Please let's be clear about one thing.
The Liberals showing in the last general election may have been the best result for 80 years or some such nonsense, but it had absolutely nothing to do with Charles Kennedy. Indeed it was in spite of him. It had everything to do with Blair leading the Labour Party and Howard the Conservatives. So basically, I am just pointing out that, amid this joyless Lib Dem suicide attempt, there is absolutely no substance behind the claim that Kennedy is safe because he is the finest Liberal leader since Lloyd George.
I could wax long and lyrical about Kennedy's political inadequacies, but frankly I have neither the will nor the time. He and I both know that the election result was a fake and that the nation is no more likely to elect a Hebridean to Downing Street than they are to elect me.
What really gets me thinking is why Cameron is fuelling the fire and hastening his demise. I mean, why remove one unelectable and highly unappealing man, only to risk his being replaced by someone less unelectable.
Perhaps his cunning plan is to make the Liberals more appealing so that Gordon Brown looks like a dinosaur rather than just a caveman. Maybe he thinks that he needs both a Conservative and Liberal resurgence to really put the sqeaks into Labour.
I haven't quite worked it out yet so I shall watch this particular strategy with interest, especially as I have to defeat the Liberals in my District Council election in May. What if my opponent takes the advice and turns Blue?
Oi, Cameron......
Friday, 16 December 2005
Monday, 12 December 2005
Not bad for a silly computer game
You might just figure out that this is a silly little test thing and the link should work so that you too can have your character summed up (pretty accurately) in a few lines. "Despise" is a bit strong, but perhaps any of my previous bosses might leave an appropriate comment. Otherwise I would be fairly happy. Come to think of it, that's probably why I was never such a success in the Army!!
***Your Birthdate: May 7***
You are an island.
You don't need anyone else to make you happy. (No, Lara, honestly I do)
And though you see yourself as a loner, people are drawn to you. (Come a bit closer, I can't see you)
Deep and sensitive, you tend to impress others with your insights. (That's why you read this blog you see)
You also tend to be psychic - so listen to that inner voice!
Your strength: Your self sufficiency
Your weakness: You despise authority (teeny bit strong!)
Your power color: Maroon (Maroon??????)
Your power symbol: Hammer
Your power month: July
What Does Your Birth Date Mean?http://www.blogthings.com/whatdoesyourbirthdatemeanquiz/
Many thanks to James Hellyer for the idea. It seems he is born only 6 days before me, and to be honest I rather like his description better than my own:
Your Birthday: May 1st
You are a natural born leader, even if those leadership talents haven't been developed yet.
You have the power and self confidence to succeed in life, and your power grows daily.
Besides power, you also have a great deal of creativity that enables you to innovate instead of fail.
You are a visionary, seeing the big picture instead of all of the trivial little details.
Your strength: Your supreme genius
Your weakness: Your inappropriate sensitivity
Your power color: Gold
Your power symbol: Star
Your power month: January
Sunday, 11 December 2005
Does Cameron need Blair after all?
I have just posted this on Once More:
I saw it on Newsnight first. “Money” shouted Brown to Blair. “Money” he shouted again. I have watched Brown deliberately leave Blair to die many times, but something has changed and he has come furiously alive.
It is very possible that 2006 might have been an interesting political year but until this week that interest might conceivably have completely excluded the Tories. Now, we are in for one of the most exciting political years for a decade and the Tories are the cause and centre of it.
David Cameron has provoked Gordon Brown into action more than he will ever know. There are now two public school boys blocking Gordon’s path to Number 10 and he will do his utmost to kill both of them. Never, NEVER, have the Tories needed Blair to hang onto power more than they do now. The longer Blair holds Brown out of Number 10, the more likely Cameron will survive.
The only military political analogy I ever permit myself to use is that of “winning the fire-fight”. The fire-fight starts when you attack the opposition. For 15 years we, the Tories, have attacked Labour many times but have always failed to stand firm against the inevitable onslaught that follows. This time, it must be different.
To understand how this Labour onslaught will look, you simply must read the following article by Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer. It is the article I would have written myself but he is paid to get their first. (As an aside, with talent like this in the market place, one wonders what on earth the Telegraph were thinking about when they recruited that pompous, aging, out of touch tosser Simon Heffer. I hope this venerable paper is not losing it just when things get interesting.)
David Cameron has provoked Gordon Brown into action more than he will ever know. There are now two public school boys blocking Gordon’s path to Number 10 and he will do his utmost to kill both of them. Never, NEVER, have the Tories needed Blair to hang onto power more than they do now. The longer Blair holds Brown out of Number 10, the more likely Cameron will survive.
