Tonight is the night of one of the greatest wastes of British TV taxpayer’s money in the entire year. The Eurovision Song Contest.
It is saved, mostly by the fact that watching the often frankly amazing performances appeals to the sneaking desire to watch a curiosity, combined by Terry Wogan’s gentle micky taking on behalf of us all.
Humourless European officials decry his efforts, whilst failing to grasp he is probably the only thing that keeps the opinion of the UK public in a mood of benign amusement - as opposed to outright contempt.
The 'contest' is intrinsically silly and unfair, it always has been. He does not need to make it look that way, he just uses the fact that it is to entertain us...
We all know we have very little chance of even doing well in it. We know we are not particularly popular with Europe as a whole, given our relationship with the US. But mostly it is the voting system and the blocks that doom all the old large western European nations.
Namely the Baltic and Balkan voting blocks.
Firstly each group tends, by accident, or design, to vote the high points largely exclusively for other members of ‘their’ block.
This, combined with the fact that a microscopic country that consists of several small towns, has the same voting power as a huge country with a population of multiple millions. Tends to give them a lock on the contest, no matter how good or more likely bad the particular entries happen to be.
It’s as if you were to give each county in the UK an individual vote and they all voted for the UK, and Irish entries.
How different would the results be it it were down to a simple total of all the votes cast for each entry, with no country being able to vote for it's own entry?
One suspects it won’t be much different for Andy Abraham tonight. One fears how good the song, or the performance, is will only have a peripheral impact on how well it actually does. The fact that I don’t come right out and predict it is more a triumph of optimism over experience than anything else. We shall see on the morrow…
Saturday, 24 May 2008
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.”Benjamin Franklin
Threat of yet more laws and another huge UK State database
New-Labour’s developing fascist state moves a little closer as it’s Ministers consider plans for a vast and intrusive database of electronic information. A real move in the direction of a sinister total surveillance society.
Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.
Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.
A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.
Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.
In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.
The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.
Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.
Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.
Their plan is for New-Labour to legislate to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telephone companies to pass the details of all emails and telephone calls to them to be stored in a gargantuan database.
Their current justification is national security, a marvellous excuse to make the gullible grateful for their own oppression, but if they couldn’t talk that up then they would probably look to find some other reason.
A Home Office ‘spokesman’ claimed retaining communications information is now apparently essential for protecting national security. He also insisted that powers to hold information were subject to strict safeguards.
Yes, but somehow with other legislation and systems it has still resulted in things like local councils spying on ordinary people over schools admissions, people getting criminal records for putting a little too much rubbish in their bins and the private data of huge numbers of people being lost, or given away, or even published on the internet. These safeguards and promises are clearly utterly worthless.
In fact the prime minister’s personal representative has publicly admitted that "manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation", so it is curious they expect us to actually believe any such lesser assurances.
The state claims that if only they can bring in this law, restrict that freedom, then they can make the citizen safe. It is a lie. They can not guarantee safety, not from chance, not from natural disaster, not from crime and not from terrorism. They can even genuinely try, but sooner or later they are sill bound to fail.
Quite frankly I would rather take the chance of not making it easier to catch and more problematically convict terrorists (because they are easier to foil than catch and easier to catch than convict) than to allow them change my society to the point where it no longer reflects values I would be willing to defend. That is one of the aims of terrorism.
Are we are reaching the point where the state is in danger of becoming a greater menace to out liberties, values and way of life than terrorism.
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
Quote of the day
" Know that although in the eternal scheme of things you are small, you are also unique and irreplaceable, as are all your fellow humans everywhere in the world.”Margaret Laurence
" You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty."Mohandas K. Gandhi
A thought for the Citizens of China
This blog has been critical of certain policies of the Chinese State in the past and still disapproves of those policies. Leaving that aside for the moment, this is a small gesture of solidarity for the citizens of China in their troubles.
There can be very few anywhere who are unaware of the tragedy of the massive earthquake and the accompanying aftershocks still unfolding there, or the dreadful loss of life, especially amongst so many children.
