“ There is no comparison between that which is lost by not succeeding and that lost by not trying.”Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Monday 31 March 2008
Quote of the day
‘Natural England’ advocate abandoning large swathes of Norfolk to the sea.
Thanks to the cult of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) the idiots at ‘Natural England’ are planning on abandoning huge swathes of Norfolk to the sea.
Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.
I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.
The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.
It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.
If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.
Why? Because they apparently believe some of the more alarmist predictions that proponents of the AGW theory make about possible huge rises in sea levels. They seem to have decided that they will be unable to defend against, or more likely to afford to defend against these possible rises. So they don’t even intend to try and are attempting to make a virtue out of this.
I don’t intend to get into if the theory of AGW is right or not, the fact is that some degree of climate change has been going on since long before the advent of humankind. It has been responsible for periods of greater cold and greater warmth than we currently take as normal, even within the last few thousand years.
The fact is that sea defences have protected these parts of Norfolk, the villages and broads and the unique environment they contain for centuries. There is no guarantee that sea levels will rise to such an extent they are impossible to defend against at all.
It is stupid, even bordering on criminally irresponsible, to just throw their hands in the air and just abandon large swathes of the country to the sea until we are absolutely forced to - and there is no guarantee that this will in fact happen.
If Natural England and the Environment Agency are unwilling to do their job and make a reasonable fist of maintaining our sea defences, as they are charged to do, then they should be divested of their authority and resources and these should be allocated to someone who will.
House of Lords may yet force a rethink on Lisbon Treaty referendum
It’s quite not over yet…
The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.
The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.
Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.
Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”
Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.
The house of Lords may still force New Labour and the Lib-Dems to honour their manifesto commitments to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
New Labour have consistently tried to pull the teeth of the house of Lords and destroy it’s more impartial, longer term view, in order to force through legislation unopposed, since they came to power. Now it seems they may not have done quite enough.
The Bill to rubber stamp the treaty without a referendum squeaked through the Commons in March with a majority of 63, thanks to the slavish unwillingness of new Lab and Lib-Dem MPs to honour what Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg presumably now regard as inconvenient election promises.
Now there is a possibility the house of Lords may yet try force them to honour their election commitment to a referendum anyway, by amending and returning the bill to the house of commons.
Lib Dem peer Lord Falkland, who clearly likes to be able to look himself in the eye in the mirror, unlike so many of his colleagues in the commons, said: ”I will be voting for a referendum and, if I am brave enough to withstand the glares of my colleagues, I will speak in the debate.”. “When you give an undertaking, as we clearly did in our last manifesto, you cannot have it both ways. A manifesto commitment has to be sacrosanct.”
Still, it is the whole weight of the European political elite and the European ‘Project’ behind the ‘Treaty’ - don’t hold your breath waiting for a referendum folks.
Zimbabwe’s 'elections'
The results of Zimbabwe’s elections have still yet to be announced. The longer they take the more one worries.
It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?
The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.
Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.
It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.
I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.
If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.
Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.
The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.
Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.
Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.
It is clear that the old fraud Mugabe has stacked things as much in his favour as he can get away with - but will that be enough to keep him and his cronies in power?
The much abused opposition are certain they have won, but that is based on the counts at the polls, the results after they have been 'officially counted' may not necessarily be the same, or reflect reality.
Mugabe has managed to turn a country that was the breadbasket of Africa when he first became it’s ruler into the basket case of Africa. South Africa has been reluctant to intervene or criticise his regime. Most other African states have taken a similar or even more equivocal stance.
It would probably be the best result for Zimbabwe if Mugabe did the decent thing and stepped down. If the country could begin it’s probably long recovery, free of his corrupt racist incompetence.
I am sure the ‘Islington Tendency’, don’t even want to think such a thing – but he is clearly racist and/or cynically uses and panders to racism for his own purposes. I am not sure what is worse.
If this does come to pass, the UK should be very reluctant to become involved.
Zimbabwe was in a very strong position when it declared UDI. The UK worked to try to ensure a peaceful transition of power to majority rule, the country was prosperous and had an honest fair and functioning legal and political system at that point.
The terrible state of the country today is entirely due to the dishonesty, incompetence and corruption of it’s rulers since the advent of majority rule - and not the responsibility of the UK.
Though one feels for the ordinary people, when the time finally comes that the country gets the chance to recover, let Zimbabwe make reparations to their citizens who they have driven off their farms and let Africa repair the damage in their own backyard. The UK should not become any more involved than any other country.
Zimbabwe should not expect any more from the UK than any other country, except perhaps their immediate neighbours.
Friday 28 March 2008
BA’s Terminal 5 misery rolls on into day two.
Is it me or does anyone else wonder why they didn’t test the systems at Heathrow’s new terminal 5 before opening it?
A full dress rehearsal or two, with a dry run involving fake luggage might have helped. I wouldn’t mind betting they have a few unclaimed cases lying around they could have used, but empty cardboard boxes would have probably told them something useful.
I understand when Eurostar services were migrated to St Pancras they managed to come up with enough volunteer passengers to test it all out and snag any last minute glitches before they ever hit any paying passengers.
As I understand it most of the problems are due to the supposedly brilliant new baggage handling system having some sort of bottleneck or failure.
BA seem to be waffling a bit claiming the backlog was due to a number of things, including, but not limited to, delays at the staff car park and security hold-ups affecting baggage handlers. Again a dry run would surely have told them something.
They certainly seem to be making a real mess of dealing with the poor old customers.
No clear information is one thing and frustrating in it’s self for customers - I heard they threatened to have at least one guy arrested when he quite justifiably complained - but the press release was very bare bones.
Although the words were technically regretful the tone was anything but and their spokesperson just read it out - badly, no personal input at all. Do they get training in dealing with the media?
Excellent public relations work! I am really glad I flew the other week and not this one.
A full dress rehearsal or two, with a dry run involving fake luggage might have helped. I wouldn’t mind betting they have a few unclaimed cases lying around they could have used, but empty cardboard boxes would have probably told them something useful.
