Saturday, June 19, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Time to step up to the plate
I joined the Liberal Party during the 1987 General Election campaign, did my first canvassing in Chris Abbott's ward, featured in the local paper for having an Alliance poster up while my Dad had his Tory one up and my brother put a Labour one up.
My first conference was the Liberal Assembly in Harrogate that same year, the last full Liberal Assembly as merger was on the cards, and met, amongst others, Chris Rennard, Arnie Gibbons and several other Leicester folk for the first time.
I went to Leicester University, lost lots of elections as a Social and Liberal Democrat, and kept track of the opinion polls which had us as low as 4%. I supported Paddy's leadership campaign and later organised a visit to Leicester by him.
I got involved in local politics, helped get Arnie elected as Leicester's first out gay councillor in 1989, stood in local elections in 1991 (vote up from 4% to 17%) and 1993 (up again from 17% to 33%), and steadily helped build up Lib Dem strength in the City. Ireturned years later to help with the Leicester South seat in a by-election.
After several years of slog in the Students Union I eventually got elected to a sabbatical post (by 8 votes after two rounds of transfers), got several other Lib Dems elected with me and , two years later was elected Union President and to the NUS National Executive, achieving a heck of a lot for the students I represented along the way. I ended up attending 13 NUS Conferences in all and became good friends along the way with, amongst others, Tim Farron, Jeremy Browne and Ed Fordham.
Not knowing what to do next, Chris Rennard (him again) asked me to work for the then newly merged Lib Dem Youth & Students. I did that for nearly two years and, I hope, helped establish the organisation as a force for good within the party and substantially increased its membership.
I then got asked by a young Oxfordshire doctor to go and be his agent, which I did. I helped the party win control of the Vale of White Horse District Council and Abingdon Town Council in 1995 and to steadily gain seats in Oxford City and Kidlington. We then went on to elect that young doctor, for it is he, Evan Harris, to Parliament in our breakthrough year of 1997.
I also got elected to Oxfordshire County Council and served eight years, three of them in a coalition cabinet with the Tories.
I stood for Parliament in Wantage in 2001 and nearly clawed us back to 2nd place.
I worked for the Campaigns Dept for a good few years as a Campaigns Officer and latterly as Deputy Director of Campaigns, slogging my guts out in by-elections from Hartlepool to Henley and some we won too, before climbing back down the career ladder to become constituency organiser again after a difficult year of floods and pneumonia.
I ran, or helped run, more European election campaigns than was good for me.
Why this tedious history now?
Because my motivation through these 23 years has been to get Liberal policies implemented, and to fundamentally change the way our political system works to one based on consensus.
And now it looks like we are starting to do just that.
So to those Lib Dems who are angry, or upset, or confused, or thinking they have wasted their effort I say this:
The inevitable consequence of what we have been campaigning for for decades is that we would end up having to share power with others that we disagree with.
The inevitable consequence of sharing power is that we have to be willing to compromise, and those we share power with have to be willing to compromise too.
And the inevitable consequence of holding power is that we will be judged. Not on the basis of who we choose to share power with, but on the basis of what that sharing of power delivers for the people of this country.
It looks like we are now in a position to implement several of the key priorities we set out during the election campaign, and which I, as a member of the Federal Policy Committee, was proud to help develop.
We may be on the verge of proving that the kind of politics we have argued for from the sidelines, for sixty years now, can work.
It is incumbent on all of us to help ensure that it does.
I, for one, relish that challenge.
My first conference was the Liberal Assembly in Harrogate that same year, the last full Liberal Assembly as merger was on the cards, and met, amongst others, Chris Rennard, Arnie Gibbons and several other Leicester folk for the first time.
I went to Leicester University, lost lots of elections as a Social and Liberal Democrat, and kept track of the opinion polls which had us as low as 4%. I supported Paddy's leadership campaign and later organised a visit to Leicester by him.
I got involved in local politics, helped get Arnie elected as Leicester's first out gay councillor in 1989, stood in local elections in 1991 (vote up from 4% to 17%) and 1993 (up again from 17% to 33%), and steadily helped build up Lib Dem strength in the City. Ireturned years later to help with the Leicester South seat in a by-election.
After several years of slog in the Students Union I eventually got elected to a sabbatical post (by 8 votes after two rounds of transfers), got several other Lib Dems elected with me and , two years later was elected Union President and to the NUS National Executive, achieving a heck of a lot for the students I represented along the way. I ended up attending 13 NUS Conferences in all and became good friends along the way with, amongst others, Tim Farron, Jeremy Browne and Ed Fordham.
Not knowing what to do next, Chris Rennard (him again) asked me to work for the then newly merged Lib Dem Youth & Students. I did that for nearly two years and, I hope, helped establish the organisation as a force for good within the party and substantially increased its membership.
I then got asked by a young Oxfordshire doctor to go and be his agent, which I did. I helped the party win control of the Vale of White Horse District Council and Abingdon Town Council in 1995 and to steadily gain seats in Oxford City and Kidlington. We then went on to elect that young doctor, for it is he, Evan Harris, to Parliament in our breakthrough year of 1997.
I also got elected to Oxfordshire County Council and served eight years, three of them in a coalition cabinet with the Tories.
I stood for Parliament in Wantage in 2001 and nearly clawed us back to 2nd place.
I worked for the Campaigns Dept for a good few years as a Campaigns Officer and latterly as Deputy Director of Campaigns, slogging my guts out in by-elections from Hartlepool to Henley and some we won too, before climbing back down the career ladder to become constituency organiser again after a difficult year of floods and pneumonia.
I ran, or helped run, more European election campaigns than was good for me.
Why this tedious history now?
