December the 4th...
Big Sis sends this snap from 2005 "of Santas in Newtown following the annual Santa Run."
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Ah, Eddie, you managed to fit the santas in.
I would have seen the 2006 run (due to take place yesterday) - but we couldn't make it to Newtown. And I've just found out that it didn't happen.
There was some jolly Santa tomfoolery on the news over the weekend, something in Switzerland involving athletic prowess .... But not the Newtown Santa Run.
Incidentally, I think Newtown still holds the Guinness Book of Records award for the largest gathering ever of Santas, dating from 2004.
I'll bet you're really glad I told you that!
I've done something I usually don't do and strayed momentarily over to the news editors bit. To my alarm, I found this link:
Apparently, there is talk of a new Radio 4.
This throws up alarming possibilities for us here. D'you think there might be a new PM and (horror of horrors!) a new Eddie Mair?
We should be told!
I read it, Big Sis, despite myself. The woman is full of rubbish - best take no notice.
鈥淩adio 4, if we are honest, isn鈥檛 very good. Millions are ready to defect.鈥
This has to be rubbish, as is most of what she has written.
The Telegraph calling Radio 4 'too traditional and set in its ways' is rather like when the US attacks other countries for keeping nuclear weapons.
Eddie and PM are unique. I can just imagine Channel 4 attempt of catering towards a radio station aimed at 'intelligent debate'. If they run a radio station the way that they run their tv station, I can't imagine too many people tuning into it, unless they happened to be under-18s obsessed with american gun culture and listening to reality TV shows on the radio.
And how dare they criticise the Shipping Forecast? Unlike anything else on radio (apart from PM), this actually is rather essential for a lot of people. Screw them. (will that be allowed through? I nearly said something stronger...)
Big Sister (1):
Umm, there's *more* than one Santa?
(Bewildered)
As for the "New Radio 4"...
This woman decries the 6:30pm comedy shows as "the brand of antiquated drollery that has lost favour in every other walk of British life" e.g. The News Quiz, Dead Ringers etc.
Would that be why so many R4 comedies have subsequently transferred to TV?
I shudder to think what a version of Radio 4 with adverts would sound like...
"Bong. This is the news at six o'clock, with Charlotte Green. In a moment the headlines, but first, have you been in an accident recently? Call Ambulance Chasers By 'Phone and we can help..."
Stainless Steel Cat (6):
Your editing skills leave a lot to be desired, you numpty.
(sigh) The "News Quiz and Dead Ringers" reference should have gone in after the next line...
I must type out fifty times "Preview the comment before submitting..."
Well, let's consider the source of the article: The Times. This is owned bye News Corporation (Murdoch), which has a long history of attacking the 主播大秀 and its' "monopoly" (their view not mine) of the broadcast medium. Reading through the article, I can't recognise Radio 4 by what's described. Can the columnist really think that the comedy slot at 6:30pm is inhabited people whose "plummy voices sound as if they are constricted by the wearing of very tight bow-ties"? I'm in my 30's and live in a town, and Radio 4 is the only station I listen to regularly. Grrrr, now I'm going to be angry when eating my lunch. If I get indigestion because of this, I'm sending a letter to the Times!
Re The Rumbelow article.
presumably the woman is paid to try and effect the same deleterious change on R4 as occured when the Times became part of the evil empire.
Perhaps she wishes that we should be subjected to a barrage of programmes such as are broadcast on 主播大秀3 under the dubious category of 'comedy'.
I think it is time that the beleaguered minority that I appear to belong to stood up and demanded to be left what little comfort there is before we descend into an illiterate, indiscriminate, witless morass of media manipulation.
Oh - Newtown, is that Newtown, Powys? I haven't been there since I used to stay in a pub, The George?, on business (connected to a well-known, local textile producer), in my youth. That was post-Finbarr's friend and pre-family.
SSC - don't be harsh on yourself, I spent all last week doing that (on me you understand, not on you, because I don't know you and that would be wrong) and it did me no good at all.
I want to complain to whoever prompted me to go and read that guff from Helen Grumblehow in the Timesonlying. What a load of twaddle!
Super strapline, gossipmistress :-)
xx
LadyPen
SSCat (6);
with a nod to the Marx Brothers:
"Invoke the Sanity Clause! There ain't no Sanity Clause!".
Si.
FFred (8) makes a very good point. Private Eye regularly lists articles from the Murdoch press which promote the joys of the witless American tripe served up on Sky TV and denigrate the fare on offer elsewhere, especially on the 主播大秀. All without making their interest explicit.
I'm a Times reader, but I take their TV recommendations with a very large tub of salt.
Si.
Okay, RJD, I apologise! But I thought the team might need to be aware .....
And I've just carried out an experiment to see if it is technically possible for A.N. Other to post as Eddie. In this case, 'twas me - but I did make it clear that it wasn't actually Eddie (if you get the drift ....)
So
EDDIE and LISSA
For your information, there is a problem which I think you/she/Richard should look into.
Perhaps there is a way of ensuring nobody else would ever be able to assume E's identity? Via moderation, or whatever?
Now that this can of worms has been opened, it would be good to know it can be firmly closed ....
Hello I'm one of the smug and complacent. Actually I welcome the new Multiplex with open arms - the more competition the better! - however having spent most of my life in commercial 'talk' radio and knowing how difficult it is to make talk radio profitable it will be interesting.
I have just been e-mailed this link from someone at 主播大秀7 so I think it was possibly originally posted by someone from within the Beeb.
I'm not really shocked but a little suprised that the plonker of a presenter read out in detail what I suspect was a wind up letter. If you don't like rather graphical sexual talk then I suggest you don't listen to it. (It's audio by the way from 主播大秀 Humberside)
路 Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here?
路 Oh, that? Oh, that鈥檚 the usual clause, that鈥檚 in every contract. That just says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the parties participating in this contract are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified.
路 Well, I don鈥檛 know...
路 It鈥檚 all right. That鈥檚, that鈥檚 in every contract. That鈥檚, that鈥檚 what they call a sanity clause.
路 Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can鈥檛 fool me. There ain鈥檛 no Sanity Clause!
SSC - in our local library I found a book recently called "The Stainless Steel Rat". Are you by any chance related?
I read that woman's column. I simply can't be bothered to comment. Except I never buy the Times & she wouldn't persuade me otherwise.
Hello
Is anyone there ( please read in failing sad voice)
Has anyone else lost their frogs?
Is there and orfroganage out there full of little green gobbets of joy looking for somewhere to be posted.
I'm sooo fed up I think I shall give up
bibi
(if this does get through I think you are all luvly)
valery p (much earlier!)
I did post up some bits about Newtown, but they haven't made it through.
I just wanted to point out that Newtown:
- was the birthplace/is the resting place for Robert Owen, founder of the co-operative movement
- is the home of the world's first mail order business (Pryce Jones - check on the search engine if you don't believe me!)
- holds the record for the largest ever gathering of santas (2004 Santa Run).
I am not Welsh, but thought Newtown deserved some recognition!
Dear Aunt Dahlia,
I, too, have lost frogs. And newts. And it got me into lots of trouble ......
But I still have you and Jeeves.
Please do not desert us. I'm sure the Lovely Lissa will clear out any bloggage.
You are a truly spiffing aunt, the kind a chap needs.
Your affectionate nephew
Bertie
Dr Hacks, (17);
thanks for the full version.
;-)
Si.
With regard to a new radio 4, I shudder rather at the thought of the content. Mindless musical jingles perhaps with disjointed sound bites. Maybe Murdoch's News Corporation are considering running the channel in which case we may expect wall to wall nudity and purile bias. I think I'll stick to being a middle class, rural, navy blue sweater wearing fuddy duddy who likes to listen to informed debate and gigling at the Now show.