Cameron must call off any tactic designed to alienate Blair from his own party. He needs Blair where he is for as long as possible. He needs to let the Labour back benchers defeat him and “punish” him. If Cameron saves Blair, he will unify Labour behind Brown, will hasten Blair’s departure and the moment when Brown moves on to kill him. As you read this article, you can be sure of one thing – the Granita deal is off. Brown comes first and Blair’s leadership is over. It can be clean or messy. Blair alone decides whether he keeps his political life.
So what is going to happen? Well I am no oracle, but I’m prepared to make some suggestions:
Brown will harness the first opportunity to defeat Blair in the House;
He will then tell Blair that he can go or be pushed;
He will then push him;
Game over for Blair by April 06;
Brown should be in place by June /July, but only after a bruising and divisive battle against a Blairite youth candidate (Milliband or someone);
Brown will then risk all as early as he can, by committing to bring troops home from Iraq by Christmas;
He will take flack, but he will guess that he has time to recover but what he aims to recover is the trust of a large support base that has drifted away and potentially even stopped voting;
He will clear out the Blairites;
He will believe that if he can persuade the British people that they have had the change they appear to want, they will cease to hanker after the Tories.
Here perhaps is the only opportunity for Cameron. Just as the Tories have traditionally veered to the right when the pressure mounts, Brown will sprint to the left. Its instinctive. He won’t be able to help himself.
So between now and the moment of Blair’s demise, Cameron must sink as many anchors into the political centre ground as he possibly can. To do so will further force Brown to go East, as they used to say. I am really guessing here, but could it possibly be the case that Blair might actually try to help Cameron by holding on as long as he can?
So here is the most fascinating dilemma for Cameron and the Tories. Opposing Brown is the best chance they will have of returning to Government, but just how long do you want that battle to last. Just how long a fire-fight do you think you can endure, survive and win. 2010 just can't come quickly enough!
2005 has offered us the 60th Anniversary of the end of the 2nd World War and the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. 2006 offers us the 200th Anniversary of the birth of Mozart.
If Cameron is to survive, then he will need the balls and determination of Churchill, the appeal and skill of Nelson and the sheer youthful genius of Mozart.
There, how’s that for a sign off!!
I saw it on Newsnight first. “Money” shouted Brown to Blair. “Money” he shouted again. I have watched Brown deliberately leave Blair to die many times, but something has changed and he has come furiously alive.
It is very possible that 2006 might have been an interesting political year but until this week that interest might conceivably have completely excluded the Tories. Now, we are in for one of the most exciting political years for a decade and the Tories are the cause and centre of it.
David Cameron has provoked Gordon Brown into action more than he will ever know. There are now two public school boys blocking Gordon’s path to Number 10 and he will do his utmost to kill both of them. Never, NEVER, have the Tories needed Blair to hang onto power more than they do now. The longer Blair holds Brown out of Number 10, the more likely Cameron will survive.
The only military political analogy I ever permit myself to use is that of “winning the fire-fight”. The fire-fight starts when you attack the opposition. For 15 years we, the Tories, have attacked Labour many times but have always failed to stand firm against the inevitable onslaught that follows. This time, it must be different.
To understand how this Labour onslaught will look, you simply must read the following article by Andrew Rawnsley in today's Observer. It is the article I would have written myself but he is paid to get their first. (As an aside, with talent like this in the market place, one wonders what on earth the Telegraph were thinking about when they recruited that pompous, aging, out of touch tosser Simon Heffer. I hope this venerable paper is not losing it just when things get interesting.)
David Cameron has provoked Gordon Brown into action more than he will ever know. There are now two public school boys blocking Gordon’s path to Number 10 and he will do his utmost to kill both of them. Never, NEVER, have the Tories needed Blair to hang onto power more than they do now. The longer Blair holds Brown out of Number 10, the more likely Cameron will survive.
Cameron must call off any tactic designed to alienate Blair from his own party. He needs Blair where he is for as long as possible. He needs to let the Labour back benchers defeat him and “punish” him. If Cameron saves Blair, he will unify Labour behind Brown, will hasten Blair’s departure and the moment when Brown moves on to kill him. As you read this article, you can be sure of one thing – the Granita deal is off. Brown comes first and Blair’s leadership is over. It can be clean or messy. Blair alone decides whether he keeps his political life.
