I read on CNN that Pres. Bush appeared with relatives of jailed Cuban dissidents last Wednesday and denounced the Caribbean country as a "tropical gulag."
True! Well it is since he started to use Guantanamo for that purpose...
This hypocryte just beggars belief doesn't he?
Sunday, 24 February 2008
So - Is this another 'expenses embarassment'?
The Commons Speaker, Michael Martin was appointed the chair of the review panel looking into MPs spending in the wake of the allegations against MP Derek Conway.
That choice may now look a little shaky as Mr Martin becomes embroiled in a potential expenses scandal of his own.
Once again, however, our elected representatives are 'circling the wagons' in defence of the accused rather than doing what they should for their electors and insisting upon a completely transparent system of accounting for MPs.
As for Mr Martin's guilt? Who knows? Guilty or innocent however - his chairmanship of the said review panel must be brought to an end. But hang on - what if that is the 'end' which is being 'engineered' here?
I read that Lord George Foulkes claims that the stories about Mr Martin were part of a class battle and was part of a long standing campaign against Mr Martin. Apparently, started years ago by “people who went to private schools and Oxbridge who didn’t like someone from a working class background in Glasgow getting into the highest office in the land".
Somehow that has more than a ring of truth behind it as the House is full of such chinless wonders who probably aren't even capable of tying their own shoelaces (perhaps we should check for slip-ons before we vote next time?).
Michael Martin must be investigated and dealt with in the same way as Derek Conway should be if there is any substance in the claim.
If, on the other hand, a contrived 'smear campaign' turns out to be what's behind this particular case, then a full investigation aimed at identifying the source/s of any 'character assassination' should be pursued rigourously, as that would be even more serious than the fiddling of expenses.
Why? Well for a start deliberate character assassination is not a million miles away from the real thing and can have tragic consequences.
But also consider this. If Mr Martin was just about to investigate MPs expenses, and he can't be relied upon as a member of the 'old-school-tie brigade' to look after his friends when the chips are down, then what better way to 'dispose' of him than this?
Yes indeed mon ami, the leetle grey cells are working overtime...
That choice may now look a little shaky as Mr Martin becomes embroiled in a potential expenses scandal of his own.
Once again, however, our elected representatives are 'circling the wagons' in defence of the accused rather than doing what they should for their electors and insisting upon a completely transparent system of accounting for MPs.
As for Mr Martin's guilt? Who knows? Guilty or innocent however - his chairmanship of the said review panel must be brought to an end. But hang on - what if that is the 'end' which is being 'engineered' here?
I read that Lord George Foulkes claims that the stories about Mr Martin were part of a class battle and was part of a long standing campaign against Mr Martin. Apparently, started years ago by “people who went to private schools and Oxbridge who didn’t like someone from a working class background in Glasgow getting into the highest office in the land".
Somehow that has more than a ring of truth behind it as the House is full of such chinless wonders who probably aren't even capable of tying their own shoelaces (perhaps we should check for slip-ons before we vote next time?).
Michael Martin must be investigated and dealt with in the same way as Derek Conway should be if there is any substance in the claim.
If, on the other hand, a contrived 'smear campaign' turns out to be what's behind this particular case, then a full investigation aimed at identifying the source/s of any 'character assassination' should be pursued rigourously, as that would be even more serious than the fiddling of expenses.
Why? Well for a start deliberate character assassination is not a million miles away from the real thing and can have tragic consequences.
But also consider this. If Mr Martin was just about to investigate MPs expenses, and he can't be relied upon as a member of the 'old-school-tie brigade' to look after his friends when the chips are down, then what better way to 'dispose' of him than this?
Yes indeed mon ami, the leetle grey cells are working overtime...
Saturday, 23 February 2008
The Last Post - continued
Having got the fact that I wasn't invited to the local rally off of my chest (previous post), I now want to get serious.
I got to thinking about the current situation with the post office closures, and the Beeching railway closures of the '60's. Prior to that we had a service based national railway. The then government saw that it was costing the treasury money (many millions) and they couldn't have that could they?
So - they got in Dr Beeching (slasher to his friends). And that's exactly what he did, he slashed and burned his way through the service tearing up its infrastucture as he went. Public opinion was completely dismissed as irrelevant along the way. Big Mistake!
Then further down the line - we got railway privatisation. Even bigger mistake!
