Quango! - Is it a bird, is it...

David Cameron: quangos and politicians for the chop

Odds on Dave will form a quango to discuss quangos

I rather fear that, once in power, the discussion paper for the Gloucester Old Spot Airborne Appreciation Board will soon be dug out to see just how many can be popped in on £200k + perks + index-lined + expenses + comms budget, to provide all necessary hands-off deniability or fake ‘independence’ to point out when a bit of dodgy policy needs some research to support it, that a new administration could wish for.

Ordinary Joe vs. the volcano

Following on form the last post on competence over perception.

Totnes Primary: now, how big is Sarah Wollaston's house?

It’s simply a fact of life, as there seems no ‘better’ way: the gatekeepers control the game because they own the pitch and the ball.

The players my change a tad, and the scores may vary, but running the game and its rewards is still theirs.

It’s true from anything from local awards juries to debating panel selections… to how ‘we’ get to ‘choose’ our leaders.

But, I have to say, this seems a tad better than before, and hence a direction to be applauded and supported.

If only for this: ‘…The career politicians out there should take note.’

And I could give a rat’s pitootie for what an MP’s house size is so long as they are paying for it honestly whilst doing the job they are meant to do, and well.

WUVI-journos, of all hues, take note.

The right person for the job is the right person

The problem for Harriet Harman…

…to assume that [this] balance* can best be achieved by a tick box quota…
*Plus, IMHO, most else.

However, in today’s world, and especially its governance, this seems pretty much to be the way things are ‘run’.

Which might explain our current, and future, predicaments.

However, in just a few areas, those of lifetime job security, unwarranted pay awards, index-linked salaries, etc, in just a few sectors, this policy does at least still seem more than rewarding.

Oddly.

Biter Bit

Journalists don't seem as able to take it as they like to dish it out.

I actually value this lady's missives usually, but then there is this:

Will blog commenters eventually leave journalists fragile husks of insecurity, sobbing in the corner?

What on earth did she expect, on a blog, by way of reply?

If commenters are complaining about lazy journalism, journalists have an equal bone to pick with lazy commenting.

Thing is, who owes who what?

I’m all for open commenting on blogs, but I every now and then I imagine a halcyon world where a bit of judicial editing leaves us with only the comments that are worth reading - negative or not.

Well, there is always that magical moderator’s delete facility, used every now and then for perhaps less than professional reasons, in the spirit of some speech being freer than others.

It would certainly save us all a lot of time currently spent scrolling through endless “First!” comments.

Forewarned, I will hence refrain from attempting to note the relative location of this comment in the current thread.*

Annoyingly, as I was penning my witty tailpiece, some other sod got in first and rather stole the thunder.

Money is not everything

As it is also a telling tale on population and economy vs. environment, this could as easily be over at Junkk Male RE:view.

Singapore’s population crisis in a nutshell

Having lived there for a decade, and still visiting since my family's departure a decade ago, the 'world in miniature' aspect of this once great city state is too important not to learn from.

I treasure (fading) memories of Singapore Slings at the original long bar in the original Raffles, to drives to Punggol for chili crab in lean-tos on shoreline shanties set into the jungle.

On our last visit, I am pretty sure that's where one of the several hundred 26 storey HDBs my brother in law and his family live in now stand. Not sure a family meal at Jack's Place in Parkway Parade had quite the same sense of cultural bonding.

Progress? There is a finite land area (well, they are trying to prove Mark Twain wrong daily, but international sea limits will eventually require either going down, or higher up as the only options). Maybe the era of Blade Runner-like living is not so far away.

All to 'sustain economic growth'. And then, when the last square inch of grass has been concreted over? What quality of life will those who have got to this point enjoy, now that the shark that needs to swim to survive has stalled and is gasping for more air?

Ironically, my 12 year olds have been written to to require they get ready for National Service when they are 18, and we are required to stump up $75k bond each should they not feel so disposed.

As I replied to someone who asked me if I was ever tempted to return: 'there has to be more to life than living in an a/c box from which you commute in an a/c box to work in an a/c box to earn enough to blow at nights and weekends in another a/c box. And I think my kids deserve better.'

So unless the govt. revises its policies a tad, they'll be missing out on 6 years' worth of tourist money and, who knows, the chance of two 18 year olds opting to do their bit for a few years in a Taiwanese swamp to get their chance at living in a... albeit potentially well-appointed... a/c box.

Governments would do well to remember that human beings don't respond well to coercion and can, surprisingly, even opt not to be bribed with trinkets.

Still, I'm sure the SDU (Social Development Unit (bless), better known as 'Single, Desperate and Ugly' with the humour I still take strength from knowing flourishes there) is finding its ad budget enhanced.