It is a hideous blow to those who have lost loved ones, parents, children, their homes and possessions, families riven. For them right now it may well be difficult to go on. Even for those not directly impacted upon by the quake there will be a mental impact.
There will inevitably be questions about building quality, codes and standards.
And no I have not forgotten about the Burmese cyclone, but the contrast between the reaction of the Chinese State and the Burmese State, in their efforts on behalf of their people is stark.
I heard a General being interviewed yesterday and he was questioned about the loss of some lives amongst the rescuers and he replied that they had been serving the people, so it was worth it. I expect something may have been lost in translation, but I still found myself tending to agree with him.
We seem to expect these days to be coddled and protected by the state from all possible threats. An obsessive health and Safety culture. It distorts our perceptions. No one is capable of doing that. If they tell you they are they are lying. If you believe it you are deluded.
The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes dangerous because it has people in it who don’t see other people as people, or are stupid, selfish and greedy - but also dangerous because there are vast impersonal forces that can snuff any of us out in an instant. And face it who of us are immortal?
Life is a battle against entropy, that sooner or later, individually we will all loose. The trick is to get ahead of the game for long enough to make a difference and springboard the next generation.
It is part of what makes us human that in the face of death and disaster people will risk their own lives to save others, without counting the cost. We often see it in the emergency services, we see it in the armed forces, we see it in individuals. We admire it. Ultimately it is a survival instinct for humanity as a whole. So the General was right.
Here then is a thought for the Citizenry of China. In the end though we may be superficially different in many ways deep down we have much more in common. Many of the differences are learned.
So this post is to express solidarity and sympathy with them.
There can be very few anywhere who are unaware of the tragedy of the massive earthquake and the accompanying aftershocks still unfolding there, or the dreadful loss of life, especially amongst so many children.
It is a hideous blow to those who have lost loved ones, parents, children, their homes and possessions, families riven. For them right now it may well be difficult to go on. Even for those not directly impacted upon by the quake there will be a mental impact.
There will inevitably be questions about building quality, codes and standards.
And no I have not forgotten about the Burmese cyclone, but the contrast between the reaction of the Chinese State and the Burmese State, in their efforts on behalf of their people is stark.
I heard a General being interviewed yesterday and he was questioned about the loss of some lives amongst the rescuers and he replied that they had been serving the people, so it was worth it. I expect something may have been lost in translation, but I still found myself tending to agree with him.
We seem to expect these days to be coddled and protected by the state from all possible threats. An obsessive health and Safety culture. It distorts our perceptions. No one is capable of doing that. If they tell you they are they are lying. If you believe it you are deluded.
The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes dangerous because it has people in it who don’t see other people as people, or are stupid, selfish and greedy - but also dangerous because there are vast impersonal forces that can snuff any of us out in an instant. And face it who of us are immortal?
Life is a battle against entropy, that sooner or later, individually we will all loose. The trick is to get ahead of the game for long enough to make a difference and springboard the next generation.
It is part of what makes us human that in the face of death and disaster people will risk their own lives to save others, without counting the cost. We often see it in the emergency services, we see it in the armed forces, we see it in individuals. We admire it. Ultimately it is a survival instinct for humanity as a whole. So the General was right.
Here then is a thought for the Citizenry of China. In the end though we may be superficially different in many ways deep down we have much more in common. Many of the differences are learned.
So this post is to express solidarity and sympathy with them.
Monday, 19 May 2008
Quote of the day
" You do not have to change: survival is not mandatory."Dr. W. (William) Edwards Deming
" A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them."P. J. O'Rourke
What is wrong with the UK's NHS?
Some readers will be familiar with Calum Carr’s battles with the NHS simply looking to get adequate treatment for his wife and this prompts me to wonder.
It is an illustration of some of the problems with the NHS on a human scale.
According to the State’s own statistics, never exactly a source to be trusted in recent years (if ever), 6,000 people died in 2006 after contracting the superbug Clostridium Difficile, a massive increase over recent years. At the same time MRSA increased over a third, the infection featuring in almost 1,700 death certificates in 2006..