The Tories have actually admitted that now. Back in 2000, Bernard Jenkins said as much when he 'agreed wholheartedly' with Gerald Corbett (Railtrack) who said that railway had been ripped apart at privatisation and that the resulting structure was designed to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury, not safety or investment.
Nor, dare I add, service.
The similarities with the postal service are striking. The old railway was a comprehensive service backed up by a comprehensive infrastucture. It served the whole of the people of Great Britain and served them well, but it had to be subsidised. Once the notion of a subsidised service was sacrificed on the altar of profit, then we were lost.
You may be suprised to learn however, that British Rail at the time, received lower subsidies than did other European nationalised railway services. Now the so called 'private' rail companies that we have, are subsidised to the tune of at least £2bn p.a. Just imagine what BR could've done with that level of investment.
No matter, the benefit of this level of investment ultimately will go to the shareholders of these companies who must get a return on their investment.
Fast forward now to the current situation with Royal Mail. See the similarities? If you can't then I'm not going to spell it out. Suffice to say that we let politicians tinker with these essential services at our peril. These are people who are not to be trusted. If history shows anything, it shows that.
As with the old, closed, railway stations, so with the post offices. You don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.
I'm sad about this, but saddened most of all to see a so-called 'Labour government' presiding over this 'rape' of what we have all collectively invested in, built up and relied upon over the years.
One might almost (but not quite) forgive the Tories of their past crimes as they are made up of chinless wonders like Cameron, Johnson and that idiot Redwood. People who don't seem to have any connection whatsoever with real people living real lives and people who will only ever know the cost of everthing and the value of nothing. You just have to look at Conway's offspring for an insight of what their values and aspirations are (see here if you've forgotten).
For Labour, given their roots and history, this is indeed a deep, deep betrayal of the working people of this country and only serves to confirm that Blairism is the new Thatcherism and that Brown hasn't the intestinal fortitude to do something about it.
I got to thinking about the current situation with the post office closures, and the Beeching railway closures of the '60's. Prior to that we had a service based national railway. The then government saw that it was costing the treasury money (many millions) and they couldn't have that could they?
So - they got in Dr Beeching (slasher to his friends). And that's exactly what he did, he slashed and burned his way through the service tearing up its infrastucture as he went. Public opinion was completely dismissed as irrelevant along the way. Big Mistake!
Then further down the line - we got railway privatisation. Even bigger mistake!
The Tories have actually admitted that now. Back in 2000, Bernard Jenkins said as much when he 'agreed wholheartedly' with Gerald Corbett (Railtrack) who said that railway had been ripped apart at privatisation and that the resulting structure was designed to maximise the proceeds to the Treasury, not safety or investment.
Nor, dare I add, service.
The similarities with the postal service are striking. The old railway was a comprehensive service backed up by a comprehensive infrastucture. It served the whole of the people of Great Britain and served them well, but it had to be subsidised. Once the notion of a subsidised service was sacrificed on the altar of profit, then we were lost.
You may be suprised to learn however, that British Rail at the time, received lower subsidies than did other European nationalised railway services. Now the so called 'private' rail companies that we have, are subsidised to the tune of at least £2bn p.a. Just imagine what BR could've done with that level of investment.
No matter, the benefit of this level of investment ultimately will go to the shareholders of these companies who must get a return on their investment.
Fast forward now to the current situation with Royal Mail. See the similarities? If you can't then I'm not going to spell it out. Suffice to say that we let politicians tinker with these essential services at our peril. These are people who are not to be trusted. If history shows anything, it shows that.
As with the old, closed, railway stations, so with the post offices. You don't appreciate what you have until it's gone.
I'm sad about this, but saddened most of all to see a so-called 'Labour government' presiding over this 'rape' of what we have all collectively invested in, built up and relied upon over the years.
One might almost (but not quite) forgive the Tories of their past crimes as they are made up of chinless wonders like Cameron, Johnson and that idiot Redwood. People who don't seem to have any connection whatsoever with real people living real lives and people who will only ever know the cost of everthing and the value of nothing. You just have to look at Conway's offspring for an insight of what their values and aspirations are (see here if you've forgotten).
For Labour, given their roots and history, this is indeed a deep, deep betrayal of the working people of this country and only serves to confirm that Blairism is the new Thatcherism and that Brown hasn't the intestinal fortitude to do something about it.
The Last Post?