Because my motivation through these 23 years has been to get Liberal policies implemented, and to fundamentally change the way our political system works to one based on consensus.
And now it looks like we are starting to do just that.
So to those Lib Dems who are angry, or upset, or confused, or thinking they have wasted their effort I say this:
The inevitable consequence of what we have been campaigning for for decades is that we would end up having to share power with others that we disagree with.
The inevitable consequence of sharing power is that we have to be willing to compromise, and those we share power with have to be willing to compromise too.
And the inevitable consequence of holding power is that we will be judged. Not on the basis of who we choose to share power with, but on the basis of what that sharing of power delivers for the people of this country.
It looks like we are now in a position to implement several of the key priorities we set out during the election campaign, and which I, as a member of the Federal Policy Committee, was proud to help develop.
We may be on the verge of proving that the kind of politics we have argued for from the sidelines, for sixty years now, can work.
It is incumbent on all of us to help ensure that it does.
I, for one, relish that challenge.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Get over yourself, media
If the national media really think a detailed programme for Government can be thrashed out in only a few hours of negotiations it says more about their lack of understanding than it does about the politicians' ability to negotiate.
In bed with the Tories? I was for three years.
Understandably there is a lot of talk around the blogosphere about the ongoing negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives.
The reality is that this is an inevitable consequence of the election result. More people voted Conservative than voted Labour, and by a wide margin, and it is right that we talk to them first, particularly as they offered.
There are many in the party who are uncomfortable with this.
Well they'd better get used to it.
If we do achieve our long term objective of electoral reform it will become the norm, and the strongest position to be in when beginning negotiations is to make it clear that we are open to a deal with either of the other sides. That is how we will get our agenda adopted.
Back in 2001 we faced a similar situation on Oxfordshire County Council. The numbers were such that any 2 of the 3 main parties could form an administration. We entered into negotiations with each of the others, and they even spoke briefly to each other.
I was a member of our negotiating team. We had our red lines and our additional objectives. Our aim was to negotiate on the basis of our manifesto to win the maximum number of our policies as possible. Our expectation was that we would end up doing a deal with Labour.
It didn't turn out like that. It quickly became apparent that although there was more common policy between us and Labour they a) didn't know what they wanted, b) didn't know how to negotiate and c) didn't have any agreement in their own group about what they were trying to achieve.
In contrast the Conservatives were very clear about what they wanted, knew how to negotiate and had the backing of their group to do so. They also had some very constructive ideas about a clear framework for how we could work together and resolve day to day disagreements (which turned out to be both useful and well used).
It didn't take long for us to realise that, whatever the policy differences, a working arrangement with the Conservatives was the only way forward.
There are clearly parallels with the national position now, with some key exceptions:
1 Even if we want to do a deal with Labour the numbers still don't stack up easily.
2 The negotiations are taking place in the full glare of media publicity.
3 There is no fixed date for the next election.
I have every sympathy with the position Nick finds himself in. Whatever he does it will be the wrong thing to do in the eyes of many.
From what I can see Nick and the team are going about things in the right way.
They are focusing on the need to form a stable Government which can sort out the economy in the national interest. This is both the right priority and the right message to send out at this stage.
They are negotiating a deal that delivers as many of our key manifesto priorities as possible.
They are clearly working hard at it, but not letting themselves be rushed.
They are consulting widely within the party.
And, if today's rumours are true, they are trying to find a way to deal the big risk of partnership Government under our system - the lack of a fixed term parliament.
If they do come to some agreement with the Conservatives there will, of course, be a lot of people who are not happy. Those who feel that we have much more in common with Labour than those nasty Tories.
There is some truth in that, I certainly see myself as on the centre-left, and worked hard to ensure that our manifesto reflected that political position.
However we would not be negotiating with the Labour party we have things in common with, we would be negotiating with a failed Labour Government of ID Cards, bombing Iraq, Tuition Fees, unfair taxation and an economic meltdown. A party that, until 10pm Thursday, was attacking us for our progressive views on such issues as Trident and Immigration.
Of course the other thing we have to bear in mind is the electoral impact of all this.
In Oxfordshire we did not fare well at the following County elections - although this was probably more down to our own organisational issues than any political backlash.
Nationally the risk is that we lose whichever way we turn. If we get into bed with the Tories we risk losing Labour waverers and tactical voters. If we go with Labour we risk losing soft Tory voters.
However the potential upside is greater. We have an opportunity to show that the Liberal Democrats are capable of sharing power, of putting the national interest ahead of narrow party interest and that political parties can actually work together successfully for the benefit of the country.
In the meantime we just have to trust the team. We couldn't have a more able negotiating team and at this point we have to let them do their job.
The reality is that this is an inevitable consequence of the election result. More people voted Conservative than voted Labour, and by a wide margin, and it is right that we talk to them first, particularly as they offered.
There are many in the party who are uncomfortable with this.
Well they'd better get used to it.
If we do achieve our long term objective of electoral reform it will become the norm, and the strongest position to be in when beginning negotiations is to make it clear that we are open to a deal with either of the other sides. That is how we will get our agenda adopted.
Back in 2001 we faced a similar situation on Oxfordshire County Council. The numbers were such that any 2 of the 3 main parties could form an administration. We entered into negotiations with each of the others, and they even spoke briefly to each other.
I was a member of our negotiating team. We had our red lines and our additional objectives. Our aim was to negotiate on the basis of our manifesto to win the maximum number of our policies as possible. Our expectation was that we would end up doing a deal with Labour.
It didn't turn out like that. It quickly became apparent that although there was more common policy between us and Labour they a) didn't know what they wanted, b) didn't know how to negotiate and c) didn't have any agreement in their own group about what they were trying to achieve.