I understand when Eurostar services were migrated to St Pancras they managed to come up with enough volunteer passengers to test it all out and snag any last minute glitches before they ever hit any paying passengers.
As I understand it most of the problems are due to the supposedly brilliant new baggage handling system having some sort of bottleneck or failure.
BA seem to be waffling a bit claiming the backlog was due to a number of things, including, but not limited to, delays at the staff car park and security hold-ups affecting baggage handlers. Again a dry run would surely have told them something.
They certainly seem to be making a real mess of dealing with the poor old customers.
No clear information is one thing and frustrating in it’s self for customers - I heard they threatened to have at least one guy arrested when he quite justifiably complained - but the press release was very bare bones.
Although the words were technically regretful the tone was anything but and their spokesperson just read it out - badly, no personal input at all. Do they get training in dealing with the media?
Excellent public relations work! I am really glad I flew the other week and not this one.
Thursday 27 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ A welfare state is frightened of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.”Harry Browne
“ The more one considers the matter, the clearer it becomes that redistribution is in effect far less a redistribution of free income from the richer to the poorer, as we imagined, than a redistribution of power from the individual to the State.”Bertrand de Jouvenel
A short comment on Mme Sarkozy and ‘that’ picture
The Sarkozys are on a state visit to the UK. President Sarkozy really seems to be looking to improve/upgrade the relationship between the UK and France. He looked smart, hansom and businesslike, his wife Carla, a former model, looked beautiful, cool and sophisticated when meeting the Royals.
As mentioned she is a former model and there is in existence a tasteful enough nude photo of her, taken before she ever imagined she might ever became the ‘first lady’ of France, that is going to be auctioned at Christies.
There is nothing she need be embarrassed about, she was honestly making her independent way in the world and that was a part of it. It owes something in style to the French artist Georges Seurat. If it were in oils no one could argue that it wasn’t tasteful art.
But the good old UK tabloids seldom fail to make us look like lowlifes. The visit proved and opportunity too tempting for them miss. They published the picture together with a leering two faced “Welcome to Great Britain, Madame Sarkozy”.
If it was not intended to be a calculated insult it could easily be taken as such. It could certainly be represented as such by anyone so inclined. Especially if they considered the politics of the tabloid and the government.
If a paper wished to publish the picture, maybe it would perhaps have been better to have done so before the visit, or wait until it was done. Or better still just printed an article to accompany it rather than trying to be ‘clever’.
As mentioned she is a former model and there is in existence a tasteful enough nude photo of her, taken before she ever imagined she might ever became the ‘first lady’ of France, that is going to be auctioned at Christies.
There is nothing she need be embarrassed about, she was honestly making her independent way in the world and that was a part of it. It owes something in style to the French artist Georges Seurat. If it were in oils no one could argue that it wasn’t tasteful art.
But the good old UK tabloids seldom fail to make us look like lowlifes. The visit proved and opportunity too tempting for them miss. They published the picture together with a leering two faced “Welcome to Great Britain, Madame Sarkozy”.
If it was not intended to be a calculated insult it could easily be taken as such. It could certainly be represented as such by anyone so inclined. Especially if they considered the politics of the tabloid and the government.
If a paper wished to publish the picture, maybe it would perhaps have been better to have done so before the visit, or wait until it was done. Or better still just printed an article to accompany it rather than trying to be ‘clever’.
New Report critical of UK asylum system
The independent Asylum Commission haspublished a report critical of the way asylum seekers are treated in the UK.
The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.
It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.
This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?
One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.
If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.
Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.
Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.
The system does seem to be far from satisfactory. It takes far too long to make decisions and implement them, keeping people in limbo. It does not appear to consistently implement those decisions when they are made. The decisions do not always seem to make sense to a ‘layman’. It is actually illegal to employ ‘illegals’ and the punishments for doing so appear to be becoming increasingly draconian, so they cannon provide for themselves.
It must be said that many of the cases of asylum seekers that one hears about look far more like economic migration than actual genuine asylum seeking.
This impression is bolstered by the undeniable fact that the UK has many more‘asylum seekers’ than any other state in the EU. The natural question that arises is: If all these people are genuine asylum seekers, then given that many have to travel through large areas of Europe to get here, why do they not claim asylum at the first opportunity, as they are supposed to?
One can’t help but wonder if the welfare state is part of the attraction - and part of the problem. It is the nature of the system that actually makes it a problem. The chance of enjoying the ‘benefits’ of they system is an undeniable magnet. The drain on the system caused by large numbers of people who have never contributed to it is a problem, a serious one in certain areas.
If there were no welfare state, or broadly it could not apply to those who had not significantly contributed to it, this would remove the ‘drain’ and much of the problem. It might also make the UK less likely to be a preferred destination. In addition those who came in reality as economic migrants could be honest about it either working and contributing to society, or go elsewhere, possibly back home.
Surely those willing to work hard to honestly obtain a better life and who want to become British and adopt our values might be considered to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage.
It seems it is only under a social welfare system like ours, designed as if it operates in isolation, that this would be a problem at all, before the advent of the welfare state it would not have been. One wonders if this might be a main driver behind New Labour’s desperate desire for a compulsory national identity card system, that and their apparently compulsive desire to regulate the population, in as many aspects of their lives as possible.
Before the advent of the welfare state incomers who did not contribute to, or preyed on society, would have found it uncomfortable, even impossible to stay and left, or fallen foul of the law and been forced to leave. The Honest and hardworking would have settled and become British. In any even there would have been no ‘drain’.
Wednesday 26 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.”Clive Staples Lewis
NICE advise alcohol ban for expectant mothers
NICE (the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) who withhold life saving treatments to save the Government money are changing the advice they give to pregnant women concerning alcohol. Up ‘till now they have advised that small daily amounts were fine, a unit of alcohol a day.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Now the health facists are insisting women should not drink any alcohol in the first three months of pregnancy.
When pressed NICE conceded the change was not on the basis of any actual evidence – but, for puritanical political social control reasons. It seems they just feel people are drinking too much these days so arbitrarily decided to change the advice.