Dr. H
I still haven't looked out my recordings of Flywheel, but your posting just now has reminded me ....... ;-)
Dear all
You may notice some faffing about with the blog. I'm testing out a new photo gallery tool for tomorrow's photos at 5. I'm putting the advent calendar photos into the flickering badge and into a photo gallery which we'll link out to. That's in addition to the link to all entries with photos in them.
Thanks
L
When they replace Radio 4, please can I have the old one?
Goodness me, I can't keep up! Especially when I have to keep going back to November 29th to argue with Basil on 'Do You Smoke?' And all this worry about impersonation? Happened to me ages ago but I'm not too stressed about it.
Fewer threads would be nice. This is an observation rather than a request.
Jason (26)
Perhaps we could auction it to raise money for the Radio 4 appeal?
Annasee (18):
Yes, we're cousins. You should see our uncle, The Stainless Steel Coypu...
Lissa (25) and Eddie (ever-present):
I'm afraid you'll have to do without my 5pm photo tomorrow. I'm usually on the train staring into whatever my current book is, but if I get a camera out on *that* train to snap my view, I can guarantee that five seconds later I won't have a camera, and probably no wallet either.
I hope anyone else in dodgy environs will take care to avoid muggings tomorrow.
Yay Jason Good (26) - get in the queue :-)
xx
LadyPen
Oh oops, the article was in the Times not the Telegraph. Re: My comment above - the same standard applies.
See, the reason why I listen to the radio is because I cannot read.
I just had my (first) Christmas work dinner/lunch. I felt about as Christmassy as a deck-chair with sunburn in midsummer.
Re Lissa (with the two ss's)
What size are the jpeg's to be at five tomorrow.
Simon worrall with his stack of posh cameras could send you Gigabytes. So no more than 1MB or tiny little things.
Or will you and Eddie reveal all to us soon ??
Perhaps we could share it.
All I really want is (in random order):
The Today Programme
The World at One
PM
The midnight news
Sorry I Haven't a Clue
The Now Show
The post-midnight Shipping Forecast
Today in Parliament
Broadcasting House.
I'm sure there's plenty left for the rest of you....
Ah jonnie (33);
It's not the 'posh cameras' that matter, it's the character of the person behind the lens. That doesn't make me 'Super-snapper', or indicate an inflated opinion of myself.
Anyone can take a great photograph, because what constitutes great is in the eye of the beholder. If it makes you sit up and look, if it makes you think, if it plucks at your heart, if it makes you laugh or cry, I submit that it has the makings of greatness for you. I've seen award-winning imagery that left me cold, and vice versa.
If I had the money then I coud spend a lot more on equipment than I actually have. But I'd rather think harder and work harder at getting good photos, than think that because I have a 拢5000 camera I've got it made. Mine cost under 拢1000 (body only) 18 months ago. It's middle of the road, that's all.
The most important things to have, if you want to take good / great photos, are a thinking brain, a good heart and confidence in yourself.
The same is true of so many things in life.....
Si.
Jason G (34);
You can have ISIHAC provided that I get 'the lovely Samantha'.
:-)
Si.
Re (35) Simon,
Indeed, I agree entirely -- my comment was only tongue in cheek.
BTW I have posted the Nick Clarke tribute that was in last weeks Ariel magazine (in-house 主播大秀 magazine)
I had to scan it and hence it's in two pages in acrobat as the magazine is A3 size, so you may have to shuffle up and down. Lovely tribute from our Carolyn there as well.
It's on the front page at
ISIHAC is the only thing which really makes me laugh when it intends to. It should be given a Grade II listing to preserve it for future generations.
Interesting article on agnosticism on the 主播大秀 main page (or, at least, it was on the main page) followed by the usual round of comments in religious matters: "God is great", "God doesn't exist" and "You'll find out when the apocalypse is upon us, you mark my words!".
I was delighted to hear on More or Less a moment ago that my 40 year old body is, in fact, only aged 18 on average.
Please may I add this programme to my list?
Would it be greedy to ask for A Good Read and Material World as well?
Jason, you are not Good, you are Greedy!
There's enough in your list to last me a lifetime. And you are definitely cherrypicking.
BTW, I'd add Ed Reardon, lots of other comedy too much to mention, and lots else besides.
Jason Good, I think 34, I could listen to the News Quiz every week of the year!! And I am sure that could happen, there are enough excellent comedians/commentators to give people a rest so there would be enough people to cover it all. The thing is that incredible events happen every week, and I don't think the Now Show covers them with such wit. In fact if it was up to me I would have it every day. It is also a good way of summing up what has happened.
I don't take The Times. My mother (aged 89 and still going strong) would never forgive me if I did, and I, too, am unhappy about its owner.
How interesting to hear a phonetician who doesn鈥檛 know about the correct use of the word 鈥榰nique鈥.
Well, Eddie, the Foreign Secretary was certainly frosty with you, so clearly ready for your seasonal advent calendar.
Shall we build a snowwoman in her image?
It's a shame that, since taking up that role, Ms Beckett seems to have become v defensive. Perhaps she gets a hard time in Cabinet?
Following the trailer by Tim Hewall at 17:30 for Corss Incontinence I wonder if this is the male equivalent of Stress Incontinence?
Have just (accidentally) switched onto PM on 主播大秀 Radio 4. I say accidentally, because I listen less and less to 主播大秀 these days.
Before switching to Classic FM, favourite programme in this household, I could not fail to hear the desperate attempts by your female "interviewer" to elicit words from Margaret Beckett's mouth that she did not utter - and which was blatantly designed to get the obligatory "quote" for news summaries.
Then we had the pleasure of witnessing the 主播大秀 "kangaroo court" aggression directed at a hard-working fireman.
There are properly set up bodies to investigate these matters - and these are usualoy totally unbiased, and not with evil intent.
It is time the 主播大秀 clambered down off its far too high horse, and not act as witnesses for the prosecution, judge and jury.
With the reference to Big Sister at (now) 42,
I didn't read the Foreign Secretary as you did. I thought she was interesting. And I doubt that Cabinet intimidates her. She holidays in a caravan after all, not easily overwhelmed i would have thought!
And, no, I am not a Labour supporter, nor a Conservative either!
It'll be the only hard time she's likely to get.
When did this become a dictatorship? A week ago we were told Neptune's three-pointed fork was an option dependent upon consultation and parliamentary debate early in the new year. Now we're told how it's gonna be.
I know where I'd like to stick the damned thing! Dubya's favourite spot, and he can have one too!
And who d'ya think is angling for a place at the , along with J Major, Bush Sr., and all the cronies pigging at the war-materials and contracts trough? Oink Oink Oink!
ed
"It turns out we've been reading the wrong Bob Woodward book to understand what's going on with President Bush," says Frank Rich. "The text we should be consulting instead is 'The Final Days,' the Woodward-Bernstein account of Richard Nixon talking to the portraits on the White House walls while Watergate demolished his presidency. As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we've witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn't merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It's not that he can't handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn't know what the truth is."
And are Blair and his cabinet any closer to reality?
ed
So who - in this increasingly unsafe world - does Margaret Beckett think we should be aiming our nuclear missiles at?
Iraqi insurgents?
Russian poisoners?
The French?
For all the necessary explanation about this subject, I refer the honourable froggers to "Yes Prime Minister".
I'm sending some Christmas Pictures from Miami.
Dear P Ashman (45), I'm afraid you have me confused. Can you confirm that you were listening to Radio 4, the PM Programme broadcast today between 5pm and 6pm? From your description, it was not the programme I was listening to in the car on my way home. You said:
I could not fail to hear the desperate attempts by your female "interviewer" to elicit words from Margaret Beckett's mouth that she did not utter - and which was blatantly designed to get the obligatory "quote" for news summaries. When I heard the show, Margaret Beckett was interviewed by Eddie Mair (picture at the top of the blog, whose voice could not be described as effeminate in any way. His questions were clearly to clarify her position, her comments on reports of her views elsewhere, and then to raise an important question regarding whether a full debate within Cabinet better serves democracy than agreement on a report..
