Christmas is now well and truly out of the way. All that's left are the fading memories, a bin still full of used wrapping paper, and the odd bit of tinsel stuck in the pile of the carpet (only because the Dyson vacuum cleaner does lose suction now and again... but I'm digressing already).
This time out I wanted a good old whinge about the policy of our schools towards truancy and bullying. A policy that fosters more bad behaviour, truancy and bullying than it solves. Here's the scenario that my daughter experienced a few weeks ago at her comprehensive school.
The school signalled, clear and loud, their intention to encourage the worst behaved kids (those that bully other kids to cover up their own insecurities or skip school because learning isn't important to their own future) to attend school and behave themselves by offering Christmas treats, mostly selection boxes, but there were other small gifts too.
Now my daughter received her school report last week (it's time for the final run-in to GCSE exams, and reports have their interim grades and where they're targetted, which is important for study planning) and this showed the grand total of 0 unauthorised absences and 0 unauthorised days late. Her record as a pupil is actually exemplary, despite problems between my former wife (her mother) and myself during this past school year causing some upset.
As a 'thank-you' from the school for behaving well she was rewarded with bugger all.
The school bullies who had made life unpleasant for the other kids, and those that had made study easier for the others by not being present only had to attend and behave themselves for the middle two weeks in December to earn their reward, be it a selection box, iPod, Playstation 3 or XBox 360, Ferrari 354, Euro-fighter, Space Shuttle, or whatever exaggerated gift I can think of. Mostly it was selection boxes, from what I gather.
My daughter, the first time I've seen her pissed-off like that for a long while, told me that the schools policy is clear - it pays to bunk off school and beat up on other kids. That way you get rewarded for stopping that behaviour mid-December. My daughter, who has behaved all year, and indeed tried extra hard to catch up on her poorer subjects, was rewarded with nothing.
This school policy is, quite frankly, utter bol***ks.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, December 6, 2007
42 - The Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything?
Or is this just the British Government going down the horrible rat-hole of a policy of Internment again?
Jaqui Smith is currently the British Home Secretary, and she wants to make it possible for the police to jail terror suspects for up to 42 days. Deja Vu, anyone?
This policy was rolled out in the early 1970's in response to problems of Northern Ireland. It was the catalyst for the worst campaign of terrorist bombing ever seen in the British Isles.
It's pretty clear that the policy didn't work; it was intended to be used for just a short spell to take certain leaders out of their terrorist organisations, and to allow things to cool down. But it stayed in place for something like five years.
Now, having made that mistake under the Ted Heath regime, the current Conservative* government headed by Gordon Brown wants to test that mistake for accuracy by making it all over again.
This time around, though, the policy will be different. Different to the tune of currently 28 days, with a view to extend it to 42. When you think about it, 42 Days is actually quite a long time to be holding someone if you're not going to give them a trial. Which could happen. How long do the police force in the UK really need to carry out their investigations? They could just lock you up for a month and a half and not have to justify it to anyone.
The current 28 days is surely is ridiculously long; it's about 14 times too much. And if you think that there may be cases that need longer than two days - well give the option for the police to appeal to a high court judge, but don't give them the right to lock any one of us up without reason for a stupidly long time.
I think giving the police two days to actually come up with some evidence isn't too much of a burden; it'd certainly focus their minds on the job of investigating which is a different role to driving round the countryside emptying the coins from the speed cameras.
*Conservative by policy, i.e. privatising things and cutting taxes to the point where we've got the highest tax burden we've ever seen. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. I bet you never thought Dennis Skinner would be considered a Tory, eh?
Jaqui Smith is currently the British Home Secretary, and she wants to make it possible for the police to jail terror suspects for up to 42 days. Deja Vu, anyone?
This policy was rolled out in the early 1970's in response to problems of Northern Ireland. It was the catalyst for the worst campaign of terrorist bombing ever seen in the British Isles.
It's pretty clear that the policy didn't work; it was intended to be used for just a short spell to take certain leaders out of their terrorist organisations, and to allow things to cool down. But it stayed in place for something like five years.
Now, having made that mistake under the Ted Heath regime, the current Conservative* government headed by Gordon Brown wants to test that mistake for accuracy by making it all over again.
This time around, though, the policy will be different. Different to the tune of currently 28 days, with a view to extend it to 42. When you think about it, 42 Days is actually quite a long time to be holding someone if you're not going to give them a trial. Which could happen. How long do the police force in the UK really need to carry out their investigations? They could just lock you up for a month and a half and not have to justify it to anyone.