Typically New Labour’s Chief Medical Office, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, was enthusiastic about the change.
The advice is of course largely useless, as it is likely many women will not actually initially be aware they are pregnant. So, even if they are inclined to be dragooned by the State, who clearly think they know better than the rest of us lower orders, they will be unable to obey these instructions without going permanently tee total.
NICE’s Dr Gillian Leng said people - particularly women, were drinking more and they wanted to send a "clear message"; "Women should be advised not to drink."
So what it boils down to, is that these people, who make life or death decisions, about whether we can have treatments or not, just don’t fee that the average woman is actually up to making a sensible, informed decision, based on actual evidence, for themselves.
Tuesday 25 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't.”Anon
“ One of the best ways to keep peace is to be prepared for war.”George Washington
NUT suggests pupils 'lured' into UK armed forces
It is their conference week - and the UK National Union of teachers (NUT) in the form of Catherine Brennan, have raised their skirts and are showing their anti military unmentionables in public.
They are attacking the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for giving careers advice in schools, alongside banks and the local council, marching in the opposite direction to the current New-Lab stance claiming pupils are being 'lured' into joining.
Mealy mouthed Steve Sinnott, the NUT general secretary briefed that he was ‘concerned’ youngsters from ‘poorer backgrounds’ were being targeted.
"Youngsters from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have more limited opportunities in life than youngsters from better off backgrounds.
"It's simply a fact. I am not saying that youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot get something from a career in the military."
There is an apparent subtext here that one might suspect may indicate a certain masked antagonism and contempt.
He rather betrays his prejudices in that he seems absolutely unconcerned about those ‘youngsters’ from what he presumably feels are probably ‘better off backgrounds’ enticed into Sandhurst… I don’t suppose he is suggesting that they can’t get something from a career in the military either.
They are attacking the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for giving careers advice in schools, alongside banks and the local council, marching in the opposite direction to the current New-Lab stance claiming pupils are being 'lured' into joining.
Mealy mouthed Steve Sinnott, the NUT general secretary briefed that he was ‘concerned’ youngsters from ‘poorer backgrounds’ were being targeted.
"Youngsters from the most disadvantaged backgrounds have more limited opportunities in life than youngsters from better off backgrounds.
"It's simply a fact. I am not saying that youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds cannot get something from a career in the military."
There is an apparent subtext here that one might suspect may indicate a certain masked antagonism and contempt.
He rather betrays his prejudices in that he seems absolutely unconcerned about those ‘youngsters’ from what he presumably feels are probably ‘better off backgrounds’ enticed into Sandhurst… I don’t suppose he is suggesting that they can’t get something from a career in the military either.
Monday 24 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."Abraham Lincoln
Brits no longer believe fad diet claims
It seems Britain is becoming disenchanted with the claims of fad diets. Over the last 5 years sales of slimming products have dropped by a third. This may also hold true for low calorie and reduced fat products, as growth in that market appears to be plateauing.
After years of trying diets, with no discernable signs of success, people finally seem to have stopped believing the diets' claims anymore.
Mintel, the market research people state: "Attitudes to dieting have become more negative with a higher proportion of consumers believing that they are hard to follow, confusing and may be harmful."
This may be more promising than it seems. If the public are wising up about fad diets maybe they are also capable of learning the same lessons about politics. What with two of the major parties (New-Labour and Lib-Dem ) manifesto promises now clearly proven to be, like the diet’s claims; “Not subject to legitimate expectation”
Frankly, if they cannot be held to their promises, at least to a reasonable extent, then there is little point in voting for them at all. Especially when Parliament's power and relevance diminishes with every new ‘treaty’.
Of course, by now, many of us will have realised that the most reliable way of loosing pounds, at least from your pocket, is not by means of a New-Fad diet, it is to vote New-Labour. It will not be your waist you are watching, so much as their waste and ineptitude - your wallet loosing weight ;-)
After years of trying diets, with no discernable signs of success, people finally seem to have stopped believing the diets' claims anymore.
Mintel, the market research people state: "Attitudes to dieting have become more negative with a higher proportion of consumers believing that they are hard to follow, confusing and may be harmful."
This may be more promising than it seems. If the public are wising up about fad diets maybe they are also capable of learning the same lessons about politics. What with two of the major parties (New-Labour and Lib-Dem ) manifesto promises now clearly proven to be, like the diet’s claims; “Not subject to legitimate expectation”
Frankly, if they cannot be held to their promises, at least to a reasonable extent, then there is little point in voting for them at all. Especially when Parliament's power and relevance diminishes with every new ‘treaty’.
Of course, by now, many of us will have realised that the most reliable way of loosing pounds, at least from your pocket, is not by means of a New-Fad diet, it is to vote New-Labour. It will not be your waist you are watching, so much as their waste and ineptitude - your wallet loosing weight ;-)
Sunday 23 March 2008
Jersey Boys Review.
A brief plug for Jersey Boys. Mrs CFD and I went to see it the other day. Most enjoyable it was too.
Jersey Boys is of course the sort of thing where you know largely what you are getting. Lots of Four Seasons songs and Frankie Valli - Still much depends on how well the thing is done.
In this case it was most excellent. I am reluctant to single any one of the cast out in particular, as they were all very, very, good - But it must be said that Ryan Malloy does a very good Frankie Valli and there is a certain resemblance also and Glenn Carter made a memorable Tommy DeVito.
The Prince Edward Theatre was packed to the gunnels, in significant numbers with persons of a certain age, old enough to remember the songs when they first came out.
One gets the impression the cast were really enjoying themselves and the positive feedback they were getting from the audience.
As mentioned the cast were effectively a really good tribute band and turned out a star performance, with many old favourites such as ‘Walk like a man’, ‘Sherry’, ‘Rag doll’, ‘My Mother's Eyes’, ‘Big girls don’t cry’, ‘Bye, Bye, Baby’, etc. etc. Combined with a potted bigraphical history of the group, acted out as a background to the songs.
The theatre were touting the cast CD for £16 and the original artist CD for £22. A little pricy given that the CD of the original US cast is available for £8.98 on Amazon. I might have coughed up £10 or £12.