So what is going to happen? Well I am no oracle, but I’m prepared to make some suggestions:
Brown will harness the first opportunity to defeat Blair in the House;
He will then tell Blair that he can go or be pushed;
He will then push him;
Game over for Blair by April 06;
Brown should be in place by June /July, but only after a bruising and divisive battle against a Blairite youth candidate (Milliband or someone);
Brown will then risk all as early as he can, by committing to bring troops home from Iraq by Christmas;
He will take flack, but he will guess that he has time to recover but what he aims to recover is the trust of a large support base that has drifted away and potentially even stopped voting;
He will clear out the Blairites;
He will believe that if he can persuade the British people that they have had the change they appear to want, they will cease to hanker after the Tories.
Here perhaps is the only opportunity for Cameron. Just as the Tories have traditionally veered to the right when the pressure mounts, Brown will sprint to the left. Its instinctive. He won’t be able to help himself.
So between now and the moment of Blair’s demise, Cameron must sink as many anchors into the political centre ground as he possibly can. To do so will further force Brown to go East, as they used to say. I am really guessing here, but could it possibly be the case that Blair might actually try to help Cameron by holding on as long as he can?
So here is the most fascinating dilemma for Cameron and the Tories. Opposing Brown is the best chance they will have of returning to Government, but just how long do you want that battle to last. Just how long a fire-fight do you think you can endure, survive and win. 2010 just can't come quickly enough!
2005 has offered us the 60th Anniversary of the end of the 2nd World War and the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar. 2006 offers us the 200th Anniversary of the birth of Mozart.
If Cameron is to survive, then he will need the balls and determination of Churchill, the appeal and skill of Nelson and the sheer youthful genius of Mozart.
There, how’s that for a sign off!!
Thursday, 8 December 2005
Cameron wins!
To kick off, I thought I would share an insightful remark offered by my tennis loving postie. "He's sort of the Andy Murray of politics, isn't he?!!" Well said, Postie.
Very strikingly, the media are listening and watching attentively. Indeed more attentively than I have ever seen. It’s not just that they might appreciate a more interesting political climate. They sense something very substantial and they are communicating it well. We simply can't underestimate how important it will be to have the BBC, Times and the Sun being pleasant to us again. Even Jonathan Friedland's article in the Guardian, which I thoroughly enjoyed, couldn't hide its begrudging respect. Cameron is as comparable to Bush as Blair was to Clinton. All he actually describes is a man capable of presenting what the electorate want to see whilst holding his party together long enough to carry it off. I don’t personally subscribe to that view, but that’s another matter.
I agreed with George Pascoe Watson of the Sun who was very impressed by his PMQ’s performance. "He so unnerved Blair that he forgot to congratulate him until it was too late..." It may be a small point but it speaks volumes about how little control and poise Blair had at that moment.
BBC’s Newsnight spotted Brown actually helping Blair during his answers (by leaning forward and shouting the word “money” at him). Yes Brown helped Blair. What on earth is going on?
Most interesting is that his opponents are at sixes and sevens over how best to attack him. The more divided they are the weaker the attacks and the more likely he will be to survive them. More than ever New Labour need their pagers and their robot controllers at Millbank, but they are gone and it shows.
They really have nowhere to turn. Inverse snobbery won't work as it represents a world to which an ever increasing number of people aspire in order to break free from the appalling state and inexperience won't wash as he leads a team full of experience and talent.
In my opinion Labour are about to make a hash of it. They appear to be coming to rest of the "paint him as a right wing wolf in sheep’s clothing" forgetting that that is precisely what they have leading them and precisely what the electorate have told us three times that they want.
Its the ideal solution. Cameron spends the next three years confidently espousing compassion and tolerance in a way that looks right and will reassure and attract many, whilst Labour constantly remind us that he is right wing at heart.
We must stop focussing on Blair and Brown and analyse the electorate.
Within the appointments made so far, the real pressure has been placed firmly with DD. DD is now in check mate. With his reputation now so highly publicised during the campaign, he simply must perform loyally or he can be disposed of without any damage to the Party. Liam Fox would then wrap up the right and step in.
Very not happy over Maude's re-appointment as Party Chairman. That is DC's first mistake. Maude is thoroughly un-intelligent and unappealing. He is sycophantic, slimy, smarmy and an opportunist. Portillo, to his credit, eventually had the good grace to concede that he could never be the acceptable face of compassionate conservatism. Maude should do the same. It is like watching a fuddy duddy with a comb-over trying to disco dance.