The current 28 days is surely is ridiculously long; it's about 14 times too much. And if you think that there may be cases that need longer than two days - well give the option for the police to appeal to a high court judge, but don't give them the right to lock any one of us up without reason for a stupidly long time.
I think giving the police two days to actually come up with some evidence isn't too much of a burden; it'd certainly focus their minds on the job of investigating which is a different role to driving round the countryside emptying the coins from the speed cameras.
*Conservative by policy, i.e. privatising things and cutting taxes to the point where we've got the highest tax burden we've ever seen. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. I bet you never thought Dennis Skinner would be considered a Tory, eh?
Friday, November 23, 2007
Darling, I Slipped a Disk...
...in the post, and it didn't turn up.
So, has the government has finally admitted that it doesn't know it's arse from its elbow? Stern questions have been asked. The Prime Minister even had to answer questions about this at Prime Minister's Question's in the House of Commons. Blimey, it's all go in Her Majesty's Government.
For those who don't follow politics (or have children) in the UK, here's a quick summary of what's happened. The Inland Revenue (or HMRC as it's now titled) copied the entire Child Benefit database onto CD-ROM and popped it in the post to the Audit Office. And it went missing en-route. OK, the disks were password protected, but that doesn't change the enormity of what happened.
So, what lessons can be learned? There are a couple that spring quickly to mind. Firstly, if a DVD-R disk had been used, it'd all have fitted on one disk; nobody uses CD's any more, it's just so 2002. Although hindsight shows this would have made matters worse because we'd now all be looking for a single disk rather than a pack of them.
Secondly, zipping up a database with a password algorithm isn't really that smart. It's much safer to use PGP and a properly long encryption key. OK, it might take an hour or three to run the algorithm over all the data before it's sent, but this at least gives the junior Civil Servant bod a chance to go for a cuppa and a fag. (Note to Americans, this means 'A Cup of Tea and a Cigarette').
So what's happened in reality? I think it's time to throw around a few conspiracy theories:
HMRC (or, to give them the full title: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - and they do have some odd customs) is feeling the burden of budget cuts. This is normal in Civil Service circles; we've all seen Yes Prime Minister during the 1980's and we know how Government Civil Servants manipulate the system to protect jobs. This could easily be a deliberate attempt to highlight the effect of cutbacks on the department. Some junior Civil Servant is entrusted with writing this stuff to disk, he does so, then pops the disk in a drawer and pretends they've been posted. When they don't arrive at the other end, they can blame the lot on cutbacks and not having enough staff. A great coup for the department (and I'd rule this out as wildly ridiculous if it weren't for report that multiple copies of this data were sent and they all went missing, which, I'm afraid, actually makes this conspiracy theory look rather plausible. All the copies will be in the desk drawer of a junior Civil Servant somewhere).
Maybe the person sending the CD's has be 'got' by the Royal Mail, who wanted to make the delivery company TNT look like chumps. It could be they're smarting because they're not delivering Government packages, and have tried to undermine their competition with a dirty tricks campaign. I'd only believe this, though, if the head of the Royal Mail had recently been recruited from British Airways...
I doubt very much that the disks will appear again for a while. You never know, they may be discovered by a small dog, and returned to Audit Office in time for the Child Benefit Review next April.
What would be really good in relation to this crisis would be for the government's description of the events to match those of the Civil Service department that have handed them this almighty cock-up. Come on, Mr Brown, was this done by a Junior Civil Servant (as you say) or by a Senior Civil Servant (which is what HMRC has said)?
So could everyone just quickly check behind your sofa, to see if the disks have fallen down there. And if you're in the Polish government, and you find these disks, could you just run a quick compare with your own child benefits arrangements database to find those individuals that are claiming Child Benefit in both our countries, and defrauding the system. Thanks.
So, has the government has finally admitted that it doesn't know it's arse from its elbow? Stern questions have been asked. The Prime Minister even had to answer questions about this at Prime Minister's Question's in the House of Commons. Blimey, it's all go in Her Majesty's Government.
For those who don't follow politics (or have children) in the UK, here's a quick summary of what's happened. The Inland Revenue (or HMRC as it's now titled) copied the entire Child Benefit database onto CD-ROM and popped it in the post to the Audit Office. And it went missing en-route. OK, the disks were password protected, but that doesn't change the enormity of what happened.