In contrast the Conservatives were very clear about what they wanted, knew how to negotiate and had the backing of their group to do so. They also had some very constructive ideas about a clear framework for how we could work together and resolve day to day disagreements (which turned out to be both useful and well used).
It didn't take long for us to realise that, whatever the policy differences, a working arrangement with the Conservatives was the only way forward.
There are clearly parallels with the national position now, with some key exceptions:
1 Even if we want to do a deal with Labour the numbers still don't stack up easily.
2 The negotiations are taking place in the full glare of media publicity.
3 There is no fixed date for the next election.
I have every sympathy with the position Nick finds himself in. Whatever he does it will be the wrong thing to do in the eyes of many.
From what I can see Nick and the team are going about things in the right way.
They are focusing on the need to form a stable Government which can sort out the economy in the national interest. This is both the right priority and the right message to send out at this stage.
They are negotiating a deal that delivers as many of our key manifesto priorities as possible.
They are clearly working hard at it, but not letting themselves be rushed.
They are consulting widely within the party.
And, if today's rumours are true, they are trying to find a way to deal the big risk of partnership Government under our system - the lack of a fixed term parliament.
If they do come to some agreement with the Conservatives there will, of course, be a lot of people who are not happy. Those who feel that we have much more in common with Labour than those nasty Tories.
There is some truth in that, I certainly see myself as on the centre-left, and worked hard to ensure that our manifesto reflected that political position.
However we would not be negotiating with the Labour party we have things in common with, we would be negotiating with a failed Labour Government of ID Cards, bombing Iraq, Tuition Fees, unfair taxation and an economic meltdown. A party that, until 10pm Thursday, was attacking us for our progressive views on such issues as Trident and Immigration.
Of course the other thing we have to bear in mind is the electoral impact of all this.
In Oxfordshire we did not fare well at the following County elections - although this was probably more down to our own organisational issues than any political backlash.
Nationally the risk is that we lose whichever way we turn. If we get into bed with the Tories we risk losing Labour waverers and tactical voters. If we go with Labour we risk losing soft Tory voters.
However the potential upside is greater. We have an opportunity to show that the Liberal Democrats are capable of sharing power, of putting the national interest ahead of narrow party interest and that political parties can actually work together successfully for the benefit of the country.
In the meantime we just have to trust the team. We couldn't have a more able negotiating team and at this point we have to let them do their job.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Stephen Fry says vote for Evan Harris
Evan Harris has had sone high profile endorsments during the campaign: Ben Goldacre, Dr Simon Singh and Richard Dawkins, to name but three.
And now Stephen Fry has urged 'Oxonians and Abingdonians' to back Evan saying:
On one front alone I would absolutely urge you to vote LibDem and that is if you live in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. Your incumbent member, now under threat because of boundary changes, is Evan Harris MP, far and away the most persuasive and impressive parliamentarian in the cause of good and open science and enquiry that we have had in the past decade. He has been central to mould-breaking and inspirational multiparty cooperation in issues of scientific concern since 1997. It seems to me (almost!) that he should be elected unopposed like the Speaker. If you have any interest in the promotion of science and evidence based policy-making and a voice to oppose superstition, religious vested interest and new age nonsense, then do check him out and get those Oxonian Abingdonians working for his re-election.
And now Stephen Fry has urged 'Oxonians and Abingdonians' to back Evan saying:
On one front alone I would absolutely urge you to vote LibDem and that is if you live in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. Your incumbent member, now under threat because of boundary changes, is Evan Harris MP, far and away the most persuasive and impressive parliamentarian in the cause of good and open science and enquiry that we have had in the past decade. He has been central to mould-breaking and inspirational multiparty cooperation in issues of scientific concern since 1997. It seems to me (almost!) that he should be elected unopposed like the Speaker. If you have any interest in the promotion of science and evidence based policy-making and a voice to oppose superstition, religious vested interest and new age nonsense, then do check him out and get those Oxonian Abingdonians working for his re-election.
Men with vested interests and dubious record criticise Lib Dem policies on security in Tory supporting newspaper - SHOCK
'Nuff said.
When it comes to Iraq and draconian attacks on our civil liberties I certainly hope that the Lib Dems will remain 'outside the consensus'!
When it comes to Iraq and draconian attacks on our civil liberties I certainly hope that the Lib Dems will remain 'outside the consensus'!
Saturday, May 01, 2010
Nick Clegg to visit my Dad :-)
According to the Evening Gazette, Lib Dem Leader Nick Clegg is planning to drop in my Dad and sister this weekend.
Well not just my Dad and sister, but the good folk of my home town of Redcar.
Redcar has already been blessed by visits from Party President Ros Scott and Deputy Leader Vince Cable.
The fact that a constituency like Redcar is even getting these visits demonstrates just how far the political ground has shifted.
When I was growing up, and indeed when I did my first ever canvassing in the town, Redcar was donkey with a red rosette territory. For many years it was then represented by the excellent and widely loved Mo Mowlam.
But now things have changed.
People feel badly let down by Labour, highlighted by the recent closure of the steelworks. And this isn't just about the actual jobs, it is symbolic of a general decline in worthwhile employment in the area following decades which saw the loss of jobs in the shipyards, chemical industry and, slightly further afield, mining.
They have also been let down by the current MP, Vera Baird, who is seen to have neglected the constituency, had widely publicised expenses issues and to have done little or nothing to save the steelworks.
And during this period of Labour decline the local Lib Dems have been steadily building up. they hold a large number of council seats and have won some spectacular by-election wins, even coming close in South Bank. In Ian Swales they have a formidable candidate, with a long track record of living locally and campaigning on the key local issues. Ian came a good second last time and has been working his socks of in the run up to this election.