There was a well deserved standing ovation at the end of the show.
If you even vaguely like this sort of music, ‘my hand to God’ you should enjoy the show.
Jersey Boys is of course the sort of thing where you know largely what you are getting. Lots of Four Seasons songs and Frankie Valli - Still much depends on how well the thing is done.
In this case it was most excellent. I am reluctant to single any one of the cast out in particular, as they were all very, very, good - But it must be said that Ryan Malloy does a very good Frankie Valli and there is a certain resemblance also and Glenn Carter made a memorable Tommy DeVito.
The Prince Edward Theatre was packed to the gunnels, in significant numbers with persons of a certain age, old enough to remember the songs when they first came out.
One gets the impression the cast were really enjoying themselves and the positive feedback they were getting from the audience.
As mentioned the cast were effectively a really good tribute band and turned out a star performance, with many old favourites such as ‘Walk like a man’, ‘Sherry’, ‘Rag doll’, ‘My Mother's Eyes’, ‘Big girls don’t cry’, ‘Bye, Bye, Baby’, etc. etc. Combined with a potted bigraphical history of the group, acted out as a background to the songs.
The theatre were touting the cast CD for £16 and the original artist CD for £22. A little pricy given that the CD of the original US cast is available for £8.98 on Amazon. I might have coughed up £10 or £12.
There was a well deserved standing ovation at the end of the show.
If you even vaguely like this sort of music, ‘my hand to God’ you should enjoy the show.
Thursday 20 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ The greatest menace to our civilization today is the conflict between giant organized systems of self-righteousness -- each system only too delighted to find that the other is wicked -- each only too glad that the sins give it the pretext for still deeper hatred and animosity.”Herbert Butterfield
More threats, allegedly from bin Laden.
A video has been released purportedly from bin Laden. Purportedly, because graphics and computers have come a long way.
For the moment lets go with the idea it really was him though. He is apparently comparing Danish cartoons of Mohamed to the crusades - one is tempted to intemperate language here...
From this one might be forgiven for assuming he is so disconnected from reality that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference between marks on paper and an actual physical conflict, where real people get really injured and killed.
It seems he even blames the Pope - given that only 3% of the population of Denmark is Roman Catholic this is a bit disingenuous, even for bin Laden. Either that, or he is simply displaying contemptuous ignorance; “All you Dhimmies look the same to me”. Given that he visited Europe to sample the’ high life’ as a teen though, probably the former.
Two percent of the Danish population is Moslem, almost as big as the Roman Catholic influence; maybe he ought to commit suicide to get revenge (fingers crossed).
By extension he blames all of Europe, clearly he has problems with rational categorisation.
He nebulously ‘threatens’ a “reckoning”. This of course allows him to claim credit for almost anything at all, as the likes of his organisation have to take what targets they can get.
The weakest targets that no decent human being would consider, even then they need to launch many plots for one to succeed. Still as the IRA once famously observed of the British Government: “You have to be ‘lucky’ all the time, we only need to be ‘lucky’ once”.
Going down this route means they have to be able to justify killing innocent people. They seem to do this by claiming they are not innocent on religious grounds. So that makes it all right then. They don’t seem to consider that they may equally well be bound for eternal damnation, viewed by other religious grounds.
The thing to remember is that you are more likely to be killed, or injured, every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Yes it does happen and if it is you personally, or someone you know or love involved it will have a massive, in the former case possibly terminal, impact.
This risk and many other risks of daily life do not stop the majority of us carrying on with our lives as per normal and does not significantly alter our behaviour. Hopefully nor should the likes of these threats.
For the moment lets go with the idea it really was him though. He is apparently comparing Danish cartoons of Mohamed to the crusades - one is tempted to intemperate language here...
From this one might be forgiven for assuming he is so disconnected from reality that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference between marks on paper and an actual physical conflict, where real people get really injured and killed.
It seems he even blames the Pope - given that only 3% of the population of Denmark is Roman Catholic this is a bit disingenuous, even for bin Laden. Either that, or he is simply displaying contemptuous ignorance; “All you Dhimmies look the same to me”. Given that he visited Europe to sample the’ high life’ as a teen though, probably the former.
Two percent of the Danish population is Moslem, almost as big as the Roman Catholic influence; maybe he ought to commit suicide to get revenge (fingers crossed).
By extension he blames all of Europe, clearly he has problems with rational categorisation.
He nebulously ‘threatens’ a “reckoning”. This of course allows him to claim credit for almost anything at all, as the likes of his organisation have to take what targets they can get.
The weakest targets that no decent human being would consider, even then they need to launch many plots for one to succeed. Still as the IRA once famously observed of the British Government: “You have to be ‘lucky’ all the time, we only need to be ‘lucky’ once”.
Going down this route means they have to be able to justify killing innocent people. They seem to do this by claiming they are not innocent on religious grounds. So that makes it all right then. They don’t seem to consider that they may equally well be bound for eternal damnation, viewed by other religious grounds.
The thing to remember is that you are more likely to be killed, or injured, every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Yes it does happen and if it is you personally, or someone you know or love involved it will have a massive, in the former case possibly terminal, impact.
This risk and many other risks of daily life do not stop the majority of us carrying on with our lives as per normal and does not significantly alter our behaviour. Hopefully nor should the likes of these threats.
Wednesday 19 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”Robert A. Heinlein
Hike in UK alcohol duty is bigger than advertised
I was out of the country, enjoying the benefits of a less punitive tax regime, for Gordon Brown’s darling glove puppet’s first (and hopefully last) budget.
I was pleased ;-) along with the health fascists at the British Medical Association (BMA), to see the "large rise", on top of the already outrageous levels of taxation imposed on alcohol by the glove puppet - They have been so effective on curbing alcohol abuse to date that much more of the same is a sure recipe for success.