So, what lessons can be learned? There are a couple that spring quickly to mind. Firstly, if a DVD-R disk had been used, it'd all have fitted on one disk; nobody uses CD's any more, it's just so 2002. Although hindsight shows this would have made matters worse because we'd now all be looking for a single disk rather than a pack of them.
Secondly, zipping up a database with a password algorithm isn't really that smart. It's much safer to use PGP and a properly long encryption key. OK, it might take an hour or three to run the algorithm over all the data before it's sent, but this at least gives the junior Civil Servant bod a chance to go for a cuppa and a fag. (Note to Americans, this means 'A Cup of Tea and a Cigarette').
So what's happened in reality? I think it's time to throw around a few conspiracy theories:
HMRC (or, to give them the full title: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs - and they do have some odd customs) is feeling the burden of budget cuts. This is normal in Civil Service circles; we've all seen Yes Prime Minister during the 1980's and we know how Government Civil Servants manipulate the system to protect jobs. This could easily be a deliberate attempt to highlight the effect of cutbacks on the department. Some junior Civil Servant is entrusted with writing this stuff to disk, he does so, then pops the disk in a drawer and pretends they've been posted. When they don't arrive at the other end, they can blame the lot on cutbacks and not having enough staff. A great coup for the department (and I'd rule this out as wildly ridiculous if it weren't for report that multiple copies of this data were sent and they all went missing, which, I'm afraid, actually makes this conspiracy theory look rather plausible. All the copies will be in the desk drawer of a junior Civil Servant somewhere).
Maybe the person sending the CD's has be 'got' by the Royal Mail, who wanted to make the delivery company TNT look like chumps. It could be they're smarting because they're not delivering Government packages, and have tried to undermine their competition with a dirty tricks campaign. I'd only believe this, though, if the head of the Royal Mail had recently been recruited from British Airways...
I doubt very much that the disks will appear again for a while. You never know, they may be discovered by a small dog, and returned to Audit Office in time for the Child Benefit Review next April.
What would be really good in relation to this crisis would be for the government's description of the events to match those of the Civil Service department that have handed them this almighty cock-up. Come on, Mr Brown, was this done by a Junior Civil Servant (as you say) or by a Senior Civil Servant (which is what HMRC has said)?
So could everyone just quickly check behind your sofa, to see if the disks have fallen down there. And if you're in the Polish government, and you find these disks, could you just run a quick compare with your own child benefits arrangements database to find those individuals that are claiming Child Benefit in both our countries, and defrauding the system. Thanks.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Rubbish Charge Plans Revisited
Having had the chance to think about this for a few days, I've decided that, on balance, for me personally, a direct charge from the council to empty my bin would be a good thing for me and my family. Here's the reasons why:
Oh, and on the Bin front, and having spoken to the City Council after my last blog entry, apparently I was authorised for a new bin getting on for a year ago. I've just not had it delivered yet. Well, it's a bit early still...
- I could pay the council to empty my bin when it was full, not a week after the local vermin had scattered the tastiest bits of the overflow of rubbish over a wide area. They could come round every three or four days to do this.
- I'd be directly responsible for the rubbish I created; provided I could afford it, I can create as much rubbish as I like.
- I will not have to muck about with all that nasty recycling nonsense. I can go back to having one single green wheelie bin, and the council can blummen well empty it when it's full, and I'll pay them to do so.
- There'll be no need to put glass or recyclable plastic, card, or tin cans separate, I can lump them all together, and they can all go to land-fill, and I'll have a clear conscience because I will have paid for it with my own money.
Oh, and on the Bin front, and having spoken to the City Council after my last blog entry, apparently I was authorised for a new bin getting on for a year ago. I've just not had it delivered yet. Well, it's a bit early still...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Rubbish Charge Plans are Rubbish
So it's nearly here. The opportunity for local councils and authorities to extort more money out of its customers - the people who live in its districts. The government is about to allow councils to charge its punters for the privilege of having its bins emptied, albeit on a trial first of all.
What does this mean for us, the people?
It means we're going to get stung. Instead of dealing with the recycling problem, the government are going to force us to pay again for something we already pay for. This is both ridiculous, and utterly unfair. Clearly the people that generate the most waste are the ones that'll have to pay the most money. So that's a group of people who include parents with young children, those with large families, the elderly who's council tax is already disproportionate to their income and who may be too frail to turn over a compost heap. These people will be nailed.