So - they wanna close our Post Office huh?
Well - they've bitten off more than they can chew this time!
I tell you what we'll do - we'll organise a rally and get everyone along to show these 'bozos' our feelings!
Enter stage right Rugby and Kenilworth MP Jeremy Wright (Con) - he'll get this show on the road - you just wait and see...
A public 'anti-closure' rally ensues. I didn't see it on the news at ten, but the Kenilworth Weekly news reported it.
They even got a 'post rally' ('scuse the pun, but I couldn't resist it...) quote from 'our Jeremy', and I quote their quote;
“The response was incredible. There were a good 150 people there maybe more and it just goes to show the level of passion people have on this issue.”
Passion eh? Maybe more than 150 eh Jeremy, eh? Hey - are you awake?
What, like we got 151, or 152 - or perhaps even 155?
What have we got here in this town - a population of 23-24,000 people, and you managed to get a whole 0.65% of them mobilised? And the 'Cons' claim that they don't 'spin'!
Just how was this event organised Iwonder? Did Jeremy muster all of his local supporters for this rally? Ahh - that'll explain it then, and the other 100 must've been curious passers-by...
This also explains why I wasn't at the rally, despite my support of its purpose.
I didn't know it was happening!
In a previous blog-post I spoke about our local conservative party's claim to to have joined the 21st century. Their justification for this claim? Well - they now have an email address (yeah I know, but don't laugh at the poor dears - they are trying).
I suspect that they haven't worked out how to 'send' yet, or perhaps they aren't carefully maintaining their address book.
Never mind though, they could've posted notes through letter boxes (like they did with their, less than rivetting newsletter). Had they done this, and resisted the temptation to stamp 'conservative' all over it, people might have even read it and we might have seen a thousand at the rally.
Whatever else you do Jeremy, if you organise something like this in the future, don't rely on the post-office to communicate the arrangements - there might not be one left!
Well - they've bitten off more than they can chew this time!
I tell you what we'll do - we'll organise a rally and get everyone along to show these 'bozos' our feelings!
Enter stage right Rugby and Kenilworth MP Jeremy Wright (Con) - he'll get this show on the road - you just wait and see...
A public 'anti-closure' rally ensues. I didn't see it on the news at ten, but the Kenilworth Weekly news reported it.
They even got a 'post rally' ('scuse the pun, but I couldn't resist it...) quote from 'our Jeremy', and I quote their quote;
“The response was incredible. There were a good 150 people there maybe more and it just goes to show the level of passion people have on this issue.”
Passion eh? Maybe more than 150 eh Jeremy, eh? Hey - are you awake?
What, like we got 151, or 152 - or perhaps even 155?
What have we got here in this town - a population of 23-24,000 people, and you managed to get a whole 0.65% of them mobilised? And the 'Cons' claim that they don't 'spin'!
Just how was this event organised Iwonder? Did Jeremy muster all of his local supporters for this rally? Ahh - that'll explain it then, and the other 100 must've been curious passers-by...
This also explains why I wasn't at the rally, despite my support of its purpose.
I didn't know it was happening!
In a previous blog-post I spoke about our local conservative party's claim to to have joined the 21st century. Their justification for this claim? Well - they now have an email address (yeah I know, but don't laugh at the poor dears - they are trying).
I suspect that they haven't worked out how to 'send' yet, or perhaps they aren't carefully maintaining their address book.
Never mind though, they could've posted notes through letter boxes (like they did with their, less than rivetting newsletter). Had they done this, and resisted the temptation to stamp 'conservative' all over it, people might have even read it and we might have seen a thousand at the rally.
Whatever else you do Jeremy, if you organise something like this in the future, don't rely on the post-office to communicate the arrangements - there might not be one left!
Sunday, 3 February 2008
Kenilworth Police Getting Ahead - Cam
Reported in the Kenilworth Weekly News (a paper I trust) - our local police are to take part in a three-month pilot scheme to pilot new headcam technology.
See the full article Here.
Now this intrigued me because I was really not aware that we had local police on 'on the beat' in our Town, let alone officers who have been 'technologically advanced' in this way.
My reasons for labouring under this, obviously mistaken, illusion?
Well - the last time I needed to access the 'thin blue line' - I had a real job on my hands. Not seeing (or expecting to see) any bobbies 'on the beat' - incidentally are WPC's also 'bobbies' ? - I called in at the local police station only to find it closed up.