The huge price hike in duty on alcohol (six per cent above inflation), 55p on a 70cl bottle of spirits coupled with the increase of 14p in the duty on a bottle of wine is bound to stop the quality single malt whisky fuelled drunken binges of retired colonels and vicars in our high streets at weekends. Not to mention the sparkling wine fuelled thuggery so prevalent in our towns and cities.
Of course it is a moneymaking exercise. The last thing the state wants is for us to cut back on buying alcohol as this would eat into their revenue. It makes a nice fig leaf for gouging levels of taxation to wave at the naive though - and an excellent excuse for ever more intrusive measures of social control.
It’s the gift that just keeps on giving because every penny increase in duty allows a corresponding increase in VAT, so that 55p headline increase is actually a hike in the Government’s cut of over 64p per bottle and that’s just the hike, not the total taken. Oh and don’t forget you already paid tax on the money you are being taxed for spending, when you originally earned it.
But we should all feel hap-happy about it because… Ahh! it’s allegedly going towards a good cause - towards ending “child poverty” by 2020.
New Labour are unlikely to ever have to actually live up to such a distant target. Though it would be nice to believe they might be slightly more effective at it between now and when they finally get kicked out of power, than the pathetic showing they have managed to make on this moving target to date.
I was pleased ;-) along with the health fascists at the British Medical Association (BMA), to see the "large rise", on top of the already outrageous levels of taxation imposed on alcohol by the glove puppet - They have been so effective on curbing alcohol abuse to date that much more of the same is a sure recipe for success.
The huge price hike in duty on alcohol (six per cent above inflation), 55p on a 70cl bottle of spirits coupled with the increase of 14p in the duty on a bottle of wine is bound to stop the quality single malt whisky fuelled drunken binges of retired colonels and vicars in our high streets at weekends. Not to mention the sparkling wine fuelled thuggery so prevalent in our towns and cities.
Of course it is a moneymaking exercise. The last thing the state wants is for us to cut back on buying alcohol as this would eat into their revenue. It makes a nice fig leaf for gouging levels of taxation to wave at the naive though - and an excellent excuse for ever more intrusive measures of social control.
It’s the gift that just keeps on giving because every penny increase in duty allows a corresponding increase in VAT, so that 55p headline increase is actually a hike in the Government’s cut of over 64p per bottle and that’s just the hike, not the total taken. Oh and don’t forget you already paid tax on the money you are being taxed for spending, when you originally earned it.
But we should all feel hap-happy about it because… Ahh! it’s allegedly going towards a good cause - towards ending “child poverty” by 2020.
New Labour are unlikely to ever have to actually live up to such a distant target. Though it would be nice to believe they might be slightly more effective at it between now and when they finally get kicked out of power, than the pathetic showing they have managed to make on this moving target to date.
Tuesday 18 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ Only a large-scale popular movement toward decentralization and self-help can arrest the present tendency toward statism... A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers. ”Aldous Huxley
Vicount claims ‘action’ is needed over ‘unregulated’ sat nav information
It seems that Crossbencher Viscount Tenby is concerned that "unregulated information" on satellite navigation systems was "causing" juggernauts to get stuck in narrow lanes unsuitable for them - and he wants come of that good old Statist Government action to solve the problem - and save the pathetic proles from themselves.
These things do happen from time to time and are reported with relish. Still I was under the impression that users of such systems were not actually compelled to obey them when they can see with their own eyes - and common sense informs them, that a gap is too narrow, or a bridge too low for their vehicle. Such errors of judgement, in extremis, are covered by the offence of driving without due care and attention. Is it possible Viscount Tenby believes otherwise?
Maybe he should address the terrible problem of "unregulated information" on ordinary maps, that, based on his logic, we must suppose ‘caused’ such incidents prior to the advent of Sat Nav systems. I recall reading tales of the odd bus taking their top deck off on a low bridge long before the advent of Sat Nav.
His use of the word ‘unregulated’ is worrying and perhaps telling, it implies he believes the information we are allowed to have access to should be ‘regulated’ - state regulated.
If there is a demand for such a facility it will probably be supplied quickly enough by the manufacturers as a 'bells and whistles' selling point. It does not need State intervention, very little actually does.
These things do happen from time to time and are reported with relish. Still I was under the impression that users of such systems were not actually compelled to obey them when they can see with their own eyes - and common sense informs them, that a gap is too narrow, or a bridge too low for their vehicle. Such errors of judgement, in extremis, are covered by the offence of driving without due care and attention. Is it possible Viscount Tenby believes otherwise?
Maybe he should address the terrible problem of "unregulated information" on ordinary maps, that, based on his logic, we must suppose ‘caused’ such incidents prior to the advent of Sat Nav systems. I recall reading tales of the odd bus taking their top deck off on a low bridge long before the advent of Sat Nav.
His use of the word ‘unregulated’ is worrying and perhaps telling, it implies he believes the information we are allowed to have access to should be ‘regulated’ - state regulated.
If there is a demand for such a facility it will probably be supplied quickly enough by the manufacturers as a 'bells and whistles' selling point. It does not need State intervention, very little actually does.
China claims riots all Dali Lama’s fault
According to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, whom we must suppose represents the official stance of the Chinese Government, all the riots in Lhasa over the Han Chinese colonisation and cultural cleansing of Tibet are the fault of the Dali Lama - masterminded no less.
And moving on for those convinced by these cogent arguments – an opportunity to purchase the Marco Polo/Lugou Bridge.
Personally, I prefer the lesser known theory, that the riots were actually masterminded by Mother Theresa, operating out of a vast secret underground bunker somewhere near Calcutta, after first cunningly faking her own demise as the perfect alibi…
And moving on for those convinced by these cogent arguments – an opportunity to purchase the Marco Polo/Lugou Bridge.
Personally, I prefer the lesser known theory, that the riots were actually masterminded by Mother Theresa, operating out of a vast secret underground bunker somewhere near Calcutta, after first cunningly faking her own demise as the perfect alibi…
Monday 17 March 2008
Quote of the day
“ Every citizen owes to the country a vigilant watch and close scrutiny of its public servants and affairs and a reasonable estimate of their fidelity and usefulness - this is the price of our liberty…”Grover Cleveland
Now Shops that contain Post Offices may be forced to close
One wonders what exactly is behind the current round of post office closures.