Lead by donkeys

Having watched our Dear Leader just now on the Andrew Marr show, I think we can home in on more specific body parts from that animal (which oddly suggests an alternative name immediately).

As I wrote to them:

Well, that was... er... vague.

Might one suggest that when a politician answers a question they don't fancy with 'The real question that needs to be asked is...' and rambles off on self-serving waffle ending with yet more 'looking at this', a big hook comes in from stage left and hoiks 'em off? And presuming to know 'what people want' should mean open season with the rotten fruit and veg from the stalls.

Any system that has operated so disastrously for over a decade really has little credibility left to be allowed to 'sort it out' or, worse, turning their dead hands to 'getting on with the job', 'dealing with the issues at hand'... and especially on the 'big issues'.

If Mr. Brown thinks he is the answer, then I dare not imagine the question.

I am not sure that even a cross in a ballot once every few years is now enough.

Telegraph - Brown alive, appears in public, nation breathes sigh of relief

Ask not what...

What a price a job? £700 says MBA graduate

"British man, 26, Oxford graduate, now with added MBA...looking for interesting work anywhere..,"

Good luck to Daniel. I think he has a fine future in PR at least, if the coverage gained on £700 is anything to go by.

Sadly, in the section of media I operate two words rule above all others: end benefit. And to be clear, that is to the customer, as opposed to for the sales person or, in this case, applicant.

Sadly nothing in the pitch above exactly helps me as a potential employer assess what advantage I'd gain from the hire.

But then again, looking at how the current establishment works (sic), I guess it might not matter.

My only regret is that complict media will escape

They always do...

This is about Parliament, not politics

It is interesting, if not edifying or indeed encouraging (for those who feel they are qualified to lead) that this sorry crew seem to feel the origins of a fact seems to somehow negate it still being one.

600+ parliamentary wrongs to not make a right. Oh, and to any apologists... too little... waaaaay too late.

Such excuses as I have witnessed so far seem more designed to merely ensure the noose is tight when the trapdoor falls.

Balls, venues, posts and other sporting metaphors

Now the EU wants to run the Internet

It is my experience that anything in the blogosphere that starts 'This is an utterly pathetic post...' is usually barely worth the electrons consumed in initiating it, much less reading on to find out if any coherent argument is going to be made beyond knee-jerk and/or ad hom.

As we're into mangling paraphrasing, it often seems, with some irony bearing in mind the topic, the 'First through to last refuges of the E-scoundrel'

Looking forward to the forthcoming elections, though still trying to figure out who best to vote for to kick those that deserve it, first for effect and then into touch.

Reporting the news. Making the news. Creating the news.

G20: Exclusive snap! Idiot breaks bank window!!

Not April 1 is it? Links always help us poor bloggers retain their faith in the 'official' media.

Assuming it's for real, was there any 'interpreting of events' from our beloved national broadcaster, or were they still busy trying to post the marshaling points for all protesters unable to find their personal Warholian MSM biographer? One man's incitement is another's public service, I guess. What's the betting they set our 'hero' up to be championed by ex-DPM Prescott for his obvious initiative and embracing the nu values of this glorious country?

I am minded of a less than special part of our honeymoon on 'Safari', gadding about the Masai Mara in a jeep when the call came in... 'Lions!'

When we got there it turned out to be a leonine version of a Patpong live show, and about as interesting.

Did whip out the old SLR though, if only to take pictures of the 50-odd other jeeps full of tourists surrounding this sad affair.

I wonder if the shutterbug in this case was capturing the show, and just accidentally included his fellow audience?

Anyway, ta for the share. A picture can be worth 1,000 words. As can a cartoon. Try Brittania weeping as the 99th journo asks her 'How did you feel when... the public has a right to ratings-driven drivel!'

Greenbang - G20 wishes and Python dreams

ACRONIC situation

We won't beat the Islamists with Whitehall verbiage

OMG. HMG. FUBAR. RIP:)

Q... and despired A

Would Britain vote to leave the EU?

'It depends on how you ask the question.'

Would make a great inscription on how we are 'lead', and our 'leaders' are held to account (or assisted) by various media who see their mission now as being the interpretation of events rather than objective sharing of facts.

'Working on it'

Obama's team has only one answer: we're working on it

I have to say I agree it is a bit early to be too critical, and 'we're working on it' does seem to be reasonable and even quite honest in the circumstances.

I just hope that they are, and the work proves of value.

Otherwise it may just go down in history as a US version of another joke phrase uttered a tad too often, and now to great, if bitter hilarity outside of parts of Westminster and BBC studios in the latter half of the last decade: 'I'm just getting on with the job'.