He is a good, solid, Redcar man, and the kind on no-nonsense politician that goes down well in the straight-talking north east. He will be a worthy successor to Mo Mowlam.
The swing Ian needs to win Redcar is way beyond the level that would have the seat labelled as a 'marginal', but it is the kind of seat Labour could lose.
If the seat's traditional Tory voters believe that voting for Ian is the only way they can get Labour out this time, he might just do it, and it will be the icing on the cake of a good election night for this Redcar lad.
Well not just my Dad and sister, but the good folk of my home town of Redcar.
Redcar has already been blessed by visits from Party President Ros Scott and Deputy Leader Vince Cable.
The fact that a constituency like Redcar is even getting these visits demonstrates just how far the political ground has shifted.
When I was growing up, and indeed when I did my first ever canvassing in the town, Redcar was donkey with a red rosette territory. For many years it was then represented by the excellent and widely loved Mo Mowlam.
But now things have changed.
People feel badly let down by Labour, highlighted by the recent closure of the steelworks. And this isn't just about the actual jobs, it is symbolic of a general decline in worthwhile employment in the area following decades which saw the loss of jobs in the shipyards, chemical industry and, slightly further afield, mining.
They have also been let down by the current MP, Vera Baird, who is seen to have neglected the constituency, had widely publicised expenses issues and to have done little or nothing to save the steelworks.
And during this period of Labour decline the local Lib Dems have been steadily building up. they hold a large number of council seats and have won some spectacular by-election wins, even coming close in South Bank. In Ian Swales they have a formidable candidate, with a long track record of living locally and campaigning on the key local issues. Ian came a good second last time and has been working his socks of in the run up to this election.
He is a good, solid, Redcar man, and the kind on no-nonsense politician that goes down well in the straight-talking north east. He will be a worthy successor to Mo Mowlam.
The swing Ian needs to win Redcar is way beyond the level that would have the seat labelled as a 'marginal', but it is the kind of seat Labour could lose.
If the seat's traditional Tory voters believe that voting for Ian is the only way they can get Labour out this time, he might just do it, and it will be the icing on the cake of a good election night for this Redcar lad.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Extremists to the left of me, fundies to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with Evan
It has been a very hectic campaign here in Oxford West & Abingdon for weeks. We were already getting a tremendous response from local voters even before the first TV debate, and it has got even busier since.
I can't remember an election like it since 1997 when we got Evan in for the first time, and with the ease of email we are now being flooded with even more offers of help, poster requests, Garden Poster sites etc.
Two days ago we completely ran out of boards, and we had quite a big stock to start with!
During the last few days things have got even busier.
Online donations are pouring in (from here) and we are getting requests for Garden Posters at about twice the rate we can possibly get them up.
Why?
Because the extremists have attacked.
As many readers of blogs like this one will know, Evan is a pretty straightforward politician who goes out and argues for what he believes to be right.
Like the majority of people, he believes that scientists and researchers should be allowed to conduct properly regulated medical research within the law without facing threats of violence against them and their children.
As a result he is facing this.
Like the majority of people, he believes that competent adults with terminal illnesses facing pain and misery should have right to ask for assistance if they want to die with some dignity.
As a result he is facing this.
Both leaflets are riddled with inaccuracies and untruths and misrepresent Evan's views on many of the issues mentioned.
Now I happen to agree with Evan on most issues, but I am happy to accept that some people don't. Evan has always been more than willing to debate these issues with just about anyone and always does so by putting a reasoned and rational case.
The former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries, has responded to the leaflets by saying:
"I have worked with Evan on social issues in Oxford, in Parliament on legislation, and outside Parliament on ethical issues.
"We do not always agree, but he takes a responsible and intelligent position on what are always divisive and controversial matters to do with the beginning and end of life.
"I greatly respect him as a Parliamentarian"
I understand that there are people who honestly believe that life starts at conception and that abortion is the equivalent of murder. I disagree with them, but I believe they should have the right to state their views and campaign to change the law, which is what most of them do.
But to produce and distribute leaflets tagging someone with the nickname 'Dr Death' - a name usually associated with Nazi torturers and serial killers - is simply disgusting.
And the really good thing is that the vast majority of local voters seem to agree.
We have had a flood of emails and phone messages backing Evan, including many from mainstream Christians.
Donations are flooding in as a direct result of these smear leaflets and several people have said the leaflets have firmed up their vote for Evan.
If you would like to help defend Evan against attacks like these, please go here and donate.
I can't remember an election like it since 1997 when we got Evan in for the first time, and with the ease of email we are now being flooded with even more offers of help, poster requests, Garden Poster sites etc.
Two days ago we completely ran out of boards, and we had quite a big stock to start with!
During the last few days things have got even busier.
Online donations are pouring in (from here) and we are getting requests for Garden Posters at about twice the rate we can possibly get them up.
Why?
Because the extremists have attacked.
As many readers of blogs like this one will know, Evan is a pretty straightforward politician who goes out and argues for what he believes to be right.
Like the majority of people, he believes that scientists and researchers should be allowed to conduct properly regulated medical research within the law without facing threats of violence against them and their children.
As a result he is facing this.
Like the majority of people, he believes that competent adults with terminal illnesses facing pain and misery should have right to ask for assistance if they want to die with some dignity.
As a result he is facing this.
Both leaflets are riddled with inaccuracies and untruths and misrepresent Evan's views on many of the issues mentioned.
Now I happen to agree with Evan on most issues, but I am happy to accept that some people don't. Evan has always been more than willing to debate these issues with just about anyone and always does so by putting a reasoned and rational case.