There is evidence to suggest that the Defra is closing viable post offices. Now it seems they also want to ensure that those Post Offices they have earmarked for destruction, that they ‘withdraw the whip’ from, actually do go under and close.
They refuse to allow the shops to continue to act as Post Offices and are making any compensation offered for the withdrawal of the ‘franchise’ dependant on crippling their businesses by preventing them providing the likes of lottery tickets, Offering any bill payment services, foreign currency services, or reselling stamps, etc.
They appear to want to force as much as possible of the ‘business’, the soon to be ex Sub Post Offices, have, to use the remainder of the network - Regardless of the cost to the customers, or the Sub Post Offices they are casting aside. Or indeed competition laws.
Clearly if anyone cares about the Post Office’s customers it is the Post and Sub Postmasters and Postmistresses - The staff that interact with their customers, not the higher management of the Post Office, or New Labour.
They seem desperate to shuck off as much as possible of the actual service to the public that the Post Office, as an institution, has provided for us all for so many years.
It seems to be yet another example of a valued institution (probably unintentionally) ultimately destroyed by an inept state trying to turn it from something valuable to British society, part of the glue that holds it together, the hidden infrastructure, into something it never was, nor could be - and retain the value and values it had.
There is evidence to suggest that the Defra is closing viable post offices. Now it seems they also want to ensure that those Post Offices they have earmarked for destruction, that they ‘withdraw the whip’ from, actually do go under and close.
They refuse to allow the shops to continue to act as Post Offices and are making any compensation offered for the withdrawal of the ‘franchise’ dependant on crippling their businesses by preventing them providing the likes of lottery tickets, Offering any bill payment services, foreign currency services, or reselling stamps, etc.
They appear to want to force as much as possible of the ‘business’, the soon to be ex Sub Post Offices, have, to use the remainder of the network - Regardless of the cost to the customers, or the Sub Post Offices they are casting aside. Or indeed competition laws.
Clearly if anyone cares about the Post Office’s customers it is the Post and Sub Postmasters and Postmistresses - The staff that interact with their customers, not the higher management of the Post Office, or New Labour.
They seem desperate to shuck off as much as possible of the actual service to the public that the Post Office, as an institution, has provided for us all for so many years.
It seems to be yet another example of a valued institution (probably unintentionally) ultimately destroyed by an inept state trying to turn it from something valuable to British society, part of the glue that holds it together, the hidden infrastructure, into something it never was, nor could be - and retain the value and values it had.
Sunday 9 March 2008
Treason - Just too old fashioned a word for New-Labour
It seems that Treason may be just too old fashioned for New Labour.
Ex attorney General Lord Goldsmith is planning to ditch it as part of a ‘review’.
Now it may be because Gordon Brown is just too squeamish to charge British citizens with it who commit it by fighting against British troops at home or abroad, or attempting to kill British civilians going about their lawful business. It is an emotive word, even though that is exactly what they have done. They can't possibly be charged with it if it is done away with though and that would save a bit of official squirming among the Islington tendency political classes.
Or it may be New labour are mindful of the fact that it could easily be argued that Gordon Brown has already committed it in signing up to the Lisbon ‘Treaty’, or the majority of their MPs a quite a few Lib Dem MPs and Two ot three conservative ones committed it the other day, when they agreed to it…
Ex attorney General Lord Goldsmith is planning to ditch it as part of a ‘review’.
Now it may be because Gordon Brown is just too squeamish to charge British citizens with it who commit it by fighting against British troops at home or abroad, or attempting to kill British civilians going about their lawful business. It is an emotive word, even though that is exactly what they have done. They can't possibly be charged with it if it is done away with though and that would save a bit of official squirming among the Islington tendency political classes.
Or it may be New labour are mindful of the fact that it could easily be argued that Gordon Brown has already committed it in signing up to the Lisbon ‘Treaty’, or the majority of their MPs a quite a few Lib Dem MPs and Two ot three conservative ones committed it the other day, when they agreed to it…
Saturday 8 March 2008
Every bond you break
This week I shall mostly be posting little, or nothing, as the opportunities will be few and far between. In any event one begins to wonder what the point is anyway - I am having a ‘Clegg’ moment on the futility of attempting to impede the unstoppable New Labour Fascist-Lite TM juggernaut, though unlike Clegg I am not inclined to actually assist them.
I was watching a music channel the other night with Mrs CFD when who should come on but The Police - no not the protest song the police have coined to remind the reluctant to venture out after dark Jacqui Smith of the fact that New Labour have decided to ignore the system that sets their pay because it is inconvienient for them.
I am talking about Sting (Gordon Sumner), Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland, The Police. They were playing Every breath you take and I had a little epiphany - don’t worry I cleaned up after myself ;-).
Sting said of it; “The tune itself is generic, an aggregate of hundreds of others, but the words are interesting. It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realise at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.”
But the thing that occurred to me is that it almost perfectly encapsulates what politicians are to the voter - and the ‘relationship’ the voter should have with the politician. They really should represent and in a sense belong to the voter, as should parliament.
It works very well as a song for the voter to sing, as a model of how the voter should relate to the politician (watch them like a hawk), with the possible exception of the four lines beginning “Since you've gone…”.
So here is a version for the voter to take to their heart, without those lines. I have changed them, but if you think you can do better - comments, baby, baby, please…
So let’s call it, a:
I was watching a music channel the other night with Mrs CFD when who should come on but The Police - no not the protest song the police have coined to remind the reluctant to venture out after dark Jacqui Smith of the fact that New Labour have decided to ignore the system that sets their pay because it is inconvienient for them.
I am talking about Sting (Gordon Sumner), Andy Summers, and Stewart Copeland, The Police. They were playing Every breath you take and I had a little epiphany - don’t worry I cleaned up after myself ;-).
Sting said of it; “The tune itself is generic, an aggregate of hundreds of others, but the words are interesting. It sounds like a comforting love song. I didn't realise at the time how sinister it is. I think I was thinking of Big Brother, surveillance and control.”