Many tend to think in response: 'Then, on current evidence, I really wish you'd stop'.

It ain't what you do, it's the way you're allowed to do it..

Bank is furious - not merely "puzzled"

Is there anyone he has not offended or nothing he and his cabal have not stirred up? Working out well again, I'd say.

Ah well, can't complain, as a democratically elec... oh, dear.

Hey, let's annoy 50% of the population

I do so only in affectionate jest...

Want a job done well? Ask an older woman

I am not sure this - '...a 66-year-old Prime Minister of Iceland, or at least what's left of it' -quite endorses the spirit of the headline.

However, I am sure we have much to look forward to as Jackie, Hazel, Harriet, Margaret et al... um... mature.

Addendum -

Hmmn. I seem to either have been banned from the Torygraph comments section, or have failed to understand how it works...

Patronising Harriet Harman's gaffe on black, disabled people

All will be well soon, when she, and a few others (Jaquie, Hazel, Margaret (not that one, natch), etc) have been allowed to 'mature' a little:

Apparently.

Though I am not sure that citing the PM of Iceland, especially with the qualifier the author herself introduces, is necessarily a great endorsement.

Things seem to be working out sooo well under the boxtickocracy currently in vogue.

Maybe... I don't know... just ensure negative discrimination is dealt with harshly and let talent flourish where it is encouraged, regardless of an PC targets?

I just had real fun with a town hall munchkin that, as far as I was concerned, Pink Jedi was entirely acceptable as race an religion in my book.

The lad vanishes

Moderation is a tricky one. I think some fail miserably.

Top 10 who Gordon Brown should blame for his US visit flop

A poster has now be 'moderated' twice. I saw one. It contravened nothing, save to criticise the moderating policy that removed the first, calling the paper the 'Labourgraph'. It has now gone too.

I wonder how long mine will last. A sad day for freedom of speech.

Comes to something when I rate the Guardian more more open on the moderating stakes.

And even the BBC, whilst worse, at least allows you to see when their hobnail boots have stamped all over free speech in the name of some sensibilities... or agendas.

Ok, it's your paying field. If you want to send people off that's fine, but the rest of the spectators might benefit from seeing at least an acknowledgement, if not explanation.

Otherwise the game makes no sense. Or maybe to some that doesn't matter in this process over product lunatic asylum we call a culture.

Worth sharing

I am a environmental campaigner, of sorts (makes me sound like an addict at an AA meeting)

However, I am an odd one.

I think that the climate is a bit squiffy, and 'we' may be something to do with it.

However, I am not to sure, but also feel that that the certainty that some have, and choose to articulate their (valid) views may not always be helping get the masses on board. In fact it is an area so fraught, and polarised, I tend to content myself with things I feel able and qualified to address, such as sensible, pragmatic reductions, reuses, repairs and recyclings, especially of waste.

And hence I try and keep the more enviro blog I pen on this subject, Junkk Male RE:view, clear of the artillery exchanges climate 'optimists' and 'pessimists' launch at each other.

But I do feel in the mood to share this, from a self-confessed 'sceptic' (I think they embrace this, and I would never use the pejorative 'denier' as some do) site, as it is of value looking at matters of science, and reporting, by the MSM, especially when it comes to errors (to be kind) of omission.

Actually, blanket blanking serves no good purpose. It merely serves the conspiracy theorists. Beyond the irony of all sorts of folk canceling their flights, sensible analysis might of got under the skin of the value of such 'protests' when they backfire so badly, and what exactly the sense of record cold spells, as well as hot... forbodes.

EU Referendum - By their omissions …

Addendum:

17.46 - 03.03

I wrote the above this morning. Before retiring I did my last scope.

One piece I noted was this, from Newsnight's 'Ethical Man':

Obama to bypass Congress to limit emissions

Now, besides noting that in response to his invitation 'Please leave your comments below telling me whether you support America imposing a limit on emissions', after 4 hours he has had precisely one (down a bit form the 50+ before... maybe it will pick up), I can't help but notice the pictures used, and the vague way the Power Shift summit is referred to, bearing in mind the above EU-Referendum link suggests something else went down...

Who to believe?

The law is an awl.

An awl is a long pointed instrument. Hence it can also be used to inflict as little or as much pain as the user who wields it sees fit.

And if law can be so vague as be rejuggled to read as awl, the effect is the same.

Driving on the phone isn't dangerous

I would like to know if Joyce is right, because that makes the specific case cited very different and pretty clear cut.

I have Bluetooth handsfree, on the presumption that it is 'legal'. But I have to confess that I don't think my attention to driving is a good compared to without. Obviously. So it is, at the very least 'more dangerous'. However, the same can be said for having a passenger in conversation. Maybe even worse as one tends to glance across. So one gets into areas of relativity and practicality.