The former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries, has responded to the leaflets by saying:
"I have worked with Evan on social issues in Oxford, in Parliament on legislation, and outside Parliament on ethical issues.
"We do not always agree, but he takes a responsible and intelligent position on what are always divisive and controversial matters to do with the beginning and end of life.
"I greatly respect him as a Parliamentarian"
I understand that there are people who honestly believe that life starts at conception and that abortion is the equivalent of murder. I disagree with them, but I believe they should have the right to state their views and campaign to change the law, which is what most of them do.
But to produce and distribute leaflets tagging someone with the nickname 'Dr Death' - a name usually associated with Nazi torturers and serial killers - is simply disgusting.
And the really good thing is that the vast majority of local voters seem to agree.
We have had a flood of emails and phone messages backing Evan, including many from mainstream Christians.
Donations are flooding in as a direct result of these smear leaflets and several people have said the leaflets have firmed up their vote for Evan.
If you would like to help defend Evan against attacks like these, please go here and donate.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Doctor Who = Excellent, BBC = Idiots
I thought yesterday evenings episode of Doctor Who was absolutely top notch. (And a big step back up after last week's below par effort)
Dranatic, well-scripted, exciting, thrilling and full of suspense.
The build up to the end of the the episode, the first of a tw-parter, was exceptional.
Until, that is, the BBC decided that it would be an appropriate moment to inflict a cheerful cartoon that I assume was meant to be Graham Norton bouncing across our screens, in a feeble effort to get Doctor Who viewers to keep watching whatever rubbish they had scheduled after the top quality TV drama that is Doctor Who.
The reult in our house was that the suspense of Doctor Who was ruined for a few minutes and we switched straight over to Doctor Who Confidential, as we always do anyway.
No further BBC was watched after that.
I have sent the following complaint to the BBC:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we do every Saturday I sat down with my two younger children to watch Doctor Who yesterday evening.
It was a fantastic episode, a real scary thriller, and we were loving it.
And then just a few minutes before the end, you ruined it.
Against the backdrop of a gloomy cave, with the Doctor, Amy and their companions trapped as the weeping angels advanced, up pops a brightly coloured graphic telling us that some Graham Norton fronted talent show would be up next.
Which idiot at the BBC authorised this to happen?
Have they been thrown off the top of Television House yet?
Has a full grovelling apology been sent to the Doctor Who production team and cast yet?
Will there be an apology to the viewers?
The BBC is at its best when it concentrates on producing quality television, like Doctor Who.
It is at its worst when it come sup with cheap stunts like this in a feeble effort to boost its audience for whatever cheap rubbish follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dranatic, well-scripted, exciting, thrilling and full of suspense.
The build up to the end of the the episode, the first of a tw-parter, was exceptional.
Until, that is, the BBC decided that it would be an appropriate moment to inflict a cheerful cartoon that I assume was meant to be Graham Norton bouncing across our screens, in a feeble effort to get Doctor Who viewers to keep watching whatever rubbish they had scheduled after the top quality TV drama that is Doctor Who.
The reult in our house was that the suspense of Doctor Who was ruined for a few minutes and we switched straight over to Doctor Who Confidential, as we always do anyway.
No further BBC was watched after that.
I have sent the following complaint to the BBC:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we do every Saturday I sat down with my two younger children to watch Doctor Who yesterday evening.
It was a fantastic episode, a real scary thriller, and we were loving it.
And then just a few minutes before the end, you ruined it.
Against the backdrop of a gloomy cave, with the Doctor, Amy and their companions trapped as the weeping angels advanced, up pops a brightly coloured graphic telling us that some Graham Norton fronted talent show would be up next.
Which idiot at the BBC authorised this to happen?
Have they been thrown off the top of Television House yet?
Has a full grovelling apology been sent to the Doctor Who production team and cast yet?
Will there be an apology to the viewers?
The BBC is at its best when it concentrates on producing quality television, like Doctor Who.
It is at its worst when it come sup with cheap stunts like this in a feeble effort to boost its audience for whatever cheap rubbish follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, April 19, 2010
In defence of 'Dr Death' - a riposte to 'Odious' Odone
Torygraph writer Cristina 'Odious' Odone has an article today which makes for a pretty unpleasant attack on the candidate I am Agent for in the election, Dr Evan Harris.
She attacks Evan for his position on abortion (broadly in line with the current law but making it easier for women to access abortions earlier and with less stressful processes) and assisted dying (where he is broadly in line with the vast majority of people).
She apparently believes that Evan's stances on these issues somehow make the Lib Dems 'creepy' and that he deserves the tagline 'Dr Death' for his efforts.
Setting aside the childish nature of such name-calling for a moment, it is worth noting that nowhere in her article does she put forward any actual arguments against Evan's views.
Nor does she put forward any reasons why taking a stance on such issues is a bad thing, or inappropriate.
I wonder if she, like many people, just finds the idea of having a rational debate about the rights of people who are terminally ill and living a life of pain to decide their own fate a bit unpleasant.
I don't agree with Evan on everything, but I think we need more MPs like him.
We need more people in the House of Commons who look at the evidence before coming to a decision on an issue, who can string together a rational argument to back up their position, and who are willing to discuss and promote sensitive issues which have a real impact on the lives (and dignified deaths) of their constituents.
If you find the views of 'Odious' Odone as ridiculous, petty and childish as I do, please pay a small visit to here.
And do read the comments. There is one from Evan himself and several from constituents of Oxford West & Abingdon.
She attacks Evan for his position on abortion (broadly in line with the current law but making it easier for women to access abortions earlier and with less stressful processes) and assisted dying (where he is broadly in line with the vast majority of people).