It bloody annoys me that Defense is considered a non job. It is not and I am pleased to see Liam Fox (my old boss and the other man who made a considerable impact during the contest) accept it regardless of how he may or may not be feeling. Yes it is not one of the biggies, but Liam is shrewd and plays a cunning game. Liam knows that having Hague back is worth the pain and he gets to play very closely with Hague which he will enjoy enormously. Defense and Foreign Affairs always go hand in hand.
It is to our undying shame that we Tories allowed the abominable Geoff Who(n) to survive the War. With ever increasing pressure on Iraq withdrawal, the mindless regionalisation of our regiments and political correctness costing lives, Liam will most certainly have a stage and with good advice could uncover all sorts of crap that this Govt forces our troops to endure. They are a naturally conservative audience and long for someone to offer them the chance to vent their spleen over their treatment over the years. (I was one of them in Kosovo in 1999 - a complete sham of an expedition and a gratuitous grandstanding exercise by Mr Bliar. Don't get me started!). Woo the generals and the troops, Liam, and you will have fun while you wait for the tide to turn in your favour.
So much more to follow.
Very strikingly, the media are listening and watching attentively. Indeed more attentively than I have ever seen. It’s not just that they might appreciate a more interesting political climate. They sense something very substantial and they are communicating it well. We simply can't underestimate how important it will be to have the BBC, Times and the Sun being pleasant to us again. Even Jonathan Friedland's article in the Guardian, which I thoroughly enjoyed, couldn't hide its begrudging respect. Cameron is as comparable to Bush as Blair was to Clinton. All he actually describes is a man capable of presenting what the electorate want to see whilst holding his party together long enough to carry it off. I don’t personally subscribe to that view, but that’s another matter.
I agreed with George Pascoe Watson of the Sun who was very impressed by his PMQ’s performance. "He so unnerved Blair that he forgot to congratulate him until it was too late..." It may be a small point but it speaks volumes about how little control and poise Blair had at that moment.
BBC’s Newsnight spotted Brown actually helping Blair during his answers (by leaning forward and shouting the word “money” at him). Yes Brown helped Blair. What on earth is going on?
Most interesting is that his opponents are at sixes and sevens over how best to attack him. The more divided they are the weaker the attacks and the more likely he will be to survive them. More than ever New Labour need their pagers and their robot controllers at Millbank, but they are gone and it shows.
They really have nowhere to turn. Inverse snobbery won't work as it represents a world to which an ever increasing number of people aspire in order to break free from the appalling state and inexperience won't wash as he leads a team full of experience and talent.
In my opinion Labour are about to make a hash of it. They appear to be coming to rest of the "paint him as a right wing wolf in sheep’s clothing" forgetting that that is precisely what they have leading them and precisely what the electorate have told us three times that they want.
Its the ideal solution. Cameron spends the next three years confidently espousing compassion and tolerance in a way that looks right and will reassure and attract many, whilst Labour constantly remind us that he is right wing at heart.
We must stop focussing on Blair and Brown and analyse the electorate.
Within the appointments made so far, the real pressure has been placed firmly with DD. DD is now in check mate. With his reputation now so highly publicised during the campaign, he simply must perform loyally or he can be disposed of without any damage to the Party. Liam Fox would then wrap up the right and step in.
Very not happy over Maude's re-appointment as Party Chairman. That is DC's first mistake. Maude is thoroughly un-intelligent and unappealing. He is sycophantic, slimy, smarmy and an opportunist. Portillo, to his credit, eventually had the good grace to concede that he could never be the acceptable face of compassionate conservatism. Maude should do the same. It is like watching a fuddy duddy with a comb-over trying to disco dance.
It bloody annoys me that Defense is considered a non job. It is not and I am pleased to see Liam Fox (my old boss and the other man who made a considerable impact during the contest) accept it regardless of how he may or may not be feeling. Yes it is not one of the biggies, but Liam is shrewd and plays a cunning game. Liam knows that having Hague back is worth the pain and he gets to play very closely with Hague which he will enjoy enormously. Defense and Foreign Affairs always go hand in hand.
It is to our undying shame that we Tories allowed the abominable Geoff Who(n) to survive the War. With ever increasing pressure on Iraq withdrawal, the mindless regionalisation of our regiments and political correctness costing lives, Liam will most certainly have a stage and with good advice could uncover all sorts of crap that this Govt forces our troops to endure. They are a naturally conservative audience and long for someone to offer them the chance to vent their spleen over their treatment over the years. (I was one of them in Kosovo in 1999 - a complete sham of an expedition and a gratuitous grandstanding exercise by Mr Bliar. Don't get me started!). Woo the generals and the troops, Liam, and you will have fun while you wait for the tide to turn in your favour.
