Thursday, 31st January 2008
6:40pm
I've just seen a ridiculous, gushing report on the BBC1 Six O'Clock News about the Sharon Coleman ECJ case which will give carers of the disabled the same rights as the disabled themselves.
The reporter, Catherine Marston, seemed almost overjoyed at the result, listing the many benefits of the decision and how wonderful it will be that employers will now have to give time off to carers whenever they need to look after their charges.
There was not a word, not a reference, to the idea that there could be another side to the story - that it might not be such a great idea for employers to be forced to start acting as welfare providers to employees who happen to look after the disabled.
But why? If I employ someone who has a disabled child, why should I be forced by law to allow her as much time off as she needs to look after that child? Why should I even have to employ her in the first place, let alone to hand over my money so she can look after her child? What does it have to do with me? Why is it my responsibility?
So much for making European indutsry more competitive.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (3)
3:57pm
Miles Kington was the first journalist I ever knew.
To say 'knew' is something of an exaggeration. I was an avid reader of Punch when I was a schoolboy, and MIles Kington was something of a hero to me. When I was 12, I wrote a school essay which my English teacher told me was funny. Naturally, my first thought was: 'that means it's good enough for Punch'. And so I sent it to the man whose name I associated with Punch.
Most journalists, on being sent a 12 year old's meandering drivel, would either ignore it or dismiss it. Miles, however, sent me back a line by line critique: what worked, what was, well, childish, and what was plain awful - although he was too kind to put it that bluntly. (The first of those three categories was, by quite a long way, the smallest.) He told me that it wasn't really good enough to print - what he meant was it was unprintable - but that I should keep at it, and that he would be happy to read other things I sent him and let me know what he thought.
That was a dangerous invitation, but an astonishingly generous spirited one. And so I took him up on it, and sent him a few more pieces over the next few years. Somehow he managed to make constant rejection - they really were awful - a pleasure.
In later years I met him a few times, first as a teenager, then as an adult. I've never heard a bad word said about Miles KIngton (I worked on the Indie for a while, a while ago). And I can only add to the tributes to a wonderful man and a wonderful writer.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
11:52am
Time for a reordering of priorities.
Derek Conway has gone. Good riddance. There's no place in public life for people who steal from the taxpayer.
The closure of Tevere, however, is terribly sad - especially given that it's been bought by a chain that wants to keep the poor, poor. I spent over a decade of my life working within a five minute walk of Tevere. At the SMF, I was thirty seconds away. I can't begin to count the number of omelettes I had there, let alone the cups of teas and coffee. There's nothing like a really good greasy spoon.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
9:12am
Tony Woodley, the TGWU General Secretary, says Shell should be forced to pay a windfall profits tax after making £13.9 billion last year.
And I'm assuming he also demands that members of his union whose pay rises turn out to be above inflation also pay back the difference between their rise and actual inflation.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
8:42am
There are only 328 days left until Christmas, so thank heavens this catalogue has just landed on my front door mat.
Yes, a Christmas 2008 catalogue. In January.
The accompanying letter informs me that I can make my purchases from my "Dairy Crest roundsperson" who, presumably, doubles as my milkman. Then again, milkman would just be so offensive to someone who sells so much more than milk and isn't necessarily (even though he is) a man.
Can you beat that? Let me know if you've had a Christmas catalogue or similar idiocy earlier than 31st January!
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
Tuesday, 29th January 2008
3:33pm
My friend Robert George has a fascinating take on Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, arguing that this is a good thing for HRC:
Two weeks ago while performing stand-up, I casually asked the comedy club's heavily Democratic audience how many there were for Hillary. Only one hand went up. I then asked for Obama supporters -- about nine or ten hands went up. This in a New York venue. The response was such a surprise that it briefly threw off my timing.
…After first being taken in by the theatrics of the moment, it suddenly hit me: Hillary Rodham Clinton must be loving this.
Consider: What was the big mistake the media jumped on Hillary for during her post-Iowa speech? The appearance of all of those Clinton administration officials and hangers-on, right? It made Hillary look like the candidate of the past -- not of the future.