She apparently believes that Evan's stances on these issues somehow make the Lib Dems 'creepy' and that he deserves the tagline 'Dr Death' for his efforts.
Setting aside the childish nature of such name-calling for a moment, it is worth noting that nowhere in her article does she put forward any actual arguments against Evan's views.
Nor does she put forward any reasons why taking a stance on such issues is a bad thing, or inappropriate.
I wonder if she, like many people, just finds the idea of having a rational debate about the rights of people who are terminally ill and living a life of pain to decide their own fate a bit unpleasant.
I don't agree with Evan on everything, but I think we need more MPs like him.
We need more people in the House of Commons who look at the evidence before coming to a decision on an issue, who can string together a rational argument to back up their position, and who are willing to discuss and promote sensitive issues which have a real impact on the lives (and dignified deaths) of their constituents.
If you find the views of 'Odious' Odone as ridiculous, petty and childish as I do, please pay a small visit to here.
And do read the comments. There is one from Evan himself and several from constituents of Oxford West & Abingdon.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
This says it all really ...
From my good friend Nich.
About the Tory policy which is an insult to married people.
And to quite a lot of unmarried people to.
Well done Nich.
About the Tory policy which is an insult to married people.
And to quite a lot of unmarried people to.
Well done Nich.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Time to kebab Lord Adonis
Back when Lord Adonis was an Alliance councillor in north Oxford he was nicknamed 'kebab' having fought his election on the basis of defending a threat to the city's kebab vans.
For this campaign I am grateful, if not for much he has said and done since.
I suppose it is good news that he apparently believes that there is not much to choose between Labour and the Lib Dems policy wise.
Personally I don't agree with him, but if he and other Labour types do believe that then there is a simple solution, and one with more chance of success than his proposals.
If every Labour supporter, from Lord Adonis down, votes Lib Dem, we will definitely beat the Tories the length and breadth of Britain. We will be in a position to implement our policies (which the good Lord broadly supports) and there will be no risk of the boy George getting his hands on the economy.
Simples.
For this campaign I am grateful, if not for much he has said and done since.
I suppose it is good news that he apparently believes that there is not much to choose between Labour and the Lib Dems policy wise.
Personally I don't agree with him, but if he and other Labour types do believe that then there is a simple solution, and one with more chance of success than his proposals.
If every Labour supporter, from Lord Adonis down, votes Lib Dem, we will definitely beat the Tories the length and breadth of Britain. We will be in a position to implement our policies (which the good Lord broadly supports) and there will be no risk of the boy George getting his hands on the economy.
Simples.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Have Labour got any members left?
Labour Party members in Stoke are apparently a bit miffed at the lack of a local candidate on the shortlist for their candidate selection, reported by the BBC here.
I noticed the story because Oxford Labour Councillor Saj Malik (who defected from the Lib Dems) was one of the unlucky candidates.
I always wondered whether Saj's defection was as much down to his parliamentary ambitions as his principles. If it was, he won't be chuffed at this result.
But the most startling thing about the reported result is that, in total, only 63 people appear to have voted at all.
This is a seat Labour presumably expect to hold, yet only half of the local party's membership of 140 bothered to turn up, and 140 members is pretty low to begin with!
If that is the level of enthusiasm amongst the Labour grassroots then they really are in trouble.
I noticed the story because Oxford Labour Councillor Saj Malik (who defected from the Lib Dems) was one of the unlucky candidates.
I always wondered whether Saj's defection was as much down to his parliamentary ambitions as his principles. If it was, he won't be chuffed at this result.
But the most startling thing about the reported result is that, in total, only 63 people appear to have voted at all.
This is a seat Labour presumably expect to hold, yet only half of the local party's membership of 140 bothered to turn up, and 140 members is pretty low to begin with!
If that is the level of enthusiasm amongst the Labour grassroots then they really are in trouble.
Monday, March 15, 2010
BREAKING NEWS: 3rd April is the big day
After months of speculation we finally have a date for the big event:
3rd April 2010.
See here for more details.
3rd April 2010.
See here for more details.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Post Office Fail
Just recived this speedy response from the Post Office complaints people:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatic acknowledgement from Royal Mail Customer Services
Your reference number is xxx-xxx (my change)
Thank you for your e-mail regarding lost, damaged or delayed mail.
We know how important it is for all mail to be delivered on time and
without incident. We would therefore like to apologise for any upset or
concern we may have caused.
We are unable to process claims for loss, damage or delayed items via
e-mail as we require your signature of declaration on our claim form and we
also need certain original documents such as certificate of posting before
we can consider your claim.
We therefore need you to complete and submit a P58 lost damaged or delayed
mail claim form for each item of mail affected. These forms are available
from all Post Office branches or alternatively you may wish to download and
print a form from our website by clicking on the following links.
For Mail sent within the UK
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Inland_P58_form_English.pdf
For International Mail
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/International_P58_form_English.pdf
Once completed please post the form along with any other requested
documentation to our freepost address as detailed below:
Royal Mail Customer Service
Freepost
PLYMOUTH
PL9 7YB
What will happen next?
Once we have your completed form back you will receive an acknowledgement
from us providing you with a unique claim reference. We aim to conclude
all inland enquiries within 30 days of receipt and with some are in a
position to do so even sooner. Having said that part of our enquiries may
involve contacting the recipient and them being given time to respond - so
it is appreciated if you allow us the full 30 days after receiving your
acknowledgement before re-contacting us.
This has been allocated to one of our advisors who respond to your specific
enquiry. Our aim is to reply to all customer emails within five working
days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be quite impressed with the speed of response if I had actually complained about 'lost, damaged or delayed mail'.