Now this wasn't an emergency, but something less urgent that I needed to report. It was very inconvenient and impressed I was most definitely not!
So - to learn that we now have police officers patrolling locally is good news. To hear that we have our own versions of 'Robo-Cop' is even better news - as any 'edge' that we can give the police is to be welcomed.
However, every town still needs a police station in my opinion. I'm not sure if ours is still partially 'moth-balled' as I've not needed it lately, but if it is, perhaps the said 'tooled up' officers could do a quick tour of the inside of the station and post the resultant video on YouTube as a 'virtual tour' so that we don't get to feel so deprived...
See the full article Here.
Now this intrigued me because I was really not aware that we had local police on 'on the beat' in our Town, let alone officers who have been 'technologically advanced' in this way.
My reasons for labouring under this, obviously mistaken, illusion?
Well - the last time I needed to access the 'thin blue line' - I had a real job on my hands. Not seeing (or expecting to see) any bobbies 'on the beat' - incidentally are WPC's also 'bobbies' ? - I called in at the local police station only to find it closed up.
Now this wasn't an emergency, but something less urgent that I needed to report. It was very inconvenient and impressed I was most definitely not!
So - to learn that we now have police officers patrolling locally is good news. To hear that we have our own versions of 'Robo-Cop' is even better news - as any 'edge' that we can give the police is to be welcomed.
However, every town still needs a police station in my opinion. I'm not sure if ours is still partially 'moth-balled' as I've not needed it lately, but if it is, perhaps the said 'tooled up' officers could do a quick tour of the inside of the station and post the resultant video on YouTube as a 'virtual tour' so that we don't get to feel so deprived...
So - Conway Objects...
Mr Conway is reported to have insisted there was nothing wrong in keeping parliamentary jobs in the family. In his first interview since Monday, he told the Mail on Sunday: "I am not a crook... I still believe I have done nothing wrong."
Well o.k. 'Del-boy' - perhaps your inability to grasp the issue and appreciate how others see it is at the real root of the problem - just perhaps...
Well o.k. 'Del-boy' - perhaps your inability to grasp the issue and appreciate how others see it is at the real root of the problem - just perhaps...
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
So - where to from here?
So Conway is going, the Police will be talking to him and the conservatives are hoping that this will 'draw a line' under the affair.
Well I'm sure they do...
However, we should all remain concious of the 'cover-ups' which our elected representatives have already tried on. Not just in this case, but also by Jack Straw previously, not wanting to 'embarrass' his Parliamentary colleagues (see previous blog) ...
Let's not be satisfied with anything less than full disclosure by all MP's. Not just at this point in time as a 'one-off', but everything, fully on the record, and permanently available from here on in.
I understand that this is already the case in the Welsh Assembly and yet, once again, in this pathetically small 'United Kingdom', we manage to pull 'different strokes' for 'different folks'.
You would think it would be easy in a land this size, yet this is yet another 'post-code lottery' for us to come to terms with. It apparently not only governs how we get treated when we are ill, or how well our under-graduates' are supported whilst studying, but it also now appears to determine how safe our taxes are from potential fraud from those that we elect.
Well I'm sure they do...
However, we should all remain concious of the 'cover-ups' which our elected representatives have already tried on. Not just in this case, but also by Jack Straw previously, not wanting to 'embarrass' his Parliamentary colleagues (see previous blog) ...
Let's not be satisfied with anything less than full disclosure by all MP's. Not just at this point in time as a 'one-off', but everything, fully on the record, and permanently available from here on in.
I understand that this is already the case in the Welsh Assembly and yet, once again, in this pathetically small 'United Kingdom', we manage to pull 'different strokes' for 'different folks'.
You would think it would be easy in a land this size, yet this is yet another 'post-code lottery' for us to come to terms with. It apparently not only governs how we get treated when we are ill, or how well our under-graduates' are supported whilst studying, but it also now appears to determine how safe our taxes are from potential fraud from those that we elect.
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
What the hell are they doing?
Just what is going on in the House of Commons?
The Speaker of the House has apparently blocked the disclosure of information about the employment of MP's families (see the preceding Conway item).
Meanwhile the Committee on Standards in Public Life is preparing to launch a full-scale inquiry into MPs’ expenses. Excellent! About Time!