But the thing that occurred to me is that it almost perfectly encapsulates what politicians are to the voter - and the ‘relationship’ the voter should have with the politician. They really should represent and in a sense belong to the voter, as should parliament.
It works very well as a song for the voter to sing, as a model of how the voter should relate to the politician (watch them like a hawk), with the possible exception of the four lines beginning “Since you've gone…”.
So here is a version for the voter to take to their heart, without those lines. I have changed them, but if you think you can do better - comments, baby, baby, please…
So let’s call it, a:
Quote of the Day
Every breath you take.
Every move you make.
Every bond you break.
Every step you take.
I'll be watching you.
Every single day.
Every word you say.
Every game you play.
Every night you stay.
I'll be watching you.
Oh can't you see, you belong to me?
How my poor heart aches, with every step you take.
Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.
If it’s gone my liberty is lost without a trace.
It’s a loss, that I just don’t care to face.
It’s one thing that you really can’t replace.
So I try, to make sure that it’s not the case…….
Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.
Every move you make.
Every vow you break.
Every smile you fake.
Every claim you stake.
I'll be watching you.......
Thursday 6 March 2008
Clegg betrays Lib-Dem manifesto promise
As predicted Gordon Brown is a step closer to his eventual EU commissioner hood. He has ridden roughshod over democracy to force the Lisbon Treaty down the nation’s reluctant throat.
Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg was interviewed last night on Sky News 24 on the 19:00 slot.
They were mostly asking some difficult questions about his sacking of the only honourable members of his shadow cabinet/front bench team, the ones who had voted for a referendum.
The presenter was interested in if he was going to punish any of the other Lib-Dem MPs who had defied the party whip imposing his will, in order to vote as their manifesto had promised they would.
He blustered a bit, but tellingly when they asked what he thought people would think of the way he forced many Lib-Dem MPs to vote against their consciences he suggested the Conservatives had somehow been ‘mealy mouthed’ in trying to make acceptance dependant on a referendum. He said as closely as I can recall “If the Conservatives had their way it wouldn’t change things for one moment”.
He seemed to be acknowledging that even a no vote in a referendum wouldn’t stop, or even delay, the European project, or the constitution – and in this he is probably right. The previous no votes haven’t made a jot of difference, so why should a referendum result?
He is wrong though and it says something detrimental about his character that he thinks this way. Not necessarily wrong about the eventual outcome, but wrong about the futility of standing up for what you believe in, even if you may be doomed to ultimately fail, there is still a chance you could make a difference.
This is something he apparently does not understand. It is to their credit that some of 'his' MPs do.
Lib-Dem leader Nick Clegg was interviewed last night on Sky News 24 on the 19:00 slot.
They were mostly asking some difficult questions about his sacking of the only honourable members of his shadow cabinet/front bench team, the ones who had voted for a referendum.
The presenter was interested in if he was going to punish any of the other Lib-Dem MPs who had defied the party whip imposing his will, in order to vote as their manifesto had promised they would.
He blustered a bit, but tellingly when they asked what he thought people would think of the way he forced many Lib-Dem MPs to vote against their consciences he suggested the Conservatives had somehow been ‘mealy mouthed’ in trying to make acceptance dependant on a referendum. He said as closely as I can recall “If the Conservatives had their way it wouldn’t change things for one moment”.
He seemed to be acknowledging that even a no vote in a referendum wouldn’t stop, or even delay, the European project, or the constitution – and in this he is probably right. The previous no votes haven’t made a jot of difference, so why should a referendum result?
He is wrong though and it says something detrimental about his character that he thinks this way. Not necessarily wrong about the eventual outcome, but wrong about the futility of standing up for what you believe in, even if you may be doomed to ultimately fail, there is still a chance you could make a difference.
This is something he apparently does not understand. It is to their credit that some of 'his' MPs do.
Wednesday 5 March 2008
UK parliament to vote on Lisbon Treaty
Today the so-called mother of parliaments betrays the people of the UK, if things go Gordon Brown’s and Nick Clegg’s way – and it is likely things will.
Having stood on a platform offering a referendum on the subject, New Labour MPs have been instructed to vote for the Lisbon Treaty - and avoid a referendum. Lib Dems, after making some noises about principles, will be permitted to abstain and thus not oppose it. Of the 3 main parties, only the Conservatives appear to be doing the honourable thing.
That vote is today.
Some 90% of the electorate want a referendum and these people, these MPs know it. These people, who allegedly represent the population of the UK. These people, who if they vote for the treaty without it being dependant on a referendum, can not avoid knowing they are deliberately doing the exact opposite of their job.
They know full well the will of the people in this matter - and yet they are prepared to crush it under their heel.
Any one of them who fails to stand up and demand a referendum is betraying the trust of the electorate, their promises made to it in order to get elected and twice over the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Does anyone expect this to influence their behaviour? It’s not as if it might immediately increase the chances of concealing out what they have been claiming ‘expenses’ for…
Anyone at all…. You madam, what about you, the elderly lady over there… No?
Having stood on a platform offering a referendum on the subject, New Labour MPs have been instructed to vote for the Lisbon Treaty - and avoid a referendum. Lib Dems, after making some noises about principles, will be permitted to abstain and thus not oppose it. Of the 3 main parties, only the Conservatives appear to be doing the honourable thing.
That vote is today.
Some 90% of the electorate want a referendum and these people, these MPs know it. These people, who allegedly represent the population of the UK. These people, who if they vote for the treaty without it being dependant on a referendum, can not avoid knowing they are deliberately doing the exact opposite of their job.
They know full well the will of the people in this matter - and yet they are prepared to crush it under their heel.
Any one of them who fails to stand up and demand a referendum is betraying the trust of the electorate, their promises made to it in order to get elected and twice over the principles of parliamentary democracy.
Does anyone expect this to influence their behaviour? It’s not as if it might immediately increase the chances of concealing out what they have been claiming ‘expenses’ for…
Anyone at all…. You madam, what about you, the elderly lady over there… No?