Second you take umbrage at the reporting regarding the explosion at the fireworks factory, saying:
Then we had the pleasure of witnessing the 主播大秀 "kangaroo court" aggression directed at a hard-working fireman. Again, this does not accurately reflect the interview that I heard. The reporter asked the spokesperson a number of fair, open questions about the situation. The spokesperson did not sound harrassed or reluctant to answer at all. After that, the reporter explained clearly the roles of the deceased firemen, explaining what they were doing there. No sign of a kangaroo court or a rush to any judgement. Solely reporting the facts.
I'm surprisd that you say you only switched on to PM on the way to Classic FM. Surely it doesn't take 20 minutes to change from one station to another (the length of time covered by the articles you refer to). I suggest you may wish to leave the radio tuned to the other station from now on. It would help to reduce your blood pressure...
Sincerely
FFred
Lovely piccies guys, but where's mine? I really, really want my piccie posted for the advent calendar. I'll leave a bottle of whatever Eddie's favourtie tipple is (fizzy white wine?). I know it's a bribe but whatever it takes!
On the subject of Margaret Beckett ... does she not like Eddie? She must be in a minority of one. I did think she was very defensive. She did melt however, due to Eddie's beautiful tact and persistence (another reason to post my picture).
I was disappointed in the Queen's Accent thing. The guy wasn't very articulate was he. Just a bit ironic really. I love how the Queen speaks, just like Celia Johnson in Brief Encounter, one of my all time favourite movies.
Also Eddie it's my birthday tomorrow and it would be a nice pressie to post my picture!
Oh and have I mentioned that I'd like my piccie as part of the advent calendar? No? Well ...
*Must calm down* Time for the beach and to look for a good place to stash the Secret Santa pressies.
Mary
Rosalind:
I don't think Cabinet would intimate her either. And she's been a member thereof for a long time anyway. But I have noticed a change of tone from her since she became FS, more anger, etc., and I have seriously wondered whence it derives.
I have, incidentally, wondered if it arose from the difficult press she got when appointed. Or it may come from her sense of feeling frustrated because, in her current role, she feels more compromised. I honestly don't know - nor would I expect to as I am a mere layperson.
But she has definitely been a lot tetchier in interviews over the last few months, and was ready to jump on Eddie's questions tonight. Anticipating or misreading, I felt.
Incidentally, I have considerable respect for her in general, so am not Beckett-bashing.
I still feel a Meg the Snow-woman would look nice on the Advent Calendar. And thank you, Eddie, for remaining your courteous self during the interview.
Doc H - 42 - did you mean the rather unnecessary "rather unique"?
Jason (44) - I hadn't thought of Cross Incontinence, but I wish I had. I think you're probably a genius (like the rest of the froggers on here).
xx
LadyPen
Ed (47),
Um, you know I'm in your fan club and that I like a bit of saucy talk, but I really don't like the tone of your opening line here. I would expect this from one more macho and agressive, but not from you.
Please tell me it was just down to too much of the Liffey Water.
A, x.
Aperitif, I think Ed's remark was in response to Big Sis's about MB getting a hard time in cabinet. What was so wrong about it?
Mary
Big Sister (53):
On M. Beckett being tetchy recently. Didn't she have her caravanning holiday cut short by some crisis ort other just after she took over?
I know I'd be grumpy if I had to come back early from my holiday.
Aperitif,
Mary's right, but I'm not a member of the MB fan club. I don't have much time for any who have proved themselves amoral enough to remain in the cabinet.
However it was a poor attempt at an unfortunate turn at wordplay, and for that I apologise to any offended.
I am disgusted at this rushing into the preposterous idea of renewing the totally inappropriate nuke option, but then I have always been a unilateral disarmer peacenik - well, ever since being an inch too tall ruled me out of the US Airforce Academy and the chance to napalm innocent civilians...
ed
Ed & Appy
A self-moderating blog! I admire you both.
"The New York Times Sunday ran a series of articles by prominent historians who endeavored to answer the question, 'Is Bush our worst president?' In the interest of balance, there was a 'yes' piece, a 'no' piece, and a 'we don't know yet' piece. Fair enough," writes William Fisher. "But what struck me about these articles is how little attention they devoted to Bush's second-biggest mistake."
ed
Gosh, what a difference a week makes. All the "formerly"'s. I've missed a lot...
I've never been a fan of M Beckett, but I was not impressed by her part in the interview, if this is the best face the UK can put up in international discussions...
My pedantic fellow froggers,
On listenagain, I just heard Ms Beckett say our deterrent was "infinitely smaller" than previously.
How small is that?
ed
oooh Ed I, I meant to post on that. Is it logically impossible for anything to be infinitely smaller?
Mary
Ed (59), I knew you were nicer than that. Thank you for responding - star!
Mary (57), yes, I realised what had inspired it. Rather than write an essay on this (and I know I can get carried away and do that sometimes) would it be enough for me to say this? - While I appreciate innuendo (as I'm sure you can tell!) as an amusement in itself, when it's used for a different purpose (such as to judge or undermine someone) I feel very squeamish about it. I know Ed I isn't that type of bloke so that's why I mentioned it. I wasn't actually offended - merely a tad disturbed because I thought it came across more unpleasantly than it was likely to have been meant.
On MB herself, I'm afraid I didn't hear the interview (and haven't listened again - sorry Lissa!) but, if her behaviour has changed since becoming Foreign Secretary it could be down to one of the explanations already suggested, or, indeed*, the fact that she has moved into the most macho area of politics, which is, of course, already a very male world. As FS she is working on an international level, often with representatives of countries that don't respect their female policticans even as much as we do ours (and some who wouldn't entertain the idea of having a woman in such a position). She may well feel she has had to 'harden' her game.
*oh that Helen from the Times would hate me.
Mary,
I think a logician would say something like, "There are no 'non-zero' solutions to that question."
I don't think minus infinity has any existence, but perhaps it's a function of "i", the square root of -1 ("i" for imaginary)
In any event it's sloppy speech for a Foreign Secretary, never mind sloppy thinking that it's a good idea to pay the premium for "The Ultimate Insurance", essentially a payment to the arms industry.
Grrrrr!
Anyway, I'll just have another pint of that Liffey Water and then off to bed.
Nighty night.
ed
A very quick PS to earlier postings and those from other froggers.
(1) for intimate read intimidate
(2) I'm totally anti-nuke, too (could say more on this, but won't - suffice it to say, I've made stands on this in the past)
(3) I'm not a 'fan' of MBs, as such, just have been prepared to listen to her in the past, though am getting fed up with her being bolshy every time she's interviewed.
And I guess it was (3) that made me post as I did.
For more than a half century, members of the Bush family have been setting policy and making decisions for all Americans. Let's look at the family that has had such an impact on the lives of human beings worldwide
Now George Bush, Sr. works for The Carlyle Group. They invest in defense companies, medical laboratories, and the telecommunications industry. The Carlyle Group is one of the government's biggest contractors. George Bush, Sr. and The Carlyle Group stand to make billions of dollars from the War on Terror. hotel in Washington, DC with members of the family, one of their investors.
Good Ole Boys, one and all.
xx
ed
(54) - Yes.
Fame! My first strapline used on the blog. Funnily enough, Davros has been mighty silent of late.
Hello Froglets,
Again veryu buy here but will read through the blog comments in the morning.