However my complaint was actually about the length of time I waited at Oxford Post Office to post an item on Monday afternoon!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatic acknowledgement from Royal Mail Customer Services
Your reference number is xxx-xxx (my change)
Thank you for your e-mail regarding lost, damaged or delayed mail.
We know how important it is for all mail to be delivered on time and
without incident. We would therefore like to apologise for any upset or
concern we may have caused.
We are unable to process claims for loss, damage or delayed items via
e-mail as we require your signature of declaration on our claim form and we
also need certain original documents such as certificate of posting before
we can consider your claim.
We therefore need you to complete and submit a P58 lost damaged or delayed
mail claim form for each item of mail affected. These forms are available
from all Post Office branches or alternatively you may wish to download and
print a form from our website by clicking on the following links.
For Mail sent within the UK
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Inland_P58_form_English.pdf
For International Mail
ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/International_P58_form_English.pdf
Once completed please post the form along with any other requested
documentation to our freepost address as detailed below:
Royal Mail Customer Service
Freepost
PLYMOUTH
PL9 7YB
What will happen next?
Once we have your completed form back you will receive an acknowledgement
from us providing you with a unique claim reference. We aim to conclude
all inland enquiries within 30 days of receipt and with some are in a
position to do so even sooner. Having said that part of our enquiries may
involve contacting the recipient and them being given time to respond - so
it is appreciated if you allow us the full 30 days after receiving your
acknowledgement before re-contacting us.
This has been allocated to one of our advisors who respond to your specific
enquiry. Our aim is to reply to all customer emails within five working
days.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Would be quite impressed with the speed of response if I had actually complained about 'lost, damaged or delayed mail'.
However my complaint was actually about the length of time I waited at Oxford Post Office to post an item on Monday afternoon!
Monday, December 28, 2009
Dear Dave, thanks for your helpful message
It has been amusing to see some of the pithy repsonses from various Lib Dems to CallMeDave's seasonal message.
Personally I'm delighted that he has taken the time to help write some of my leaflets for me.
In constituencies like the one I live in, where we have a popular Lib Dem MP, it will be very useful to use CallMeDave's words to reassure wavering Tory voters.
There are a lot of people in seats ike this one who might be tempted to vote Tory this time because they beleive they need to to 'get Brown out'.
In response we will be working hard to persuade them to vote on the basis that their sitting MP is hard working and doing an effective job.
It will be helpful to be able to back up this message with CallMeDave's reassuring words that there is much common ground between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. They therefore have nothing to fear about voting Lib Dem this time.
Similarly in seats where we are head to head with Labour and trying to squeeze the Tory vote, like in my home town of Redcar, we can use CallMeDave's word's to strengthen our squeeze message.
Thanks Dave!
Personally I'm delighted that he has taken the time to help write some of my leaflets for me.
In constituencies like the one I live in, where we have a popular Lib Dem MP, it will be very useful to use CallMeDave's words to reassure wavering Tory voters.
There are a lot of people in seats ike this one who might be tempted to vote Tory this time because they beleive they need to to 'get Brown out'.
In response we will be working hard to persuade them to vote on the basis that their sitting MP is hard working and doing an effective job.
It will be helpful to be able to back up this message with CallMeDave's reassuring words that there is much common ground between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. They therefore have nothing to fear about voting Lib Dem this time.
Similarly in seats where we are head to head with Labour and trying to squeeze the Tory vote, like in my home town of Redcar, we can use CallMeDave's word's to strengthen our squeeze message.
Thanks Dave!
Monday, November 30, 2009
File under: 'You couldn't make it up'
Go on, guess who:
"Whatever faith people had in the political process is now in tatters. I’ve seen that directly, on the doorstep, where people are rightly enraged. We can reverse the decline, but it requires genuine reform, not tinkering. You can’t legislate for decency, and in any case, if there’s a will to abuse power, there will always be a way. The only solution is a combination of openness and real local democracy."
Yes, this very evening, at St James' Church, Piccadilly, you can here all about the major challenges facing us, in particular the key question: "We face huge pressures and must make big decisions. How do we spend our collective wealth?"
So who is delivering this talk?
Yup, irony of ironies, non-dom Tory boy Zac Goldsmith, in the papers today over his tax status - is due to speak about these key issues this very evening.
hattip - a post on PoliticalBetting.com
"Whatever faith people had in the political process is now in tatters. I’ve seen that directly, on the doorstep, where people are rightly enraged. We can reverse the decline, but it requires genuine reform, not tinkering. You can’t legislate for decency, and in any case, if there’s a will to abuse power, there will always be a way. The only solution is a combination of openness and real local democracy."
Yes, this very evening, at St James' Church, Piccadilly, you can here all about the major challenges facing us, in particular the key question: "We face huge pressures and must make big decisions. How do we spend our collective wealth?"
So who is delivering this talk?
Yup, irony of ironies, non-dom Tory boy Zac Goldsmith, in the papers today over his tax status - is due to speak about these key issues this very evening.
hattip - a post on PoliticalBetting.com
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Sun should be ashamed
I'm sure there will be a lot of comment about the phone call between Gordon Brown and Mrs Janes which has been published today.
Having listened to the call, an uncomfortable experience, I actually think Gordon Brown handled the call about as well as could be expected in the circumstances.
He apologised, took a lot of flak from a very distraught Mrs Janes, but remained calm throughout.
Whether the Sun should have published a private phone call is open to debate. I can see arguments both ways.
However they should be thoroughly ashamed that they deem it appropriate to precede the recording with an ad for a Family Guy DVD which includes a joke about horse sperm and follow it with an ad for the Bruno DVD.