So, didn't anyone in the Obama camp ponder the logical incongruity of their candidate saying, "[This race] is about the past and the future." as he's blessed by THE dynastic family of the Democratic Party of the last 50 years? Suddenly, the claim that Bill and Hillary are using the power of their former White House connections to beat up on this newbie doesn't ring so true when King Kennedy and several of the royal children are lining up with the insurgent.
…Earlier there was John Kerry complaining about Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle complaining about Bill Clinton...yada yada yada.
So the insurgent is also endorsed by the most recent Democratic presidential nominee (Kerry) AND the former Senate Democratic Majority Leader (Daschle)?
Now that might sounds like an "establishment pile-on" to the average person. But, it's actually even worse: These endorsements crowd out the less, known, but arguably politically more helpful-in-the-long run endorsements by such red-state politicians like Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas. Instead, the message getting out is that the Northern liberal establishment is coming out strong for Barack Obama -- the guy who calls himself the "change" candidate. Heck, Teddy Kennedy fought tooth and nail against Bill Clinton's welfare reform -- calling it "legislative child abuse."
What does the "change candidate" think about that?
Kennedy, Kerry and Daschle also carry another "L"-word -- Loser.
…So, two days after Obama became the "black candidate" by winning South Carolina with an overwhelming proportion of the black vote (and Bill Clinton belittles the impact of the win by comparing it with Jesse Jackson's '80s victories), Obama allows himself to become the "liberal candidate" by getting the blessing of the quintessential Senate liberal.
…In short, if I'm the Clinton camp, I've gotta be quite happy with these developments. There's lots of real "love" for Barack Obama in the Democratic Party. For, Hillary, not so much. However, she's playing long-term strategy, not short-term tactics.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (4)
2:36pm
Quite right, too. Wihdrawal of the whip should have been immediate, but today is just soon enough for Cameron still to look in control rather than being blown around by the media.
Cameron had no real choice, if he was to avoid the notion that the Conservatives are as bad as Labour. Indeed in some ways the Conway case is worse than Hain's. Hain might be incompetent, he might be arrogant, he might think obeying the law is not something he needs to worry about. But no one suggests that he personally was trousering the money his campaign omitted to declare.
That however is exactly what Conway seems to have done - grabbing 'office costs' from the taxpayer and chanelling them into his son's (or even now, it seems, sons') bank account.
It seems to me that this is not merely a breach of the Commons' rules. It appears to a layman such as me to be tantamount to fraud. If Cameron had simply said he was a naughty boy, slapped wrist, let's move on, he would have confirmed every idea about the Conservatives snouts in the trough.
As it is, he can now say that there is no place in the Conservative Party for people such as Conway, and can point to the difference between his and Brown's behaviour. Brown clung on to his man until someone else forced his hand, Cameron took (almost) immediate action of his own volition.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (3)
8:41am
There's a useful summary at Intermezzo of the advantages (or not) of the various London music venues' membership schemes. I'd certainly agree with the judgements. And for the Wigmore Hall, membership is a prerequisite of getting tickets for the more popular artists.
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (0)
Monday, 28th January 2008
1:46pm
The new Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, said in yesterday's Observer that:
I'm a big believer that those who invest passion, energy and commitment in an organisation, whether that's their football club or local museum, should help run it...It's a good principle to have artists and practitioners on the boards of arts organisations and to have representatives of supporters in the boardroom at every football club.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he is merely expressing a personal, private view, rather than stating what the government wants to see happen or even what he plans to command through legislation.
I happen to agree with him, up to a point. I'm a member of the Spurs supporters' trust, and think it a good idea that the trust is consulted on relevant decisions such as moving ground, or changing transport and parking arrangements. (Although board membership smacks of corporatist-style representation of every interested party.)
But football clubs are private organistions and it's nothing to do with the government how they conduct their relations with fans. And Mr Burnham's views ought to carry no more weight than those of any other fan.
Next we'll be hearing Mr Burnham shooting his mouth off on the number of English players Premiership teams should have. Again - nothing to do with him or any other politcian. IDS was on the radio last week blathering on about the need to have a limit imposed on foreign players. Could someone explain to him that it's a football matter, not a matter for politicians?
Email to a friend |
Permalink |
Comments (1)