I have set up Ed Igleharts Poll Re: Trident on the Poll site,
AND
If anyone missed Eddie Mairs last minute explanation to 'Window on YOUR World you can hear it again by clicking on the banner -- all at:
Oh and a few updates on Fifi's Bits
I'll copy it to the beach just in case!
Good morning, and a very happy birthday MadMary. Did you find that people gave you one present to cover Christmas and your birthday?
Trouble with Classic FM is one: they play gobbet music, and two: the adverts.
Rosalind thank you! No, I just find I don't get many presents these days.
My birthday is sufficiently separated from Christmas to get something today, and something tomorrow.
Hubby last night thought my birthday was either this Friday or Wednesday. So my pressie isn't wrapped so I haven't had any yet. I got a nice card from him with a blue cat with sparkley bits on!
Mary
What a strange letter (P.Ashman-45) -I really wonder if we were listening o the same interview.
The fact that you have highlighted the gender(stupidly incorrect to presumably appear witty) of the interviewer is inapppropriate.
I thought that the interview exposed MB's desire to 'talk the talk'at the expense of her own beliefs.
Of course,I may be wrong!.
Happy Birthday, madmary!
Happy Birthday, MadMary! And I hope you aren't too worried about your window on the world - Don't let it spoil your day!
(PS May I suggest you get hold of your husband's diary for 2007 and put a big black reminder for 5th December?)
Happy Birthday, MadMary! And I hope you aren't too worried about your window on the world - Don't let it spoil your day!
(PS May I suggest you get hold of your husband's diary for 2007 and put a big black reminder for 5th December?)
-----------------------------------------------------
Appy - I fully agree with your points re MB, and that was partly what I was driving at - coupled with the fact that I don't think she's entirely comfortable with having to harden her game. Why is it that women attract such consistent negativity and comment when they 'ascend' into what were traditionally male areas? They are almost invariably confronted with condescension, censure (for dress, size, voice .... or whatever), inappropriate comment ('how do they juggle their public and private lives' etc. etc.), and all kinds of other c**p that their male counterparts* are, in general, not. [*Unless they're Welsh, redheaded, or having other characteristics which the Great British Public has deemed laughable.]
I'm not aware of having got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, so I shan't go on like this all day - But, as a woman, I've had my share over the years of having to be at least twice as good as my male counterparts to be accepted in my different careers, so do have strong feelings about this matter. As a woman, even when you are twice as good, it doesn't guarantee you advancement.
And don't anyone, please, mention Mrs. T.!
I don't want to offend any of the men who read this comment, by the way. From what I know of this Blog, most of the male froggers seem to be enlightened about these issues.
Rant over, I'll move onto something else.
I have to admit that I didn't quite understand the photograph expert that was on PM last night.
He started off by complaining about the low quality of the photographs induced by the digital age, and used this blog as an example of these. He then finished the interview by advising that noone should even try to photograph well and just record content.
It was as though someone had passed him a note half-way through saying "Don't scare them off!".
Well, Belinda, if anyone should have felt offended, it would be me, as it was my snap (to quote Eddie) that he would have seen when he first logged on to the Blog.
But, if that was what he meant, I think he missed the point. There's photography as an art form, usually undertaken by professionals, and photography as a record - Which is what I was doing with my Santa pic. I'd set out to take a few quick pics of the scene in Newtown on the afternoon of the Santa Run. As you can imagine, it was quite bizarre to walk round a town in which at least 50% of the people were dressed as Santa. In order to capture it as it happened, I just pointed and clicked. To do otherwise would have resulted in lost moments.
So, Eddie, don't count on my entry being focussed and posed. I imagine you want the record rather than the artform.
My (70), from 11:58 PM, was posted after midnight. I wouldn鈥檛 have seen the new strapline before then. Time becomes a loop. Time becomes a loop.
I don't mind being controversial.
Margaret Beckett, now there's a face made for radio.
My favourite fortnightly publication (Private Eye for the uninitiated) dubbed her Rosa Klebb a looong time ago. The association between her real persona and the murderous SMERSH / SPECTRE agent so memorably played by Lotte Lenya in 'From Russia with Love' has coloured my opinion of her ever since.
She botched the running of DEFRA (also known under her stewardship as the Department for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs), especially in regard to the payment of EU subsidy money to English farmers. And was rewarded for her failure with the Foreign Sec job. My impression of her as ForSec is that she is utterly out of her depth (but see above regarding my probable bias).
Regarding Trident; I'm on the wrong side of this one. Ex-Forces, ex-Royal Navy; ex-Submarine Service (although in nuclear-powered hunter-killer attack boats, not the Trident 'bombers'). I'm very biased. The Submarine Service utself has no great love of the 'Trident t*ss*rs', but I regard them and what they do as a very necessary evil.
As a former colonial power, as a lieutenant to the USA in most world affairs, as a willing contributor to Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and for so many other reasons our nation is disliked or loathed in many parts of the world. Not as much as the USA, but then no-one is.
On the geopolitical scale, for us to give up the deterrent would not be regarded anywhere as an admirable thing to do. Indeed in many places it would be taken as a sign of weakness and confirm in many governments eyes the decline of the UK in world affairs.
Those countries in the second rank as world powers who seek the Bomb, and those who have it such as India & Pakistan, would wonder what on earth we were doing in giving it up voluntarily. In their eyes it is, in military and political terms, the most desirable thing in the world. Seen from that foreign viewpoint; Who but a fool would surrender it?
Their ownership does convey extra political 'weight' to a nation, that is undoubted. Although this is unstated it's the probable reason for retention by the UK. Would we have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council without the Bomb? I think not.
If membership were purely based on economic might, population or geographical size we'd be out on our ear. So would the French. The Germans, Japanese and Indians would take our places.
So, wonder not at the retention of Trident. It enables Britain to 'punch above it's weight' in political matters. Even the late George Brown implored his own Labour Party not to vote for unilateralism for fear of "sending the British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber". And Labour was strongly unilateralist at the time.
You must also consider that the nations who originally had it were generally stable politically. They may not have been democracies, but they were stable. Those countries who have acquired it more recently, and those who seek it now are much less stable. Never mind the arguments about 'we cannot morally require Iran not to seek nuclear weapons when we have them ourselves'. Is there anybody out there who really believes that Iran is entitled to nuclear weapons (disregarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty) and that it is desirable for them to do so?
Thought not.
Si.
I must admit , Belinda and Big Sis, that when I heard the photography expert yesterday, I was thinking "What a load of pretentious cks!"... I understand and appreciate the idea of photography as an art form. There are some amazing photos taken over the years by professionals, but to say that digital photography was ruining photography is absurd! (I know I'm paraphrasing, but that was the impression I got from the expert).
Happy Birthday, Tall One!
From another tall one.
Sis, I wouldn't want to run into you on a bad day.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood
ed
I like to think I have an eye for a good photograph, and sometimes I鈥檓 proved right, but there will be absolutely no evidence for it based on the photo I expect to be taking at five today. Will this prove the 鈥榚xpert鈥 right?
Oh Ed, I think we can all get annoyed, can't we? What was that you were saying about motorists on another thread?
My stepdaughter has described me as "opinionated", but that's because I don't always agree with her own much stated views.
Live and let live is my motto. But I do reserve the right to have opinions.
FFred (82);
there's a member of a photographic club I used to belong to who is such a die-hard that if you told him to wrap himself in film, pour on a gallon of petrol and torch himself then he probably would.
For him 'Digital' is the invention of the Devil. Pixel is an anagram of Beelzebub for that man.
When shown two wedding albums and challenged to make his choice, which was film and which digital, he swiftly did so. He has not spoken to me since I revealed that both were digital....