However, apparently, Jack Straw - whilst he was leader of the House - previously blocked a similar investigation as it might 'embarrass' some backbench MPs!
Honestly now - have you ever heard the like?
It's been obvious to me for some while that quite a large proportion of our elected representatives have got just a little above their station whilst, at the same time, dangerously exceeding their natural limits of competence.
Is it not about time that we reminded them that they are our elected representatives and that, as such, we (you and I) are collectively their employers? It's a novel idea I know...
Perhaps we might do well to urgently remind them of the established 'employer/employee' relationship (i.e. we call the shots and they take their instructions from us).
Like all good employers, we should monitor their performance and where we find it lacking, demand improvement.
I think that both the Speaker and Jack Straw need to listen and pay heed - so hear this both! This is your 'performance review' and you have both been found wanting!
This is our money being discussed and, therefore, it is our business! We have every right to access this information and, unless the security of the nation is at stake in this matter (which it patently isn't), you have absolutely no business covering up your colleagues tracks and hiding their potential misdemeanors. You obviously can't (or won't) understand this, and so we find that you are falling well short of the competencies required to do your jobs. Please close the door behind you!
When the Committee on Standards in Public Life eventually completes their investigation, I wonder if we'll get to see it?
Not if Roger Gale MP (North Thanet) has his way I suspect. I heard him on Radio 4 this morning responding to the Conway story (still in it's embryo state at that point in time).
He described the clamour for more information about Conway's suspect dealings (which are at best another example of incompetent administration in the afore claimed 'P Haine style' and at worst a criminal act) as a 'witch-hunt'.
Incredibly, he asked the listeners' to accept that if he (Roger Gale) an MP who knows Derek Conway (MP) is assured by the said Derek Conway that his financial transactions with his sons were legitimate and above board then that should be good enough...
Was I reassured by this display of party loyalty? No - I was definitely not convinced by this performance from someone who is a former Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, with (get this) responsibility for Presentation.
Truly incredible! I wonder, did Peter Haine get him to do it for a bet do you think?
We are back to the 'competency issue' again I'm afraid. If Mr Gale genuinely believed for one nano-second (look it up Roger) that that his little performance on 'Today' this morning was actually going to reassure us all then he has proved my point for me.
If, on the other hand, he didn't believe that this interview was going to reassure us - then what exactly was he playing at? BTW Roger it's a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.
Either way Roger has 'blown it' (Gale - geddit? - oh never mind!) and has shown himself to be 'not fit for purpose' (unless the purpose was to be a confirmed ignorant, arrogant self-opinionated twit who doesn't know his A from his E).
Hold on - what am I thinking of? Silly me - he's an MP - of course that's his purpose...
The Speaker of the House has apparently blocked the disclosure of information about the employment of MP's families (see the preceding Conway item).
Meanwhile the Committee on Standards in Public Life is preparing to launch a full-scale inquiry into MPs’ expenses. Excellent! About Time!
However, apparently, Jack Straw - whilst he was leader of the House - previously blocked a similar investigation as it might 'embarrass' some backbench MPs!
Honestly now - have you ever heard the like?
It's been obvious to me for some while that quite a large proportion of our elected representatives have got just a little above their station whilst, at the same time, dangerously exceeding their natural limits of competence.
Is it not about time that we reminded them that they are our elected representatives and that, as such, we (you and I) are collectively their employers? It's a novel idea I know...
Perhaps we might do well to urgently remind them of the established 'employer/employee' relationship (i.e. we call the shots and they take their instructions from us).
Like all good employers, we should monitor their performance and where we find it lacking, demand improvement.
I think that both the Speaker and Jack Straw need to listen and pay heed - so hear this both! This is your 'performance review' and you have both been found wanting!
This is our money being discussed and, therefore, it is our business! We have every right to access this information and, unless the security of the nation is at stake in this matter (which it patently isn't), you have absolutely no business covering up your colleagues tracks and hiding their potential misdemeanors. You obviously can't (or won't) understand this, and so we find that you are falling well short of the competencies required to do your jobs. Please close the door behind you!
When the Committee on Standards in Public Life eventually completes their investigation, I wonder if we'll get to see it?
Not if Roger Gale MP (North Thanet) has his way I suspect. I heard him on Radio 4 this morning responding to the Conway story (still in it's embryo state at that point in time).
He described the clamour for more information about Conway's suspect dealings (which are at best another example of incompetent administration in the afore claimed 'P Haine style' and at worst a criminal act) as a 'witch-hunt'.