Hence I merely respond, in agreement, only to the point you make: 'Either hands-free phones are legal to use or they are not.'

I have major concerns with this, and a lot of other driving-related 'laws'... AND others across every aspect of one's existence in this blighted isle, where there are way too many grey areas of definition that somehow can get escalated to perfect clarity to impose fines and/or prosecutions if the authorities feel so disposed.

It used to be 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I'm sorry, but if the law is incapable of making itself clear such that the law-abiding can know how to obey it... THAT is inexcusable.

It's good to have standards. Just...not more than one at a a time.

If Jeremy Clarkson must apologise to Gordon Brown, then Margaret Thatcher is owed an apology too

I have followed this for a while. Time to weigh in.

Uniquely funded; uniquely run.

At the very least, on top of some very questionable personal agendas masquerading as policy, there does seem to be a multiplicity of standards (certainly more than two) at the institution I am required to co-fund.

What is most worrying is the mindset in 'the bubble'. This programme, (which I have to say I have followed and enjoyed enormously over the years, and indeed found most of the two above named protagonists pretty funny when they don't descend into left-leaning 'right-on' ad hominems to an easy to whip up crowd), is 'live' is it not? Or at least topical to a few days.

Did it not occur to any involved that, especially with Ms. Brand present, that what they deem acceptable and 'edgy' might to others be as offensive, if not more so in its mass broadcast form, as something that may have been said in private but got a set of collective PC knickers in a twist and various folk running to teacher? I'd like to think if it had been 'Have I Got News For You', Ms. Brand at least might have found herself on a rather uncomfortable end of the others' wit, as did the unfortunate original presenter.

It's like there is a cloak of immunity over the gilded ones who grace our public airwaves, so long as they conform to, or better yet enhance the groupthink. From Gaza to gobby comics, I am getting a bit tired of being included in what the BBC and its invited, restricted-membership 'in-crowd' thinks I think (or at least thinks I should), and presumes to represent or claim on my behalf.

Actually, for all that actually happens tangibly in reaction, there might well be.

This is not the service promised. I want my refund.

ps:

Not that I am within the sound of Bow Bells, but I wonder if there are certain senior ladies from the politico-media establishment elite who have taken it upon themselves to be 'guardians of our thinking' (and I am sure Ms. Brand will be on board with the sentiment if not the targets) who, in this new phrasing-cautious era, might be referred to as 'a bit of a Jay Hunt'?

pps:

On a more serious, or at least less trivial note, this latest episode really represents another concerning metaphor for the culture of image vs. reality, and process vs. result that is being foisted upon us by our elected, and often totally unrepresentative (and very definitely unelected) 'masters' and 'mistresses' (or whatever the heck collective term they can come up with and deem now required over a taxpayer-funded outreach weekend).

A person who does not believe themselves at fault and says so can find the full force of the law thrown at them. A totally unrepentant felon briefly mouths some weasel words and the legal system rewards them with limitless concessions.

Sorry is no longer the hardest word; it is now, in some quarters, without value, at least to those of us not interested in just the words but also the deeds, and refuse to engage with the silly semantic games that so entertain, and seemingly satisfy too many who should know better, and betray their positions by indulging so easily in them.

Being seen to be something, or not, is now of more value than actually doing anything, or not. A slippery path across the board, with no good outcome for any of us, complicit or not.

Addendum - I have often wondered what racism/being racist is; it seems at best a rather moving/evolving entity. Just been led to this: racismtest.com - not going to go near it, at least online, for all sorts of reasons, but interesting that it's there.

Lords of the ratings war

In a 24hrs that sees a furore over a private conversation between some people resulting in a firing:

Big Brother for children: Channel 4 demonstrates why it should be closed down

Yesterday's BBC Breakfast sofa was positively cooking with various folk promoting this... public ser... er.. study... er... rampant ratings grab in the guise of god knows what. To be fair there were a few 'uneasy' at the psychological aspects, so they 'understood' the anguish of parents desperate to be on the telly watching their kids desperate to be on the telly not exactly enjoying the experience of being on the telly. And, without having watched it (my small protest), having been through the edit suite to 'enhance the narrative' I bet most liked the result even less.

Ill-conceived and cynically executed from pitch meeting to press releases. With a complicit MSM ready and waiting to savour the incoming... and fallout. Sick.

Oh, and really, this alone rather puts the whole sorry charade in context: '...without their parents or other outside adult influences (apart from the adult camera crew which films everything they do).

ie: a complete fabrication with no value, but somehow a licence for some adults to mentally torture some minors for some money.