There are lots of pretentious, pompous idiots in the Art world generally. My especial dislike are those who would dictate their opinion and expect you to slavishly follow their party-line. I love the way that we are supposed to suspend reality when dealing with art and believe he hype. I cite the majority of winners of the Turner prize here. Light bulbs, concrete abstractions of the inside of houses, Huh? How is that art?
In the photographic field I would name the work of Spencer Tunick as an utter waste of time. How does he make a living by persuading a bunch of nude people to bend over in front of a building whilst he takes a picture? Why is he feted as an uber-artist extraordinaire?
I do wonder how the excellent Nigel Wrench keeps a straight face when he descends into a cave to hear some weird noises and has to present this as art? It would bring out the 'Paxman sneer' in me.
Belinda (78);
everybody with a desire to do so should seek to improve themselves. this applies as equally in photography as in any field of human endeavour. Ignore that chap. Many of the images which the PM team will receive will be straight record shots. Some will extend themselves to try and get something different, perhaps even artistic. There's room for both.
Big Sis (79);
Do what pleases you. Make it art if you want to.
Oooh, pretentious elitists make me foam at the mouth! Think I'll wander over to the beach to calm down.
Si.
Si,
1. Iran is 'entitled' to nukes just exactly as much as we are. Iran has not attacked anyone in over a century, despite having her internal matters continually messed about by foreigners.
2. The 'decline' of the UK in world affairs is to be . We are not going to advance from lieutenant/toady anyway, and they are the most expendable of all ranks.
3. Combined with Rosa Klebb, "sending the British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber" generates an apalling image.
4. Would we have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council without the Bomb? Yes, we are there because the UN was a divvy-up between the 'winners' of WWII.
Use TAO to help rule people
This world has no need for weapons
Which soon turn on themselves
Where armies camp, nettles grow;
After each war, years of famine.
The most fruitful outcome
Does not depend on force,
But succeeds without arrogance
Without hostility
Without pride
Without resistance
Without violence.
If these things prosper and grow old,
This is called not-TAO.
Not-TAO soon ends.
Pu tao tsao i
Knowing others is intelligence
Knowing yourself is enlightenment
Tzu chi che ming
Conquering others takes force.
Conquering yourself is true strength.
Knowing what is enough is wealth.
Forging ahead shows inner resolve.
Hold your ground and you will last long.
Die without perishing and your life will endure.
A quick wave to FFred. Glad you enjoyed the Walnut Whip - but, as you say, they do look different these days ...
Ed (87);
1) Sorry to contradict so erudite a gentleman, but no they don't. They have a right to peaceful nuclear power, not to 'nukes' as you put it, which I take to mean weapons? They were offered peaceful power by the Russians, but refused it out-of-hand. And their refusal to co-operate with the IAEA, following discovery of highly enriched Uranium, looks suspicious to anyone. See;
(the section on Iran for the details).
India, Pakistan and Israel never signed it. So they are exempted.
The South Africans gave theirs up once majority rule was instated, because under that scheme of government they no longer have any regional of international enemies.
The Kim dictatorship in North Korea withdrew from the NNPT, placing ownership above its international obligations. Which kind of serves to highlight my point about how desirable ownership is for many middle-ranking countries around the world (including the U.K.). And how undesirable it would be for many who seek possession to actually get hold of them.
2) Being a small and relatively defenceless nation did not prove an advantage to Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway or Luxembourg in the middle part of the C20th. Nor did being a big and relatively defenceless one help France or Poland.
3) Especially when one also throws an image of Mrs. Beckett into the blend!!
4) There have been noises recently to re-jig the permanent members of the UNSC. There were vocal supporters of both Japan and Germany. India, lest it be forgot, is the worlds most populous democracy, it is a growing economic powerhouse and has the Bomb. Why should it be denied a place? If there were to be a re-shuffle do you imagine that the U.K. would keep its place at the top table without the Bomb?
Sorry to be a party-pooper but oriental philosophy doesn't do it for me. I prefer Socrates (by implication of the effect his life had), Plato and Aristotle. Those Ancient Greeks knew a thing or two....
I tried to read the Tao te Ching and the Analects but they were too oblique for me to really understand. I prefer the directness of the Western schools.
Si.
Big Sis (77), Absolutely wholeheartedly agree with you - but then I can't imagine how anyone with any sense of gender politics wouldn't.
Which brings me to Simon (81) and your second line. MB is clearly not the comtemporary ideal of female beauty. Why is that worth mentioning when you are discussing how she has carried out her government roles? Would you have said so in this context if she were a man? (I'd rather we didn't talk appearance in relation to abilty to do ones job at all.)
Can I lighten up things a little with this?
Si,
How does anyone acquire the 'right' to have nukes?
I think we should do away with the entire concept of 'permanent' members with special rights, especially the right of veto.
ed
Appy (90);
Look again. The line disparaging her attractiveness, or otherwise, stands on it's own.
My personal, uninformed except by the media, opinion of her professional abilities comes in para 4 'She botched...'
I did not conflate her beauty and her effectiveness as ForSec. You did. You've put 2 + 2 together and made 5 I'm afraid.
I happen to find her unattractive. Her public persona, her politics, her attitude in interviews such as last nights and, yes, facially. Different things appeal to different people. She sounds (to me) arrogant and condescending, like these questions are an irritation to one as important as she. I also think she's probably been promoted beyond her ability. The two are not related, either in my earlier post or in my mind.
I have almost identical opinions about Gordon Brown, who you will have noticed is a chap. We are told that in private he is witty, gentle, generous and great company. But his major problem (and that of the Labour party, should they elect him Leader) is that his public image stinks. He knows it, his advisers and 'friends' know it. They've had this supposed campaign (Project Gordon) to make his image more 'cuddly'. He still comes across as dour & miserable, the sort of person you'd try to leave in the kitchen at a party. In his case it may directly impact on his ability to do his job. If he becomes party leader and PM, but can't find a following in the public at large then he runs the serious risk of being voted out at the next General Election. So his ability to do 'his job' will depend entirely on how he 'looks' to the public. (Taking a very broad interpretation of the word looks).
Appearances matter.
Si.
I hope the Santas are on their way to the pub!
I鈥檇 say that male members of the government are clearly not the comtemporary ideal of male (or female) beauty. I hope that isn鈥檛 controversial...
They do indeed Si (92), they do indeed. I accept your explanation and that you were not conciously trying to link the two, but I think you ought to realise that by placing them together in the same post as you did, that it certainly can come across that way. The more subtle the link is (whether deliberately or othersiwse) the more enduring it is, in my opinion.
Still love you though (see This Week's Beach).
Simon (92)
I have to say that I rather like the way Gordon uses his chin .I can't work out why! As for his voice-well.....Yummy!
anyone agree? no? Oh,well, who cares...
Molly.
Give me a fine intellect any day!
Dr Hackenbush, take it from me, I can't recall any time when I've thought any MP was remotely fanciable. Even ones who are vaguely goodlooking tend to spoil their appeal with their inevitable arrogance.
When Oh when will politicians realise that a bit of genuine humility and vulnerability is attractive. They are not gods, they can't be right all the time, but hey they make a good job of trying to convince us. About as impossible as the infinitely smaller stuff that MB talks about.
Mary
OH NO!!!!! Audrey Hepburn's dress has been sold! That was my Christmas pressie wish! Maybe Eddie got it for me for Christmas to make up for not publishing my advent photo today!
Moon River lalalala *sigh*
Mary
Sparkles: Yes, most definitely off to the Castle Vaults. Perhaps Simon and EdI would like to join them there?
Cancel that wish! Eddie sorry if you've wasted your hard-earned, but I'm no longer a size six! *weeps uncontrollably*. Eddie it was a nice thought!
Mary
Doc (95),
Quite true, yet this receives so much less attention.