One suspects in many cases it contributes but is not mentioned. In many other cases the patient thankfully survives.
Even Hospitals that have isolation policies do not follow their own procedures. I personally witnessed an instance where a patient who had contracted MRSA whilst in hospital and who had been isolated was visited by administration staff who could not be bothered to follow any of the precautionary procedures posted outside, that we, as visitors had followed. No wonder these bugs spread.
Over the same period money has been thrown at the NHS hand over fist with little discernable improvement. There has been a drop in the last quarter, but often where things get better in a few instances they seem to get worse in many others. We should have seen a much greater impact much sooner. In fact the problem should not have become such a problem if the trusts had actually followed recommendations.
Health spokesman Norman Lamb said the State had failed to ensure recommendations from their own experts were followed.
It seems that the Sate is simply not competent to oversee the NHS. The same would appear to be true of the vast and expensive army of administrators recruited by the state to administer it.
The experience of the NHS, for far too many people is inadequate, incompetent ineffective and uncaring. It is to the credit of those who work in the system who do still manage to provide a caring service that this poor experience is not universal.
More administration and more targets seem to only result in a worse service. Something seriously needs to change.
It is an illustration of some of the problems with the NHS on a human scale.
According to the State’s own statistics, never exactly a source to be trusted in recent years (if ever), 6,000 people died in 2006 after contracting the superbug Clostridium Difficile, a massive increase over recent years. At the same time MRSA increased over a third, the infection featuring in almost 1,700 death certificates in 2006..
One suspects in many cases it contributes but is not mentioned. In many other cases the patient thankfully survives.
Even Hospitals that have isolation policies do not follow their own procedures. I personally witnessed an instance where a patient who had contracted MRSA whilst in hospital and who had been isolated was visited by administration staff who could not be bothered to follow any of the precautionary procedures posted outside, that we, as visitors had followed. No wonder these bugs spread.
Over the same period money has been thrown at the NHS hand over fist with little discernable improvement. There has been a drop in the last quarter, but often where things get better in a few instances they seem to get worse in many others. We should have seen a much greater impact much sooner. In fact the problem should not have become such a problem if the trusts had actually followed recommendations.
Health spokesman Norman Lamb said the State had failed to ensure recommendations from their own experts were followed.
It seems that the Sate is simply not competent to oversee the NHS. The same would appear to be true of the vast and expensive army of administrators recruited by the state to administer it.
The experience of the NHS, for far too many people is inadequate, incompetent ineffective and uncaring. It is to the credit of those who work in the system who do still manage to provide a caring service that this poor experience is not universal.
More administration and more targets seem to only result in a worse service. Something seriously needs to change.
Friday, 16 May 2008
Quote of the day
" It is not in the nature of politics that the best men should be elected. The best men do not want to govern their fellow men."George E. MacDonald
" Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."Thomas Jefferson
Is it time to shrink the state to more manageable proportions?
The Telegraph asks an interesting question today “Who is the 'right leader' for our hard times”? Sparked by Broon’s waffle about providing the right leaderhip.
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Even more adventurously they ask: “Do we need a politician running Britain at all”?
Maybe the question they should really be asking is: “Do we need anyone running Britain at all”?
Personally I am not really sure I want much so-called leadership at all. Belgium seems to have managed well enough with no parliament recently. Could we manage mostly at a county level?
We have after all a perfectly good royal family to represent the country. The queen probably knows more about politics than any two prime ministers put together. They are certainly more in tune with practical environmentalism than the average politician.
So combine the Royal family with a parliament that has responsibility for maintaining the legal system, the armed forces and the currency. Claw back every last parliamentary privilege and power ceded to the unelected EU commission.
Have a watchdog to police MPs propriety and finances. Make it impeachable to renague on election promises. These people should be the servants of the Nation, not it’s patrician ruling class.
Given that we have had a millennium’s worth of very, very, bad legislation in the last decade let's make it as difficult as possible for them to ever pass any new legislation again. Without at least 75% in favour.
The state should be kept very firmly away from telling the citizen what to do.
Let local democracy, take care of all the other details.
Works for me…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