Incredibly, he asked the listeners' to accept that if he (Roger Gale) an MP who knows Derek Conway (MP) is assured by the said Derek Conway that his financial transactions with his sons were legitimate and above board then that should be good enough...
Was I reassured by this display of party loyalty? No - I was definitely not convinced by this performance from someone who is a former Vice Chairman of the Conservative Party, with (get this) responsibility for Presentation.
Truly incredible! I wonder, did Peter Haine get him to do it for a bet do you think?
We are back to the 'competency issue' again I'm afraid. If Mr Gale genuinely believed for one nano-second (look it up Roger) that that his little performance on 'Today' this morning was actually going to reassure us all then he has proved my point for me.
If, on the other hand, he didn't believe that this interview was going to reassure us - then what exactly was he playing at? BTW Roger it's a rhetorical question - don't bother answering.
Either way Roger has 'blown it' (Gale - geddit? - oh never mind!) and has shown himself to be 'not fit for purpose' (unless the purpose was to be a confirmed ignorant, arrogant self-opinionated twit who doesn't know his A from his E).
Hold on - what am I thinking of? Silly me - he's an MP - of course that's his purpose...
Derek Conway reprimanded
So here's another one...
And this one really takes the biscuit (and just about anything else he could lay his hands on by the looks of it!).
This senior Tory MP was forced to apologise "unreservedly" to Parliament after an investigation recommended he be suspended for paying his "all-but-invisible" son £1,000 per month in taxpayers' money.
Apparently the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee was 'scathing' about the £11,773 per year salary (plus bonuses) that he paid his son out of taxpayer's money for NOT doing work for him.
Is this not just a tad more serious than the other recent cases that we've heard of?
I think so, yet the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee 'scathe' apparently only amounted to a recommendation that he suspended for 10 days! Yes that's right! a whole 10 days!
Oh I see, this is the justice that we get when the police, 'police' the police!
Why aren't the real Police questioning this doting father and his student son about their embezzlement?
It's a case of Conway? Way to Con!
And this one really takes the biscuit (and just about anything else he could lay his hands on by the looks of it!).
This senior Tory MP was forced to apologise "unreservedly" to Parliament after an investigation recommended he be suspended for paying his "all-but-invisible" son £1,000 per month in taxpayers' money.
Apparently the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee was 'scathing' about the £11,773 per year salary (plus bonuses) that he paid his son out of taxpayer's money for NOT doing work for him.
Is this not just a tad more serious than the other recent cases that we've heard of?
I think so, yet the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee 'scathe' apparently only amounted to a recommendation that he suspended for 10 days! Yes that's right! a whole 10 days!
Oh I see, this is the justice that we get when the police, 'police' the police!
Why aren't the real Police questioning this doting father and his student son about their embezzlement?
It's a case of Conway? Way to Con!
Monday, 28 January 2008
Johnson's cash Issue and the Press
In the news today;
The health secretary's team claim that they submitted details of over £3,000 in donations for his deputy leadership campaign last year after finding that they weren't on the list.
That was long after the 60-day limit to declare them - but Mr Johnson's team says they were first declared in May...
The Electoral Commission, on the other hand, has said that it "was not aware of this and was seeking to clarify the situation".
You might well ask - what on earth is going on here?
Between a Minister's office, a watch-dog and a baying rabid national press, the electorate have no idea now what to believe. The only certain thing is that one of these parties is completely wrong and it'll be interesting to see if, when they are finally revealed, that the party in question, steps up and admits it and takes the consequences...
But let's consider the press for the moment.
I wonder - how many of the Mirror's journalists' expense accounts could stand up to the sort of close scrutiny that they are currently subjecting the politicians' to? Now that might make a really interesting story...
One might, of course, reasonably argue that the national press are not publicly accountable due to the fact that we don't elect them and that that's a differentiator between them and our politicians.
Well, it has been said before that we should really think twice before voting for politicians' as it only encourages them.
Perhaps we should also think twice before choosing our national papers as the same applies.
Fed up with their journalistic double-standards and hypocrisy? Then don't vote for these press barons and the tripe that they peddle by buying their papers!
Much of what is printed in the national press has, as often as not, little to do with genuine news and more to do with either their own political agendas or, manufactured 'celeb-news' dross aimed (as far as I can see) readers with a mental age of 9 or 10 (if that).