Molly (96),
I have a very attractive female friend, a mere youth at 26, who simply adores Gordon. So much so that she has been known to make me accompany her to speak to him, only to be rendered dumbstruck and thus leaving me to make polite conversation about - well, the local economy at one point. Personally, I don't get it, but it takes all sorts...
Aha! Molly's 96 is now 97 as my earlier frog has shown up. When is this number-changing business going to be put right? (That's not a rhetorical question Lissa...)
Mary (98), I offer Hilary Benn as an utterly lovely, gentle and non-arrogant polictian. Assertive, yes. Good at his job, yes. Stereotypical politico, no. But then so many of them aren't when you get to know them.
Ben Bradshaw - Very fanciable, but, unfortunately for me, not interested in women.
And Tony B - well, whatever you think of him, he regularly points out that he is only human and can't be right all of the time - and is vilified for it. Whilst my personal politics are not the same as his I do find him to be genuine, honest and often humble. I can hear steam coming out of ears all over the frog-base now...
Aha! Molly's 96 is now 97 as my earlier frog has shown up. When is this number-changing business going to be put right? (That's not a rhetorical question Lissa...)
Mary (98), I offer Hilary Benn as an utterly lovely, gentle and non-arrogant polictian. Assertive, yes. Good at his job, yes. Stereotypical politico, no. But then so many of them aren't when you get to know them.
Ben Bradshaw - Very fanciable, but, unfortunately for me, not interested in women.
And Tony B - well, whatever you think of him, he regularly points out that he is only human and can't be right all of the time - and is vilified for it. Whilst my personal politics are not the same as his I do find him to be genuine, honest and humble. I can hear steam coming out of ears all over the frog-base now...
Aha! Molly's 96 is now 97 as my earlier frog has shown up. When is this number-changing business going to be put right? (That's not a rhetorical question Lissa...)
Mary (98), I offer Hilary Benn as an utterly lovely, gentle and non-arrogant polictian. Assertive, yes. Good at his job, yes. Stereotypical politico, no. But then so many of them aren't when you get to know them.
Ben Bradshaw - Very fanciable, but, unfortunately for me, not interested in women.
And Tony B - well, whatever you think of him, he regularly points out that he is only human and can't be right all of the time - and is vilified for it. Whilst my personal politics are not the same as his I do find him to be genuine, honest and humble. I can hear steam coming out of ears all over the frog-base now...
Appy: You're not alone. I know not all politicos are insincere. And some are even attractive.
But, as I said earlier, a fine intellect is probably the most desirable characteristic for anybody who may be involved in steering the fortunes of a nation.
Which brings me onto George Duya .....
Ah well, we could do worse, then!
(95, 99, 103) I see that I missed out the word 鈥榮ome鈥 from my contribution to this debate, but clearly you understood my point.
(104, 105, 106) What about the steam that is caused when one person takes up space by repeating their views, twice?
I haven't taken a harsh tone on this blog before but I really loathe any comment on a woman's appearance Simon Worrall (81) I don't care if you find Gordon Brown no more appealing, it is irrelevant unless we ask you who you fancy! Oh & I love the way the Turner Prize (86) makes me thinks about different kinds of art in a different way... who cares what is art, it is whatever the artist wants to call art, which is so much better than the days of stiff formal portraits/landscapes?
79 BigSister I didn't hear the photo man, but yours is a fine example of reportage, see above for I don't care what anyone says is art anyway! Why be precious about a thing methinks.
Back to politicians, all the Benn's seem to be fine people, Melissa Benn is a fine writer on social issues, and they all seem to have intergrity. Prior to 1998, Tony Benn told an NUJ meeting on spin that he had no idea what this New Labour was all about because he was a socialist. Many, including Will Self are now apologising for telling us that a vote for Labour was not a vote for that "smarmy b" because it was; I told him that those Saatchi & Saatchi evil eyes had come back to haunt us. Onna King told me the same thing, she was wrong too, but I think she thought she was right.
GORDON BROWN I have no idea if the man is nice/nasty, cuddly/cold but does he have to be a shoe in? I object on principal.
Anyway, ranting over, my pet hate is the use of two words when one is specifically designed to do the job; death knell is the first, and widely used even on R4! A knell is only rung for death. there are others...
All this R4 mark 2 talk? I didn't like the changes last time, I adapted, having gone through all the stages on my loss curve (Kubler-Ross) but really don't know if I can do it again!
Appy
You obviously have the advantage over me because you seem to have more real experience of him than I do - but I can't say that I have ever warmed to Hilary Benn. I have always considered him to be an extremely accomplished politician but never believed that he carried any real sincerity at all. He certainly oozes 鈥渟incerity鈥 but I don鈥檛 buy any of it. I don鈥檛 think he is anything like a worthy replacement for Mo Mowlam.
As for TB , well yes he does point out that he can鈥檛 be right all of the time, after the event, but it doesn鈥檛 seem to alter his view that he is right all of the time. I am also in the somewhat ambiguous position of believing that most of what he has done with regard to Northern Ireland has been forward-thinking and progressive but at the same time knowing that on several occasions he has given his word on things and then totally ignored his promises. As I say, I agree with everything done here but it doesn鈥檛 help the cause when others can point to such glaring inconsistencies in his record.
The only frontline politician I have met is John Reid when he was NI Secretary. Now he did impress me. I鈥榤 not sure I agree with all the policies that he is pushing forward now, but in terms of engagement and rapport I thought he was something else. Maybe I鈥檇 have to meet a few more of them to suss it all out.
Either on this thread or another both yourself and Big Sis have pointed out that female politicians are treated and judged in a different and unacceptable way to their male counterparts 鈥 and I agree. Having said that, can you give me your opinion on Ruth Kelly?
Er, yes, sorry Doc (108) - I have no idea how that happened...
Re (110) above
I know about the Mo Mowlam/Clare Short mixup. Mo slipped in after I edited a rant about NI Secretaries out.
RJD: If you wanted an opinion from me about Ruth Kelly.....
The short answer is, the jury's still out for me on her. Yonks ago, when she worked for the Treasury and, before that, for the Bank of England, I got the impression that she was pretty bright, but since then she's been pushed all over the shop, and I think that's part of the problem. Perhaps it is the problem for a lot of politicians.
RK is, by training, an economist. To my knowledge, she's never taught. Nor has she been a town planner. Estelle Morris - in post in the DES - knew her brief as an ex-teacher. John Reid a DPhil, not a GP, has never practicsed medicine ..... I could go on.
While people can 'busk' and get away with it in some areas of government, in most areas it does require the lead to come from people who know their brief and, preferably, know it from having spent a spell 'within'.
Here in Sussex it's a busy day for me, or I'd spend more time on this, but that gives a flavour of my views, and the reasons behind those views.
It's an interesting discussion, thought, that my Santas are fronting!
Catch up with you guys later. Bye for now!
Interesting discussion above, I think it is really problematic when politicians are moved around. We may be fascinated by re-shuffles for what they tell us about the PM's favourites perhaps, but very few politicians can grasp the intricacies of a big department quickly, even with good advisors.
I met a senior civil servant in the health department earlier this year, who really knew his stuff and had managed to retain his integrity. It was good to put a face on what we often think of as a mandarin, and know he was probably running the country well! It was not particularly reassuring to hear him say that private health insurers are circling like vultures, and will swoop if politicians don't get the NHS right!
The historian Peter Hennessy has spoken of the powers of the PM and states that the British PM is more powerful that the American President. The nature of that power is partly the ability to pass specific types of legislation such as the budget, and the ability to muster arms and go to war etc. Dr Hennessy can be far more articulate than I can of course, but the ability to sideline parliament has been a feature of TB's
reign, and concentrates the power in one man.
I think it is not surprising in such circumstances that those around him become career politicians and power hungry.