Lets take a little example from the recent past here in Nottingham. Our household has an income slightly higher than the regional average, we're in a slightly larger house, but there are four kids and two adults (well, there were, now two of those kids are over 18, so they're adults too). So we generate slightly more rubbish than an average family. Now I wouldn't mind paying a little extra council tax for this privilege, after all I live in a slightly larger house with slightly more people living in it than the regional average.
Hang on a minute. I ALREADY DO.
OK, so my bin gets emptied every other week nowadays. On a Thursday. There's actually a collection every week, but one is for the 'other' bin, containing recyclables and the next for normal household waste. Often I rely on the kids to put the bin out, but occasionally it gets missed. Sometimes the Council's refuse department drive right by it (I think they 'refuse' to take it...) None of this happens very often, but it does happen. Now if they miss my bin, I have to phone Nottingham City Council on the Friday for a re-collection, otherwise they wont come out again. So if I happen to be hurrying on Friday morning, I may not notice that the bin hasn't been emptied, and when I'm home Friday evening, it's too late - the council just tell me that I'll have to wait another fortnight for my bin to be emptied... It doesn't look like they actually care about foxes and cats opening up the pile of black bin bags piled on the pavement and dragging their contents down the street. They really can't possibly care about the cleanness of the streets or the health of the inhabitants. I suppose there is a chance that they might care, they just don't behave as though they do.
You see with there being six of us, we fill the normal once-a-fortnight bin in about ten or eleven days. And yes, I have a compost bin in the back garden. And we recycle absolutely all we can 'cos if we don't the bin is full even earlier. Our response to this situation was a request to the council for a new bin, alongside the one we have. We have six living in our house, so (according to the council's rules) we're entitled to it. Well I've only asked them three times, and the result is that we've now got two brown recycling bins. Whoopee.
That situation is, quite frankly, not good enough. Yes, it would seem that Nottingham City Council really don't give a shit about the health and welfare of it's residents. There are plenty of older residents that live on our street; I cant do anything about the rubbish dragged down the street by foxes and other vermin. How is it supposed to help them? How is it supposed to keep the place clean for kids to play in?
And now, the government are going to allow them to charge me extra for the same utterly crap level of service. I expect no different, because this is Nottingham City Council. I'd wager that they're about on a par with similar sized councils up and down the country. Personally, I think it would be nice to pay directly to get a full bin emptied when it was actually full. I could have my bin emptied more often then, when I needed it not when the council thought my rubbish had been scattered over a large enough area. But we all know this wont happen. They'll just be able to charge us extra for coming round once a fortnight to empty the bin and leave the black bags piled next to it on the pavement. Or even just drive by without even stopping. Like the currently do.
The government has a choice - they can do something radical, like raise a levy against companies and suppliers that use an inordinate amount of plastic and non-recyclable packaging and use it to fully promote recycling so it's done properly (we don't actually mind doing stuff like that, you know...) or they can just nail householders for an extra fee, which will result in no improvement in service, and provide no help or incentive to properly set recycling targets. Which is it to be, Mr Brown?
What does this mean for us, the people?
It means we're going to get stung. Instead of dealing with the recycling problem, the government are going to force us to pay again for something we already pay for. This is both ridiculous, and utterly unfair. Clearly the people that generate the most waste are the ones that'll have to pay the most money. So that's a group of people who include parents with young children, those with large families, the elderly who's council tax is already disproportionate to their income and who may be too frail to turn over a compost heap. These people will be nailed.
Lets take a little example from the recent past here in Nottingham. Our household has an income slightly higher than the regional average, we're in a slightly larger house, but there are four kids and two adults (well, there were, now two of those kids are over 18, so they're adults too). So we generate slightly more rubbish than an average family. Now I wouldn't mind paying a little extra council tax for this privilege, after all I live in a slightly larger house with slightly more people living in it than the regional average.
Hang on a minute. I ALREADY DO.
OK, so my bin gets emptied every other week nowadays. On a Thursday. There's actually a collection every week, but one is for the 'other' bin, containing recyclables and the next for normal household waste. Often I rely on the kids to put the bin out, but occasionally it gets missed. Sometimes the Council's refuse department drive right by it (I think they 'refuse' to take it...) None of this happens very often, but it does happen. Now if they miss my bin, I have to phone Nottingham City Council on the Friday for a re-collection, otherwise they wont come out again. So if I happen to be hurrying on Friday morning, I may not notice that the bin hasn't been emptied, and when I'm home Friday evening, it's too late - the council just tell me that I'll have to wait another fortnight for my bin to be emptied... It doesn't look like they actually care about foxes and cats opening up the pile of black bin bags piled on the pavement and dragging their contents down the street. They really can't possibly care about the cleanness of the streets or the health of the inhabitants. I suppose there is a chance that they might care, they just don't behave as though they do.
