBC News 20th September 2001
"The Labour-Liberal Democrat joint committee on constitutional reform has been disbanded by Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy... Mr Kennedy said that the JCC had done some "extremely worthwhile" work in the past but had no current purpose."
Has Kennedy forgotten that he issued a public statement agreeing to the disbanding of the JCC nearly 4 years ago?
"In another decision that signals his opposition to PR, Mr Blair formally abolishing the Joint Consultative Committee (JCC), he set up with the former Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown as a vehicle to discuss PR... Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, expressed disappointment at the move and paid tribute to The Independent's Campaign for Democracy."
From BBC News 20th September 2001
"The Labour-Liberal Democrat joint committee on constitutional reform has been disbanded by Tony Blair and Charles Kennedy... Mr Kennedy said that the JCC had done some "extremely worthwhile" work in the past but had no current purpose."
Has Kennedy forgotten that he issued a public statement agreeing to the disbanding of the JCC nearly 4 years ago?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
With friends like these?
According to the Guardian, Tony Blair is at risk of seeing his twin aims for the G8 summit (Climate Change and Africa) fail and what does George Monbiot, writing in the same paper do?
Any sensible columnist would, seeing that Blair is spending political capital on aims that the columnist support would attempt to bolster the Prime Minister, support him, assure him that while he doesn't support the Prime Minister's policies generally, on this he's right.
No, George Monbiot doesn't do that, he demands the right to attack Blair for not doing enough.
George, would you prefer Blair not to do anything at all? Sometimes a little praise is more effective than more of the same criticism.
Any sensible columnist would, seeing that Blair is spending political capital on aims that the columnist support would attempt to bolster the Prime Minister, support him, assure him that while he doesn't support the Prime Minister's policies generally, on this he's right.
No, George Monbiot doesn't do that, he demands the right to attack Blair for not doing enough.
George, would you prefer Blair not to do anything at all? Sometimes a little praise is more effective than more of the same criticism.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Eurovision Whining
I love Eurovision, it's always a joy to watch, but I really don't like the whining about "political voting" that follows it as certainly as night follows day.
Yes there's friendly voting, some countries are more fortunate in that regard than others. But to do well, songs have to travel out to get points from all over Europe. Greece got 12 points from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK, all votes that no-one can call biased.
In contrast the UK entry only got 18 points, 17 of which can be classified as friendly voting, 8 from Ireland, 5 from Cyprus, 4 from Malta and only the 1 point from Turkey can be considered to be genuine.
And finally, can we knock on the head this stupid "we only lost because of Iraq" nonsense - France did worse than us, Spain only finished 1 place higher. We lost because it was a forgetable song performed in a bland manner. We also are disadvantaged by our automatic qualification for the final, since the new system was put into place, the majority of the top 10 have been filled by qualifiers from the semi-final.
Yes there's friendly voting, some countries are more fortunate in that regard than others. But to do well, songs have to travel out to get points from all over Europe. Greece got 12 points from Belgium, Germany, Sweden and the UK, all votes that no-one can call biased.
In contrast the UK entry only got 18 points, 17 of which can be classified as friendly voting, 8 from Ireland, 5 from Cyprus, 4 from Malta and only the 1 point from Turkey can be considered to be genuine.
And finally, can we knock on the head this stupid "we only lost because of Iraq" nonsense - France did worse than us, Spain only finished 1 place higher. We lost because it was a forgetable song performed in a bland manner. We also are disadvantaged by our automatic qualification for the final, since the new system was put into place, the majority of the top 10 have been filled by qualifiers from the semi-final.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)