Ed I (92);
"How does one acquire the right?"
I refer you again to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which enshrined the status quo, at the time it was ratified, into international law. That's when the rights to own or not-own were set for all to adhere to. Since that date there has been no right to acquire for any signatory nation, including Iran. And there is a requirement to reduce stockpiles, which the USA, USSR and UK have done over the last 15 years. Our highly-esteemed Prime Minister announced only this week that he is proposing a futher cut in warheads, which is to be desired.
There is also a duty incumbent on signatories to make facilites available for IAEA inspectors to assess compliance by signatories, which Iran has refused to provide. It is, by definition, in breach of international law, an indefensible position.
As much so as Israel's breaches of the Geneva Conventions this recent summer, which I know has taxed you particularly. You cannot pick and choose which breaches of the law you support. If you stand for Israel's guilt in War Crimes, then you must condemn Iran's breach also or be thought a hypocrite.
As pointed out above certain countries which have acquired since ratification were never signatories anyway, so have broken no law. North Korea is the glaring exception, having resiled from it's membership at the time of announcing it had the Bomb.
HelenSparkles (109);
Don't be grumpy with me, please...
See my later post (93). It's not her appearance only, it's the whole package. I'm struggling to find a suitable form of words here. I'd like to say that she turns me off, but I don't mean in THAT way. I can look past the outer shell and assess the whole person
There are few politicians I find to be 'attractive' as people, I think that most of them are corruptible. I don't mean in the financial sense, envelopes stuffed with cash, etc. I mean that they have no moral compass. They see which way the wind blows and change tack to match. Remember Lord Acton's dictum about power corrupting.
Blair, Brown and Mandelson did it when they conceived 'New' Labour. They ditched some long-cherished ideas, simply to return to government. Cameron may well be doing it with the Conservatives right now.
They don't seem to operate from a basis of long-held personal conviction any longer. Power is all that matters, anything may be discarded, anything adopted in order to gain and sustain temporal authority over the nation. Some of the Cabinet were card-carrying members of CND, now they will be expected to toe the Cabinet line on Trident. Where is their morality, their beliefs and their principles? These people are more interested in government by focus groups than setting a clear agenda and sticking to it.
Look at the NHS, suffering the death of a thousand reforms. There is no time to accomodate the last series of changes before the next comes along. Result: instability and no staff morale. My SO suffered this, she was a senior physio with over 15 years post-grad experience in the NHS. She quit in despair back in January and now works privately. She'd love to go back to the NHS, but knows that it nearly broke her last year. She also gets the same income for a three-day week as she used to get for a full weeks work so has no fiscal incentive to return.
This government has introduced a permanent revolution into many areas of public sector work. A permanent state of flux is no place for us humans to try and operate in. Blair even identified this himself the other day (speaking about NHS reforms) when he said that people dislike change. He was correct. But rather than draw the obvious corollary that perhaps a period of no-change might be a good thing he proposes instead, to have even more of it.
It strikes me as I write this that maybe the Labour government had no real idea of what it wanted to do when it was first elected. It had no concept of where it wanted to get to, because it had ditched the very principles on which it was founded. Instead it has instigated a series of experiments in running the country. If one doesn't work, try another. And another. And another. Eventually by process of elimination or deduction they ought to arrive at a good idea. But will they recognise it when they see it?
Si.
Sparkly-Helen,
Interesting to see the comments from the civil servant. It's also a little scary regarding what he said about the private insurers...
As for re-shuffles, I have always wondered what it benefits the country to move around ministers every year or two. If they are good at their job, wouldn't you want to keep the people in position? Plus, there's always a learning curve for leaders (CEOs in industry are a good example). Usually it takes 6 to 9 months for a new boss to learn and understand an organisation. Given that ministers move I would guess every 18 moths, I would say that they're leaving just about when they've got to know about the department and are starting to make changes. This all gets left in a half finished state for the new person, and it all starts again...
Dr Hennessey is to some extents right regarding the position of PM. If the person in that role is strong, they can exert far more power that would be true of the US president, given their separation of powers within their written constitution. What amazes me is that recently the House of Lords, which I used to view as an anachronism, has proven so clearly why we need a second chanber with strong powers, particularly given our electoral system that allows the gorverning party to have a comfortable majority of votes in the Hose of Commons when only 37% of those who voted voted for that party. A system where not even 50% of those taking part in the election leads to an absolute majority is a farce and needs to be changed...
Attractiveness of politicians: You will all judge me horribly for this, and deservedly so, but the only time I have been swept away by a politician was during a 'works-do' (My husband worked on Whitehall for a number of years so that's obviously an ironic term) when I met Alistair Campbell.
I'll see myself out.
Oh b*gger, I really want to comment on all that's been said since I last frogged here but there is just too much and have some work I really must get finished this afternoon, so I shall come back.
A couple of quick things though:
Someone said New Labour was just a way of getting the Labour party into government without a real philopsophy/ideology (I'm paraphrasing). This is not so - whatever you think of it there is a vast literature and ideological movement behind "third way politics" and the New Labour project, and Tony, Gordon and Mandy definitely believe in what they have done/are doing.
Simon, re There are few politicians I find to be 'attractive' as people, I think that most of them are corruptible. I don't mean in the financial sense, envelopes stuffed with cash, etc. I mean that they have no moral compass. They see which way the wind blows and change tack to match. Remember Lord Acton's dictum about power corrupting. How do you know this? How many have you talked to and questionned and asked about their morals and beliefs and how they decide where they will draw a line or where they will compromise? Unless one gets involved oneself then everything is seen through the prism of the news media, most of which have agenda of their own. I've frogged about this many times before and I'm not going to rehearse old arguments - but I really have to say that most people I know who work in the political field - and I do know many - are hard-working, passionate and sincere. They work in a very hostile news climate and I admire them for continuing to try to do what they think is right in the face of that.
I'll come back about the movement of ministers because it is an important issue and impacts right to the very 'bottom' of the civil service hierarchy but work calls!
Si,
I understand what you're saying, but I'm not over keen on 'rights' granted by freezing the status quo, and it is in the nature of most rights that they cannot be signed away.
Iran is not in clear contravention of her NPT agreement and continues to deny that she is seeking weapons. Recent CIA papers said there is no evidence to the contrary. While I think nuclear power is ill-advised, I support Iran's right to 'add value' to her own natural resources, but recognise the irony that she has failed (or been prevented ) to develop enough refinery capacity for her own petrol 'needs'.
Israel's violations go back far longer than this past Summer. To 1949, and the denial of refugees their right of return, to begin with, not to mention that she has more UN resolutions outstanding and unheeded than all the rest put together. There are new houses being built illegally in the Occupied Territories as I type.
ed
For Simon,
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 漏2005
Archived Picture - Iran confirmed it would allow UN inspectors to take further environmental samples of research equipment linked to previous finds of highly enriched, or weapons-grade, uranium, Reuters reported.
LONDON, November 29 (IranMania) - Iran confirmed it would allow UN inspectors to take further environmental samples of research equipment linked to previous finds of highly enriched, or weapons-grade, uranium, Reuters reported.
Si,
I have twice posted saying I understand what you're saying, but don't hold much with rights granted or taken away by freezing the status quo, and that Iran is not clearly in abrogation, having allowed inspections, etc., and that Israel's violations go back much further than last Summer (perhaps this is the reason two messages have failed to appear?)
Maybe this will get through?
While I type, they are illegally building houses in the Occupied Territories
Helen and Appy:
Well, looks like my Ruth Kelly posting has sparked a further debate.