You see with there being six of us, we fill the normal once-a-fortnight bin in about ten or eleven days. And yes, I have a compost bin in the back garden. And we recycle absolutely all we can 'cos if we don't the bin is full even earlier. Our response to this situation was a request to the council for a new bin, alongside the one we have. We have six living in our house, so (according to the council's rules) we're entitled to it. Well I've only asked them three times, and the result is that we've now got two brown recycling bins. Whoopee.
That situation is, quite frankly, not good enough. Yes, it would seem that Nottingham City Council really don't give a shit about the health and welfare of it's residents. There are plenty of older residents that live on our street; I cant do anything about the rubbish dragged down the street by foxes and other vermin. How is it supposed to help them? How is it supposed to keep the place clean for kids to play in?
And now, the government are going to allow them to charge me extra for the same utterly crap level of service. I expect no different, because this is Nottingham City Council. I'd wager that they're about on a par with similar sized councils up and down the country. Personally, I think it would be nice to pay directly to get a full bin emptied when it was actually full. I could have my bin emptied more often then, when I needed it not when the council thought my rubbish had been scattered over a large enough area. But we all know this wont happen. They'll just be able to charge us extra for coming round once a fortnight to empty the bin and leave the black bags piled next to it on the pavement. Or even just drive by without even stopping. Like the currently do.
The government has a choice - they can do something radical, like raise a levy against companies and suppliers that use an inordinate amount of plastic and non-recyclable packaging and use it to fully promote recycling so it's done properly (we don't actually mind doing stuff like that, you know...) or they can just nail householders for an extra fee, which will result in no improvement in service, and provide no help or incentive to properly set recycling targets. Which is it to be, Mr Brown?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Filibuster Heaven!
MP's in the United Kingdom get to take 18 weeks holiday a year. That's more than a teacher. But being a member of parliament also brings additional benefits - like the opportunity to increase the number of holidays you get just by voting it through.
Or even just for having Easter fall on the wrong weekend.
Yes, thanks to some quirk with next years calendar (and not because its a leap year) the MP's in Westminster will get a glorious extra four days holiday. Harriet Harman, the government's 'holiday organiser' seems to think that our politicians don't get enough time to rest, and hence need extra time away from their desks.
So that's an increase in real terms of 4.6% over the number of holidays of the year before. Someone should tell them that the taking of holidays should only occur when it is prudent to do so.
I don't think this is even a cheap way to cut public spending - I bet the heating in the Palace of Westminster isn't turned off for those four days, and we can expect hardly any difference in expenses claims by MPs despite being away more.
I suppose the politicians will be telling is that this isn't really a holiday, it's time they'll be spending in their constituencies doing local work. Yeah. Try telling my boss that I should have four extra days out of the office next year to do work for someone else rather than him. 18 weeks out of Westminster is an awful long time to be doing constituency work - particularly when MPs have been elected to represent us in Parliament. Does the process of government only equate to a part time job?
It's time for a radical shake up of working hours in Westminster. Proper office hours, with proper structured holidays at times that look much more like those we see in industry. There is no reason for a stupidly long summer break, if this (and other holidays) were shortened, then Westminster could be used for government more of the time. They'd certainly get more done.
Or even just for having Easter fall on the wrong weekend.
Yes, thanks to some quirk with next years calendar (and not because its a leap year) the MP's in Westminster will get a glorious extra four days holiday. Harriet Harman, the government's 'holiday organiser' seems to think that our politicians don't get enough time to rest, and hence need extra time away from their desks.
So that's an increase in real terms of 4.6% over the number of holidays of the year before. Someone should tell them that the taking of holidays should only occur when it is prudent to do so.
I don't think this is even a cheap way to cut public spending - I bet the heating in the Palace of Westminster isn't turned off for those four days, and we can expect hardly any difference in expenses claims by MPs despite being away more.
I suppose the politicians will be telling is that this isn't really a holiday, it's time they'll be spending in their constituencies doing local work. Yeah. Try telling my boss that I should have four extra days out of the office next year to do work for someone else rather than him. 18 weeks out of Westminster is an awful long time to be doing constituency work - particularly when MPs have been elected to represent us in Parliament. Does the process of government only equate to a part time job?