So much more to follow.
Tuesday, 22 November 2005
Ballot Bingo
I made it to the hustings in Cambridge this evening.
Both men are well reheased by this point in the campaign so there was nothing new, but the discernible difference between the two men in effort, fluency and appeal was very clear.
I liked that both men had space to answer why they were taking the views they do, on health, education, drugs, crime, etc. Davis continues to appeal to the Tories. Cameron is speaking over the top of the Tories to the rest of the country. Davis perceives a battle to be fought and won, Cameron sees an electorate needing to be persuaded and won over. At this point in time, leading the party is pointless unless you are going to lead the country.
Cameron has an interesting view on drugs, as I have commented on previously, and he is going to have to work hard to win the argument. But why does miss out the third pillar of the required strategy. Education, good; rehab, super. But where is the ruthless pursuit of dealers and their supply chain.
It was the same with the Bradford shooting question. Both said we mustn't make policy in the aftermath and both wanted proper sentencing, but why did neither pledge to hunt down and remove illegal guns from our society.
Anyway, apart from making me keener than ever be on that platform, the upshot of it all is that I believe that only one of them will lead a team, make the team work effectively, speak a language that ordinary people warm to rather than run from, and stand firmly on the centre ground, which coincidentally is where the majority of the electorate are currently standing.
I appreciate that Cameron does not have it all and may not yet have all the policies and detail that we need, but I have heard enough to believe that a) he will allow talent to flourish, b) that they will be policies that challenge the way the party has been seen for so long and c) that he has the ability to communicate and persuade agreement with whatever idea the Party and policy makers decide needs to be promoted.
Most importantly, I am voting positively i.e. I am voting for the person I want as leader rather than against the person I don't. I hope that Davis will remain on the scene, but I suspect it won't happen.
I have now looked him straight in the eye, shaken his hand and voted - for David Cameron.
Both men are well reheased by this point in the campaign so there was nothing new, but the discernible difference between the two men in effort, fluency and appeal was very clear.
I liked that both men had space to answer why they were taking the views they do, on health, education, drugs, crime, etc. Davis continues to appeal to the Tories. Cameron is speaking over the top of the Tories to the rest of the country. Davis perceives a battle to be fought and won, Cameron sees an electorate needing to be persuaded and won over. At this point in time, leading the party is pointless unless you are going to lead the country.
Cameron has an interesting view on drugs, as I have commented on previously, and he is going to have to work hard to win the argument. But why does miss out the third pillar of the required strategy. Education, good; rehab, super. But where is the ruthless pursuit of dealers and their supply chain.
It was the same with the Bradford shooting question. Both said we mustn't make policy in the aftermath and both wanted proper sentencing, but why did neither pledge to hunt down and remove illegal guns from our society.
Anyway, apart from making me keener than ever be on that platform, the upshot of it all is that I believe that only one of them will lead a team, make the team work effectively, speak a language that ordinary people warm to rather than run from, and stand firmly on the centre ground, which coincidentally is where the majority of the electorate are currently standing.
I appreciate that Cameron does not have it all and may not yet have all the policies and detail that we need, but I have heard enough to believe that a) he will allow talent to flourish, b) that they will be policies that challenge the way the party has been seen for so long and c) that he has the ability to communicate and persuade agreement with whatever idea the Party and policy makers decide needs to be promoted.
Most importantly, I am voting positively i.e. I am voting for the person I want as leader rather than against the person I don't. I hope that Davis will remain on the scene, but I suspect it won't happen.
I have now looked him straight in the eye, shaken his hand and voted - for David Cameron.
Monday, 21 November 2005
Man dies, England mourns, runs flow and wickets tumble
An immediate need for a brief rant.
On my local news just now a question that I have been asking all day has finally been answered.
A man from Peterborough travelling in Pakistan and apparently following the cricket, tragically died from a heart attack in recent days and as a result THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CRICKET TEAM WORE BLACK ARMBANDS FOR AN ENTIRE DAY.
I am of course very sad for the family of the deceased man. Their loss is most probably grievous and certainly sudden and very distressing, but on no level is it cause for a national team to sport black armbands of mourning during a days Test cricket. Toast him in the bar by all means. Celebrate his passion and commitment of course, but do not under any circumstances allow such an event to affect the concentration of our national team.
It is almost as bad as the moment last week when Marcus Trescothick publicly considered returning home because his father-in-law had fallen off a ladder. I mean what on earth was anyone doing even telling him that the incident had taken place let alone advising him to fly home.