This may seem a little unfair on the Mirror (and the rest of that part of the press community) if they have indeed uncovered some murky truth about Johnson, but hey - just like the politicians - they shouldn't be in the kitchen if heat is not to their taste.
Saturday, 26 January 2008
My Local Conservative Kak Letter (intouch)
OMG! - what a load of dross has just dropped through my letter-box from the local conservative party!
This is a pathetic attempt at trying to give the impression that they a) have our interests at heart b) are competent to run our lives, and c) have some talent for communication...
My decision to share just some of this 'tat' with the wider world was not an awful struggle as there were 2 x A4 pages of utter rubbish to choose from.
Example -
"We are moving into the 21st Century..."
This apparently refers to the fact that you can now send an email to our 'venerable' local conservative party.
Here's a 'heads up' for you guys... email has been heavily used by the rest of the community, that you aspire to belong to, since the latter part of the 20th century!
Just to make it easy for us all to join them, they've come up with a really short-snappy and easy to remember (and type) email address;
info@kenilworthandsouthamconservatives.co.uk - snappy huh?
Another 'heads up' for the duffers who reside at this address - the rest of us have been in the 21st century for the last 7 years - so where have you been? Not intouch obviously...
Another example; apparently a certain councillor has "spent many hours liaising with them ('them' being the contractors working on our new sewers) to minimise the impact of these major works".
Really? Exactly what was it he achieved ? As someone affected, I know that there were many traffic routes affected simultaneously by these works. There was intrusive noise and dirt/dust with house windows having to be kept closed in an attempt to keep it out.
The plant used in the works was constantly running back & forth between the work sites and the contractor's base taking (comparatively speaking) teaspoons full of gravel in one small dumper load at a time. This created a mess on the roads and added (due to the slow speeds involved) more traffic disruption to the already miserable lot of the local tax payers.
Now this is not to say that the work wasn't essential. It was (and still is). But I believe that it could have been better organised on a number of fronts.
What really annoys me intensly is to see a local politician who had no real part to play in this whole exercise, now trying to get some kudos for it. One role that this 'elected official' could have usefully performed, would have been to have created an effective means of communication between those contractors carrying out that work, and the elderly part of the community most affected by this work in order to establish where their problems could have been eased or even eradicated. My mother and her neighbours fell into this category and most definitely did not see any such effort.
Of course, this would have involved the said Cllr in many days or weeks of liaison rather than hours, and would have meant him having to engage in, and solve, some real problems. Whatever he did was little enough for most of us affected to notice.
Some years ago, I worked as a 'Professional Officer' (i.e. trained, qualified and paid a salary) for a local council. I had a role in a major service reorganisation (I led a team of officers in fact) and we not only improved the said service, but also made substantial savings to boot. No politicians were involved at any stage, save for giving us the go-ahead (after us having to explain the whole thing to our elected members in words of one syllable - I always thought that the word 'members' was such an appropriate description for them).
When it came to the publicity, however, 'pow' - they appeared out of nowhere to claim the credit for our efforts. Not only that, they also wheeled in our national MP to bathe in the glory! Of course, neither me nor my team were mentioned in their little speeches. It probably goes without saying that this too was a conservative run council...
The whole business had a 'nasty whiff' about it - and I have exactly the same smell in my nostrils now thanks to this 'intouch' edition.
We all know that Severn Trent did (and are doing) all of the hard work and so, deserve all of the credit, such as it is, for not disrupting our lives more than they did. Shame on any politicians who do so little for us in reality, that they have to stoop to such 'glory grabbing' tactics from any quarter however small, and in doing so try to alter our perception of the reality.
In another area of this letter, it claims that (get this) "We know it's your money". Like we should've expected anything else from our elected representatives... Rather stating the 'bleeding obvious' isn't it old boys?
They go on to crow that the last time they were in power here they left office with reserves of £12m.
On recently re-entering office they found that the reserve was only £1m... They also go on to promise that they will be now 'stabilising' our financial affairs (which I assume is a hint that they want to try to get us back to a large reserve situation).
Now I know that it's prudent to operate with some reserve, but £1m for a district of this size sounds more than enough to me. If we've been operating with a reserve of £1m under the previous administration, then it must mean that the one before that (i.e. the previous conservative administration) had £11m of our money that they weren't using. So why wasn't it being properly put to use to either improve our services or to reduce the tax payers burden in the first place?