Having listened to the call, an uncomfortable experience, I actually think Gordon Brown handled the call about as well as could be expected in the circumstances.
He apologised, took a lot of flak from a very distraught Mrs Janes, but remained calm throughout.
Whether the Sun should have published a private phone call is open to debate. I can see arguments both ways.
However they should be thoroughly ashamed that they deem it appropriate to precede the recording with an ad for a Family Guy DVD which includes a joke about horse sperm and follow it with an ad for the Bruno DVD.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Theme Park Auschwitz - Or Children's Views Misrepresented?
An interesting survey reported in The Telegraph suggests that one in six 9-15 year olds think that Auschwitz is a WWII theme park and that Adolf Hitler was a German football coach.
Now on first sight, and to anyone of my generation who will have studied WWII in school history lessons, this looks dreadful.
But hang on a minute - dig a little deeper and it becomes clear that our children's views have been at best badly reported and at worst misrepresented.
The full results of the survey are here - and what is obvious is that children were offered multiple choice questions.
This suggests to me that quite a lot of the children simply guessed at answers they didn't know and a proportion of them guessed wrongly.
That DOES NOT MEAN that one in six 9-15 year olds believe Auschwitz is a WWII Theme Park - but that 30% didn't know the right answer and randomly picked the wrong answer.
And given that Auschwitz is now set up as a Visitor Centre where thousands of people, including parties of UK school children, find out about WWII, is it such a bad guess anyway?
I knew about WWII from a young age because it had been a major event in my Grandparents' lives and in my Dad's formative years. I spent a lot of my younger years in the company of my Gran who talked at length about the war, and in my younger years still had an air raid shelter at the bottom of her garden. I then learnt more about the war at secondary school in history lessons.
However the average nine or ten year old nowadays will not necessarily have any living relatives who remember WWII, and even if they do it isn't talked about nearly as often as it was thirty years ago.
A large proportion of those 9-15 year olds surveyed probably haven't got to that part of their history course yet. My 11 year old happens to have just read a book about Hitler as part of his half term homework for a book review, but he has not studied WWII as part of the curriculum yet.
So it is perhaps not surprising that a proportion of 9-15 year olds don't know much detail about a conflict that ended 50-55 years before they were born.
In fact many of the answers are surprisingly good.
For example more than half the children surveyed knew the start and end years of the First World War which started 89-95 years before they were born. This is the equivalent of me knowing the dates of the Boer Wars, the Tauranga Campaign or the Bhutan War, which I didn't until I looked them up on Google for the purposes of this blog!
A massive 90% got the years of WWII right, 60% correctly identified Harry Patch as the oldest veteran of the trenches, 80% knew that the poppy is the symbol of Remembrance Day and 86% that the Blitz was the bombing of London.
For a group of children, many of whom won't have studied the subject in History yet, I don't think this is bad at all.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong about people doing more to educate children about WWII, Remembrance Day or more recent and more relevant conflicts.
But a survey like this should not be used as yet another criticism of children's knowledge or of 'modern teaching standards', particularly when the survey has been deliberately structured to produce whacky answers.
Now on first sight, and to anyone of my generation who will have studied WWII in school history lessons, this looks dreadful.
But hang on a minute - dig a little deeper and it becomes clear that our children's views have been at best badly reported and at worst misrepresented.
The full results of the survey are here - and what is obvious is that children were offered multiple choice questions.
This suggests to me that quite a lot of the children simply guessed at answers they didn't know and a proportion of them guessed wrongly.
That DOES NOT MEAN that one in six 9-15 year olds believe Auschwitz is a WWII Theme Park - but that 30% didn't know the right answer and randomly picked the wrong answer.
And given that Auschwitz is now set up as a Visitor Centre where thousands of people, including parties of UK school children, find out about WWII, is it such a bad guess anyway?
I knew about WWII from a young age because it had been a major event in my Grandparents' lives and in my Dad's formative years. I spent a lot of my younger years in the company of my Gran who talked at length about the war, and in my younger years still had an air raid shelter at the bottom of her garden. I then learnt more about the war at secondary school in history lessons.
However the average nine or ten year old nowadays will not necessarily have any living relatives who remember WWII, and even if they do it isn't talked about nearly as often as it was thirty years ago.
A large proportion of those 9-15 year olds surveyed probably haven't got to that part of their history course yet. My 11 year old happens to have just read a book about Hitler as part of his half term homework for a book review, but he has not studied WWII as part of the curriculum yet.
So it is perhaps not surprising that a proportion of 9-15 year olds don't know much detail about a conflict that ended 50-55 years before they were born.
In fact many of the answers are surprisingly good.
For example more than half the children surveyed knew the start and end years of the First World War which started 89-95 years before they were born. This is the equivalent of me knowing the dates of the Boer Wars, the Tauranga Campaign or the Bhutan War, which I didn't until I looked them up on Google for the purposes of this blog!
A massive 90% got the years of WWII right, 60% correctly identified Harry Patch as the oldest veteran of the trenches, 80% knew that the poppy is the symbol of Remembrance Day and 86% that the Blitz was the bombing of London.
For a group of children, many of whom won't have studied the subject in History yet, I don't think this is bad at all.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong about people doing more to educate children about WWII, Remembrance Day or more recent and more relevant conflicts.
But a survey like this should not be used as yet another criticism of children's knowledge or of 'modern teaching standards', particularly when the survey has been deliberately structured to produce whacky answers.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The hypocrisy of the tabloids
Excellent post over at The Enemies of Reason about the utter twaddle being spouted by the right wing tabloids about the BBC's decision to allow Griffin on Question Time.
Hat Tip: Mark Reckons
Hat Tip: Mark Reckons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)