Where is our moral fortitude? You showed it in your decision to carry on with the tour despite terror concerns and the devastating earthquake. Black armbands for the thousands killed in the disputed territory, but sadly not for a 40 year old man from Peterborough.
Now get on with the cricket.
On my local news just now a question that I have been asking all day has finally been answered.
A man from Peterborough travelling in Pakistan and apparently following the cricket, tragically died from a heart attack in recent days and as a result THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CRICKET TEAM WORE BLACK ARMBANDS FOR AN ENTIRE DAY.
I am of course very sad for the family of the deceased man. Their loss is most probably grievous and certainly sudden and very distressing, but on no level is it cause for a national team to sport black armbands of mourning during a days Test cricket. Toast him in the bar by all means. Celebrate his passion and commitment of course, but do not under any circumstances allow such an event to affect the concentration of our national team.
It is almost as bad as the moment last week when Marcus Trescothick publicly considered returning home because his father-in-law had fallen off a ladder. I mean what on earth was anyone doing even telling him that the incident had taken place let alone advising him to fly home.
Where is our moral fortitude? You showed it in your decision to carry on with the tour despite terror concerns and the devastating earthquake. Black armbands for the thousands killed in the disputed territory, but sadly not for a 40 year old man from Peterborough.
Now get on with the cricket.
Cultural Pygmy?
I will undoubtedly go down as a cultural pygmy for this comment, but I am sitting here watching Shakespeare Re-told and really loving it. I have loved them all so far and have every confidence that I will love the rest.
They capture all the humour, passion, farce and beguilment that the originals do, but in a modern and different setting. The scene in the first one where the lead man (can't remember names) is crawling around the studio floor under the cameras listening to the gossip and being watched from the editor's suite, is pure modern farce and no different to having two characters on stage and having to believe that neither know the other is there.
I have read some cultural snobs taking the view that it is rubbish and a violation of the great Bard's work. On the contrary. Shakespeare is said to have written timeless pieces, stories so fundamentally basic in their appreciation of human life that they will last forever.
If that is the case, then he should stand the test of a thousand interpretations and if some of them see some of our finest young actors bringing him to life in a new and relevant way with a twist fit for 2005 then so be it.
In this one (Taming of the Shrew) Cruella De Ville is just married to Kurgan (from Highlander) and they are trying to "tame" each other!
Get over it Will. If you're here forever, we've got to have our fun too!
They capture all the humour, passion, farce and beguilment that the originals do, but in a modern and different setting. The scene in the first one where the lead man (can't remember names) is crawling around the studio floor under the cameras listening to the gossip and being watched from the editor's suite, is pure modern farce and no different to having two characters on stage and having to believe that neither know the other is there.
I have read some cultural snobs taking the view that it is rubbish and a violation of the great Bard's work. On the contrary. Shakespeare is said to have written timeless pieces, stories so fundamentally basic in their appreciation of human life that they will last forever.
If that is the case, then he should stand the test of a thousand interpretations and if some of them see some of our finest young actors bringing him to life in a new and relevant way with a twist fit for 2005 then so be it.
In this one (Taming of the Shrew) Cruella De Ville is just married to Kurgan (from Highlander) and they are trying to "tame" each other!
Get over it Will. If you're here forever, we've got to have our fun too!
Sunday, 20 November 2005
Our drug laws don't work
Listen, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this but a friend has posted some thoughts on drugs inspired by David Cameron's idea that ecstacy should be down graded from Class A, and I would love you all to read them. He has written the article I would love to write and with all the detail and facts that I don't have.
I have thought through the drugs debate a thousand times and every time I do it, I end up having no option but to ban alchohol and cigarettes. All drugs kill either directly or as a result of the decisions you take whilst in the altered state you end up in. Even with my minimal knowledge, however, I know that fags and booze kill more people each year than "drugs" ever will, cause more damage to people and property and cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg in all sorts ways.
The upshot of it all is that criminalising cigarettes and alchohol is not possible, so the importance of making our hard drugs policy make proper sense is beyond parallel or the whole thing lacks integrity and authority and betrays millions of young people.
However before I redirect you, and whilst I agree with much of what you are going to read, I insist that it does not make me soft on drugs. I hate the things and the despair and damage that they cause. But they are an evil reality and we have to deal with them.
The laws surrounding drugs and alchohol are the first real laws that teenagers probably deal with and from them (the laws) they get their first impression of politics and law making. If you tell the average 17 year old that ecstacy and heroin are classed together and carry similar punishments, they will laugh and from that point forward they will have not the slightest respect for anything else we adults say.