I suppose that by nature conservatives accumulate wealth for it's own sake and they really can't get past that flaw in their collective characters can they?
This is a pathetic attempt at trying to give the impression that they a) have our interests at heart b) are competent to run our lives, and c) have some talent for communication...
My decision to share just some of this 'tat' with the wider world was not an awful struggle as there were 2 x A4 pages of utter rubbish to choose from.
Example -
"We are moving into the 21st Century..."
This apparently refers to the fact that you can now send an email to our 'venerable' local conservative party.
Here's a 'heads up' for you guys... email has been heavily used by the rest of the community, that you aspire to belong to, since the latter part of the 20th century!
Just to make it easy for us all to join them, they've come up with a really short-snappy and easy to remember (and type) email address;
info@kenilworthandsouthamconservatives.co.uk - snappy huh?
Another 'heads up' for the duffers who reside at this address - the rest of us have been in the 21st century for the last 7 years - so where have you been? Not intouch obviously...
Another example; apparently a certain councillor has "spent many hours liaising with them ('them' being the contractors working on our new sewers) to minimise the impact of these major works".
Really? Exactly what was it he achieved ? As someone affected, I know that there were many traffic routes affected simultaneously by these works. There was intrusive noise and dirt/dust with house windows having to be kept closed in an attempt to keep it out.
The plant used in the works was constantly running back & forth between the work sites and the contractor's base taking (comparatively speaking) teaspoons full of gravel in one small dumper load at a time. This created a mess on the roads and added (due to the slow speeds involved) more traffic disruption to the already miserable lot of the local tax payers.
Now this is not to say that the work wasn't essential. It was (and still is). But I believe that it could have been better organised on a number of fronts.
What really annoys me intensly is to see a local politician who had no real part to play in this whole exercise, now trying to get some kudos for it. One role that this 'elected official' could have usefully performed, would have been to have created an effective means of communication between those contractors carrying out that work, and the elderly part of the community most affected by this work in order to establish where their problems could have been eased or even eradicated. My mother and her neighbours fell into this category and most definitely did not see any such effort.
Of course, this would have involved the said Cllr in many days or weeks of liaison rather than hours, and would have meant him having to engage in, and solve, some real problems. Whatever he did was little enough for most of us affected to notice.
Some years ago, I worked as a 'Professional Officer' (i.e. trained, qualified and paid a salary) for a local council. I had a role in a major service reorganisation (I led a team of officers in fact) and we not only improved the said service, but also made substantial savings to boot. No politicians were involved at any stage, save for giving us the go-ahead (after us having to explain the whole thing to our elected members in words of one syllable - I always thought that the word 'members' was such an appropriate description for them).
When it came to the publicity, however, 'pow' - they appeared out of nowhere to claim the credit for our efforts. Not only that, they also wheeled in our national MP to bathe in the glory! Of course, neither me nor my team were mentioned in their little speeches. It probably goes without saying that this too was a conservative run council...
The whole business had a 'nasty whiff' about it - and I have exactly the same smell in my nostrils now thanks to this 'intouch' edition.
We all know that Severn Trent did (and are doing) all of the hard work and so, deserve all of the credit, such as it is, for not disrupting our lives more than they did. Shame on any politicians who do so little for us in reality, that they have to stoop to such 'glory grabbing' tactics from any quarter however small, and in doing so try to alter our perception of the reality.
In another area of this letter, it claims that (get this) "We know it's your money". Like we should've expected anything else from our elected representatives... Rather stating the 'bleeding obvious' isn't it old boys?
They go on to crow that the last time they were in power here they left office with reserves of £12m.
On recently re-entering office they found that the reserve was only £1m... They also go on to promise that they will be now 'stabilising' our financial affairs (which I assume is a hint that they want to try to get us back to a large reserve situation).
Now I know that it's prudent to operate with some reserve, but £1m for a district of this size sounds more than enough to me. If we've been operating with a reserve of £1m under the previous administration, then it must mean that the one before that (i.e. the previous conservative administration) had £11m of our money that they weren't using. So why wasn't it being properly put to use to either improve our services or to reduce the tax payers burden in the first place?
I suppose that by nature conservatives accumulate wealth for it's own sake and they really can't get past that flaw in their collective characters can they?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)