Tuesday 4 March 2008
Quote of the Day
” Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, it's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."Winston Churchill
Average UK hospital waits rise under New Labour
Before New Labour came to power in 1997 waits for hospital treatment of more than 18 months were not rare, now no-one waits longer than six months. Hurrah! Yes? – No. Not necessarily.
Sounds good, at first sight though, dosn’t it? The sort of soundbite Gordon Brown would proudly boast of in PMQ, or at conference.
The thing is the average wait has risen from 41 days to 49 days. Only 8 days up you may think. But it is 8 days longer on average.
This is a symptom of New Labour thinking. Everyone must be brought to a level. It’s like education, rather than raise up those getting a worse service they bring down everybody to the lowest level. The lowest common denominator, as they used to say - when such terms were recognised and understood by more people. So practically speaking overall levels of delivery drop.
Just so with waiting lists. To drop that headline figure to 6 months it is true that the really long waits have been drastically cut – but so have the really short ones.
So why did there used to be really short waits?
The question is who prioritised those waits back then? Well Doctors did, based on medical need, the urgency of the case. Now they are prioritised in order to meet state targets. One size fits all. So if you really need a short wait…
As chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, Jonathan Fielden, pointed out "Doctors have been stopped from using their clinical judgement and pushing people through the system when they need to be.”
So the question you need to ask yourself is: Are you actually getting a better service, or just taken for yet another ride…
Sounds good, at first sight though, dosn’t it? The sort of soundbite Gordon Brown would proudly boast of in PMQ, or at conference.
The thing is the average wait has risen from 41 days to 49 days. Only 8 days up you may think. But it is 8 days longer on average.
This is a symptom of New Labour thinking. Everyone must be brought to a level. It’s like education, rather than raise up those getting a worse service they bring down everybody to the lowest level. The lowest common denominator, as they used to say - when such terms were recognised and understood by more people. So practically speaking overall levels of delivery drop.
Just so with waiting lists. To drop that headline figure to 6 months it is true that the really long waits have been drastically cut – but so have the really short ones.
So why did there used to be really short waits?
The question is who prioritised those waits back then? Well Doctors did, based on medical need, the urgency of the case. Now they are prioritised in order to meet state targets. One size fits all. So if you really need a short wait…
As chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, Jonathan Fielden, pointed out "Doctors have been stopped from using their clinical judgement and pushing people through the system when they need to be.”
So the question you need to ask yourself is: Are you actually getting a better service, or just taken for yet another ride…
Monday 3 March 2008
Nine in every ten UK voters want a referendum of Lisbon Treaty
A recent series of large scale mini-referendaorganised by I want a referendum.com on the issue of a demand for national referendum to ratify the so-called Lisbon Treaty reveals that 88% of voters would like UK ratification of the treaty be subject to a referendum. The turnout to these was higher than in a national election.
The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.
Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.
Will this result influence parliament?
Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.
Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.
Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.
If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.
The Treaty is effectively identical to the rejected European constitution and hands large chunks of parliamentary power to the EU.
Presumably the voters don’t trust MP’s with the powers they have loaned them. Don’t trust them not to sell all our birthrights for a mess of pottage (lentil stew or soup). Hardly surprising really, when they apparently can’t even be trusted over expenses.
Will this result influence parliament?
Not very likely, based on Gordon Brown’s - and now for some unfathomable reason Nick Clegg’s ludicrous insistence that a referendum is not needed. They are desperately and entirely unconvincingly trying to maintain the lie that the treaty is not effectively identical to the constitution that they agreed did need one. This in the face of continental insistence that it is.
Gordon Brown seems to have forgotten that power is not his by natural right. His power is loaned to him by the electorate. It is given based upon promises his party made before the last election that they would allow a referendum.
Clegg is trying to confuse the issue with suggestions of a referendum on remaining in the EU, presumably because he feels this can be used to fudge the issue as it is less likely the electorate would actually completely repudiate the UK’s EU membership. Brown does not even want to chance that.
If he will not allow a referendum on the treaty, then no matter what he says, his position is not legitimate. Nor his authority. Nor will the treaty be.
Rural communities in the UK get a raw deal from New Labour
A report by the Rural Services Network points out what has been apparent for years; that ‘rural’ communities Small towns, villages and hamlets in the UK, come a very poor last when it comes to almost anything the state has control over or any influence in.
Things like schools, hospitals, post offices, public transport, police stations, fire stations, etc.
In many areas it is literally impossible to manage without cars. If there is heavy rain or snow many of these can not get through.
Schools and hospitals are have been centralised into larger and larger buildings, further and further away from many rural communities.
This is hardly surprising when the state is controlled by an urban patrician elite, who see anything outside of large towns and cities as the equivalent of one large diorama, or quaint theme park, provided largely for rambling purposes and as a backdrop for BBC costume dramas.
It is also worth noting that where these elite do not hold sway they are quite happy to damage the provision of services in order to ensure those provided in their own seats are maintained and their seats are therefore safer.
They would presumably prefer to spend nothing on it, whilst still milking those living there for every penny they can - pretending the entire countryside is populated by fabulously rich conservative farmers who spend all day hunting foxes.
Will this report make any difference? Probably not…
Things like schools, hospitals, post offices, public transport, police stations, fire stations, etc.
In many areas it is literally impossible to manage without cars. If there is heavy rain or snow many of these can not get through.
Schools and hospitals are have been centralised into larger and larger buildings, further and further away from many rural communities.
This is hardly surprising when the state is controlled by an urban patrician elite, who see anything outside of large towns and cities as the equivalent of one large diorama, or quaint theme park, provided largely for rambling purposes and as a backdrop for BBC costume dramas.
It is also worth noting that where these elite do not hold sway they are quite happy to damage the provision of services in order to ensure those provided in their own seats are maintained and their seats are therefore safer.
They would presumably prefer to spend nothing on it, whilst still milking those living there for every penny they can - pretending the entire countryside is populated by fabulously rich conservative farmers who spend all day hunting foxes.
Will this report make any difference? Probably not…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