It's time for a radical shake up of working hours in Westminster. Proper office hours, with proper structured holidays at times that look much more like those we see in industry. There is no reason for a stupidly long summer break, if this (and other holidays) were shortened, then Westminster could be used for government more of the time. They'd certainly get more done.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Liberalism gone mad...
It's a big day for the Liberals. As a result of the leader being too old and past it (or at least, that's the truth if you believe the popular tabloids) he's resigned. This is a big shame for politics; Ming was certainly a character leading his party - more interesting and far less grey than many of his colleagues or political front-bench opponents.
So what is happening at the Liberal Party? They've not had a good leader since Gladstone, it would seem. They're not electable, their place in British politics has been squeezed by moves to the centre from both Labour and Tory ranks, and their vote has suffered. On Radio 5 today it there was some lively discussion about the reasons why Ming felt this a good time to stand down; bad results in the recent local elections, and ongoing struggle in opinion polls seems to have been the prime causes. With Gordon Browns insistance that we don't now need a general election (since the Conservative popularity has picked up significantly) for ages, hacks looking for a good story have focussed, as always, on the real meat of the political process, the age of the Liberal leader rather than his policies. The irony is that Ming is a former athelete, and even today is far fitter physically than these journalists, most of whom are many years his junior. Surely it cant be right, then, to allow agism to determine fitness for political office rather than ability.
But then we have the slow realisation that journalists have been attacking Ming over his age because, by and large, his policies have been pretty sound, and even more than that - the Liberal party has for years been coming up with policies that have been slowly adopted by the big boys of political field. The Liberal chairman, Simon Grey-Bloke-In-Grey-Suit, speaking on Simon Mayo's radio programme was espousing the position of his party over green issues and European issues which have now been accepted into mainstream politics as the way forward.
Liberal Party anonymity is higher now than ever. The two leading candidates for the post are utterly anonymous to all but the Liberal parlimentary party and the party's root and grass activists. Mind you, I cant say I'd heard of any of the last lot of candidates for the Tory leadership either at this stage. I really hope they can bring back that Kennedy guy - you know, the fat bloke in the yellow tie. He was always an entertaining politician, and would certainly brighten up a typically boring house of commons debate. I liked him.
The biggest irony, however, is not that the candidates are so grey; it is that they will never occupy any position of political power in the modern political climate. We're set solidly in two party politics in Britain, this makes the position of the third political party pretty much an irrelevance.
So what is happening at the Liberal Party? They've not had a good leader since Gladstone, it would seem. They're not electable, their place in British politics has been squeezed by moves to the centre from both Labour and Tory ranks, and their vote has suffered. On Radio 5 today it there was some lively discussion about the reasons why Ming felt this a good time to stand down; bad results in the recent local elections, and ongoing struggle in opinion polls seems to have been the prime causes. With Gordon Browns insistance that we don't now need a general election (since the Conservative popularity has picked up significantly) for ages, hacks looking for a good story have focussed, as always, on the real meat of the political process, the age of the Liberal leader rather than his policies. The irony is that Ming is a former athelete, and even today is far fitter physically than these journalists, most of whom are many years his junior. Surely it cant be right, then, to allow agism to determine fitness for political office rather than ability.
But then we have the slow realisation that journalists have been attacking Ming over his age because, by and large, his policies have been pretty sound, and even more than that - the Liberal party has for years been coming up with policies that have been slowly adopted by the big boys of political field. The Liberal chairman, Simon Grey-Bloke-In-Grey-Suit, speaking on Simon Mayo's radio programme was espousing the position of his party over green issues and European issues which have now been accepted into mainstream politics as the way forward.
Liberal Party anonymity is higher now than ever. The two leading candidates for the post are utterly anonymous to all but the Liberal parlimentary party and the party's root and grass activists. Mind you, I cant say I'd heard of any of the last lot of candidates for the Tory leadership either at this stage. I really hope they can bring back that Kennedy guy - you know, the fat bloke in the yellow tie. He was always an entertaining politician, and would certainly brighten up a typically boring house of commons debate. I liked him.
The biggest irony, however, is not that the candidates are so grey; it is that they will never occupy any position of political power in the modern political climate. We're set solidly in two party politics in Britain, this makes the position of the third political party pretty much an irrelevance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)