I've just done a v. quick google to see if there's anything obvious out there about the frequency of ministerial moves historically. I've not come up with anything obvious. My impression (which may, I accept, be wrong) is that life for ministers has speeded up considerably over the last decade or so. I'm straining my memory to recall when this merry go round began. Did it have it's roots in the time when weak leaders shuffled their cabinets to try to keep ahead of the game and to defuse possible rebellions/plots? I'm not sure.
Now, though, it seems to be more a case of "Let's see if X can run Ministery A better than Minister Y". It also appears to respond to the beat of Mr. Murdoch and his ilk.These are perceptions of mine, but I know I may well be wrong.
What is indisputable is that these regular moves don't impress me, for one. Moreover, I think there is something to be said for trying to match the minister/secretary with the post. I don't think many people are 'Renaissance Men/Women' in the way that is implied by the somewhat random moves that appear to take place now.
I've already referred to Ms Kelly. While I did not necessarily agree with all she said, she did talk knowledgably about matters financial in her BofE/Treasury days. I was impressed by this, although I don't personally 'take' to her. Estelle Morris was a persuasive Secretary of State for Education and brought a real passion to her post, born of years of teaching. As an ex teacher (I had already left the profession by the time she took up her post) I was truly heartened by her approach, especially after years of suffering under SoS's who clearly had no understanding of the educational environment and all the issues surrounding it. Other cases do come to mind of appointments thoughtfully and constructively made by governments of different persuasions. Then you have the obverse. And, more worringly, you also have examples of appointees ignorant of the area over which they take charge and who bring to them prejudices which prove deeply challenging to the professionals within their sphere of influence. I won't name names: I'd be surprised if you cannot supply examples of your own.
However, with a good intellect and the right will, it is possible for ministers/SoSs to master their briefs because, after all, they have access to professionals. But however good their intellect, it is extremely difficult for anyone to acquire the depth of understanding of a new area, take considered and appropriate decisions, act upon those decisions, etc., etc., in a matter of a year or so, let alone a couple of months. But this, it would appear, is what is now required of them.
In my opinion, this is at the root of the various twists and turns of policy of the current government which, in turn, have led to a great deal of waste both in terms of people's time and public money. It is a huge shame.
I am, incidentally, not anti-Labour, and agree with much - probably most - that Appy has said in her recent postings. This is, however, something that I truly think needs to be addressed by governments of every colour.
Sis,
Hear, Hear! I have watched no less than seven senior foresters come and go, who were responsible for the woods around here. And that's slow for the civil service! There is no career in smoothly running an assignment. One must 'do' something, e.g. re-organise if one wants to 'advance'.
, 'National' thinking is predominately urban/office/document based.
The career structure is largely colonial, where
movement towards the centre is regarded as advancement.
It is questionable how this can relate to rural realities, where movement towards home is an advancement. More diffucult, but infinitely more worthwhile..
xx
ed
well, I must apologise for the bad spelling in my number 116. If I may, I want to blame it on a hastily written frog as othre emails were coming in, interrupting me.
I'm still interested if anyone has any comments on our electoral system. I think it could prove to be an illuminating discussion....
FFred
OK Fearless, I'll have a go. The electoral system stinks.
Both Labour and the Tories know it stinks and have no intention of changing it as long as they think that there is a chance that the standing arrangements will benefit them.
I live in Northern Ireland - I'm sure you'll have guessed that by now. ALL elections here, with the exception of Westminster elections, are held under the proportional representation system - single transferable vote. We all vote 1,2,3 etc right down the candidate list as far as we want in the order of preference.
Guess who introduced it? Introduced and subsequently endorsed by various Tory and Labour Governments.
Guess why? Thought to give a better representation in any chamber of voter choice and opinion.
Has it worked? Oh yes. Oh very yes!
Does it work in the rest of Europe? Yes!
Does it matter if the constituencies are bigger and have more than one elected member? Yes it does matter - it's much better!
So why isn't it introduced in Britain? See Paragraph 2.
I can talk about the second chamber in a separate rant.
Just back from friend popping round, more accurately SO's BEST friend, who he hasn't been in touch with for yonks. I was intending to leave them alone, for boy talk, but SO indicated my presence was required. Turns out not only has bf had a terrible 8 months at work, leading to one of the most well balanced people I know being signed off with stress, but also moved out of marital home for 10 weeks. Family is all to bf, especially his little children. Flipping eck, he's back there now, & back to work next week, but 2 stone lighter and a haunted look in his eyes. Hey guess what caused the stress? Ill advised reshuffling at work which had proven its weaknesses when another dept underwent the same changes as a road test. Poor bf ended up drowning in work, because, he was left with no staff, and sank. Meanwhile SO in the dark... & I'm not sure how much of this would have ocme out if I hadn't been there.
Belinda (117) Turn the light off when you leave... no seriously, Ally has charisma & is v.clever as well as emotionally literate. Besides, he was only ever really grumpy with journalists & being a bulldog was his job description. I like him & Piers Morgan in the same (intellectual) way & think they could have been separated at birth?
Fearless (116) I only decided to appreciate the role of the HoL as it was threatened, I think we need it, having once thought it was an anarchic irrelevance. It is scary about the vultures circling the NHS, but nobody who was there from the health service was surprised & they were all v.senior Me v.lowly but in job status only so questioned closely and think him to be accurate.
Simon (115) Not grumpy really, just a bit of a ticking off, & a harping on about how we talk about what women look like in circumstances where we wouldn't a man; newsreading is another example. But don't mind me & I do understand what you meant as well!
Aperitif (118) I have done some research, for a paper I was writing, on the 3rd way but still can't grasp how the actions of government reflect the philosophy accurately. It is a realistic aim which reflects globalisation, as well as utilising its permeable borders, but I suspect also has barriers obstructing it. In all honesty, I also think (sorry Simon) that we might have forgotten what went before, & how bad it was, & though it is perfectly normal to criticise the party in power, it would be as well to reflect on that before we criticise the current regime. TB though, still reckon he's been corrupted by power, only on the word of a friend who knows the Blairs from pre-PM days, I don't know at all do I. I would be really interested to hear what you have to say about the civil service, sadly, the beauracracies behind political systems fascinate me!
I do think Big Sis (122) has a point about matching talent to post.
BTW I really like putting prepositions at the beginning of sentences because it feels v.rebellious, we were never allowed. But now it seems all the rage!
madmary, post mature graduation, I spent a year outdoor clerking cases for a friend with a law firm. I was constantly fascinated by criminals but they kept giving me the family cases because I was older & better able to be supportive apparently... I never want to see another LA ajourn until enough time lapses for a child to become someone else's responsibility. I frequently clerked cases for a Canadian barrister, who sat the bar here, & who constructed the most bizarre defence cases ever. Unfortunately for me the firm decided too bizarre, & I'm not sure how many he won, but he was v.entertaining!
Night all, see you in the morning with strong coffee please!
Please forgive illiteracy of comment above, SO's bf only just left, but I couldn't resist checking in to see what you had all been up to. Do not read with the clear eyes of day!
RJD, I'm with you. I live in the south of England in a safe tory constituency. Given the way the boundaries of seat are dan, each election seems to be more and more reliant on a smaller and smaller number of marginal seats. Only votes in those seats actually directly affect the outcome of the election. Is it any surprise that voting numbers continue to slide, when people such as myself feel that our votes don't count? I would say that any electoral system worth its' salt would result in a government where the number of representatives of a political party must reflect the percentage of people who have voted for that party.
rant over (for now...)
I just love this blog! Serious debate without any nastiness. Wonderful.
Si.
You know, the strange thing is that, when the Newtown Santas set the Guinness Record in 2004, it ended up in a lot of brawls around the town .....
oh my god! Me and my sister and our mum and dad all ran the race this year. It was fab! There are some more pics on my site! haha
Ella & Ruby, can we have the link to your site? It would be lovely to see the pictures.