Until such time as public opinion allows for the complete prohibition of nicotine and alchohol, drug classification must be completely overhauled to account for reality as well as medical science; education and rehabilitation must be truly effective in its attempt to stop young people falling and picking up those who do; and our police must be ruthless in their pursuit of drug dealers and producers.
I am lucky, I do not have an addictive nature, I have always derived particular pleasure from standing out from the crowd and I dislike the notion of losing control. Compulsory drug testing in the Army kept me inhibited during my twenties, but even once released into the world, and working in Holland for a year, I still had no desire to play with the damn stuff.
But I have two children and nothing worries me more than how I am going to help them navigate a safe path through a world in which drugs are now rife and the norm.
Here's the link. http://bigtommygspeaks.blogspot.com/2005/11/guest-post-on-drugs.html
I have thought through the drugs debate a thousand times and every time I do it, I end up having no option but to ban alchohol and cigarettes. All drugs kill either directly or as a result of the decisions you take whilst in the altered state you end up in. Even with my minimal knowledge, however, I know that fags and booze kill more people each year than "drugs" ever will, cause more damage to people and property and cost the taxpayer an arm and a leg in all sorts ways.
The upshot of it all is that criminalising cigarettes and alchohol is not possible, so the importance of making our hard drugs policy make proper sense is beyond parallel or the whole thing lacks integrity and authority and betrays millions of young people.
However before I redirect you, and whilst I agree with much of what you are going to read, I insist that it does not make me soft on drugs. I hate the things and the despair and damage that they cause. But they are an evil reality and we have to deal with them.
The laws surrounding drugs and alchohol are the first real laws that teenagers probably deal with and from them (the laws) they get their first impression of politics and law making. If you tell the average 17 year old that ecstacy and heroin are classed together and carry similar punishments, they will laugh and from that point forward they will have not the slightest respect for anything else we adults say.
Until such time as public opinion allows for the complete prohibition of nicotine and alchohol, drug classification must be completely overhauled to account for reality as well as medical science; education and rehabilitation must be truly effective in its attempt to stop young people falling and picking up those who do; and our police must be ruthless in their pursuit of drug dealers and producers.
I am lucky, I do not have an addictive nature, I have always derived particular pleasure from standing out from the crowd and I dislike the notion of losing control. Compulsory drug testing in the Army kept me inhibited during my twenties, but even once released into the world, and working in Holland for a year, I still had no desire to play with the damn stuff.
But I have two children and nothing worries me more than how I am going to help them navigate a safe path through a world in which drugs are now rife and the norm.
Here's the link. http://bigtommygspeaks.blogspot.com/2005/11/guest-post-on-drugs.html
Saturday, 19 November 2005
Pacman
I have submitted a comment on the BBC site about Paxman but they never put my comments up so i thought I would copy it here.
Paxman has "interviewed" (grand word for a rather pitiful experience) both of the Leadership contenders. Clearly Cameron enjoyed the experience but judging from the sweat on Davis's neck, he did not. The only news worthy item to emerge from it was Davis's backtracking on his tax cuts promise just days earlier, but nobody seemed to notice or care.
The Editor of Newsnight proclaims that "..it's right that they should be subjected to detailed scrutiny of their principles and policies."
Indeed, but sadly JP so loves to bathe in his own cynicism that he rarely gets round to the process of scrutiny.
He may be entertaining but only in a medieval witch-finding sort of way. Actually he is predictable, belligerent and sneering and is largely responsible for the way that many people now view politcs and those who pursue it.
It is a sad but very accurate indictment of the BBC that he remains their witch-finder general.
P.S. I have never quite understood why anyone mocks Howard for his infamous JP interview. It was masterful politics. In fourteen answers he never once lied or lost his nerve. He beat JP hands down and should be immensely proud of it.
Paxman has "interviewed" (grand word for a rather pitiful experience) both of the Leadership contenders. Clearly Cameron enjoyed the experience but judging from the sweat on Davis's neck, he did not. The only news worthy item to emerge from it was Davis's backtracking on his tax cuts promise just days earlier, but nobody seemed to notice or care.
The Editor of Newsnight proclaims that "..it's right that they should be subjected to detailed scrutiny of their principles and policies."
Indeed, but sadly JP so loves to bathe in his own cynicism that he rarely gets round to the process of scrutiny.
He may be entertaining but only in a medieval witch-finding sort of way. Actually he is predictable, belligerent and sneering and is largely responsible for the way that many people now view politcs and those who pursue it.
It is a sad but very accurate indictment of the BBC that he remains their witch-finder general.
P.S. I have never quite understood why anyone mocks Howard for his infamous JP interview. It was masterful politics. In fourteen answers he never once lied or lost his nerve. He beat JP hands down and should be immensely proud of it.
Sunday, 13 November 2005
Miscellany
A number of interesting but unrelated notes:
1. I am ashamed to say that I have prayed to false gods. On Tuesday I thanked the Lord of Little Britain for 5 precious tickets to the live tour. On Wednesday morning I thanked the Lord of precocious pop stars for 4 fabulous tickets to see Robbie Williams in Vienna next year. I also thanked the good Lord of internet webs for allowing me through the net thing before it all crashed and ended in chaos.
2. By Wednesday afternoon, however, my punishment came in spades. As I lay on the dentist's chair, I prayed out loud to the divine lord of gums only to be referred directly to the Gods of Nurofen and Paracetamol. I am in pain and have spent much of the weekend sleeping. Perhaps I deserve it.
3. On the 2nd of November we went to Kimbolton School to watch the world famous Kimbolton Fireworks celebrate 400 yrs of the Gunpowder Plot with the the most nagnificent 20min display set to music called "A Celestial Inferno". Fire rained down for 20 minutes and I have to say, it was the best six quid I have spend in a long time. The music was great, the sequencing lovely and the crescendo perfect. I was therefore sad to hear that a few days later, their display in Kettering went wrong and left people in hospital. Fireworks are dangerous, but fabulously beautiful. Stand well back next time.
4. The cricket is going well in Pakistan. I hope we can hold our batting together. As always our bowling and fielding is efficient and elegant. I love the noise the crowd make in the sub continent. I love their passion. I am also prepared to accept that England's footballers were more than impressive last night. Lets see where we go.
5. I took Oliver and Jasper to our village Remembrance Parade today. Oliver is now in the Cubs so he paraded from the Cub Hut to Church behind their banner and Jasper and I spectated. It is the only day in the year when I dust off my medals (NI and Kosovo) and pop them on. I do feel a little odd but hey, I earnt the damn things so why shouldn't I wear them once a year. Anyone who takes the piss just exposes their own inadequacy rather than my vanity. I let Jasper wear my miniatures!!
6. I am looking forward to the Tory leadership husting in Cambrdige which I am going to. I know who I want to vote for but I just want to hang on until I see them live.
7. I have a monstrous amount of work to do next week!!
RB
1. I am ashamed to say that I have prayed to false gods. On Tuesday I thanked the Lord of Little Britain for 5 precious tickets to the live tour. On Wednesday morning I thanked the Lord of precocious pop stars for 4 fabulous tickets to see Robbie Williams in Vienna next year. I also thanked the good Lord of internet webs for allowing me through the net thing before it all crashed and ended in chaos.
2. By Wednesday afternoon, however, my punishment came in spades. As I lay on the dentist's chair, I prayed out loud to the divine lord of gums only to be referred directly to the Gods of Nurofen and Paracetamol. I am in pain and have spent much of the weekend sleeping. Perhaps I deserve it.
3. On the 2nd of November we went to Kimbolton School to watch the world famous Kimbolton Fireworks celebrate 400 yrs of the Gunpowder Plot with the the most nagnificent 20min display set to music called "A Celestial Inferno". Fire rained down for 20 minutes and I have to say, it was the best six quid I have spend in a long time. The music was great, the sequencing lovely and the crescendo perfect. I was therefore sad to hear that a few days later, their display in Kettering went wrong and left people in hospital. Fireworks are dangerous, but fabulously beautiful. Stand well back next time.
4. The cricket is going well in Pakistan. I hope we can hold our batting together. As always our bowling and fielding is efficient and elegant. I love the noise the crowd make in the sub continent. I love their passion. I am also prepared to accept that England's footballers were more than impressive last night. Lets see where we go.
5. I took Oliver and Jasper to our village Remembrance Parade today. Oliver is now in the Cubs so he paraded from the Cub Hut to Church behind their banner and Jasper and I spectated. It is the only day in the year when I dust off my medals (NI and Kosovo) and pop them on. I do feel a little odd but hey, I earnt the damn things so why shouldn't I wear them once a year. Anyone who takes the piss just exposes their own inadequacy rather than my vanity. I let Jasper wear my miniatures!!
6. I am looking forward to the Tory leadership husting in Cambrdige which I am going to. I know who I want to vote for but I just want to hang on until I see them live.
7. I have a monstrous amount of work to do next week!!
RB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
