In Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, he mentioned how "the pictures on Al Jazeera" were doing harm to the view of America in the world.
Well, I think this is what he meant:
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Ros - "She's clearly the best one"
I sent away the wife (very non-political) with the three A4s that came with the presidential ballot paper and asked her to look through them and tell me how I should vote. After a while, I went and asked for her conclusions. (yes, it's that fun in our house!)
She pulled out Ros's and said "Well, she's clearly the best one".
About Lembit she said "He should stop appearing on TV".
On Chandila's, I'm afraid she was quite negative and used a lot of bad words, which I will paraphrase as "bloody student!". She also said "He'll probably be leading your party in the future as that's how politics works". She didn't mean that as a compliment!
Anyways, she decided on the order:
Ros - 1
Lembit - 2
Chandila - 3
which, interestingly, was exactly the same as mine.
She pulled out Ros's and said "Well, she's clearly the best one".
About Lembit she said "He should stop appearing on TV".
On Chandila's, I'm afraid she was quite negative and used a lot of bad words, which I will paraphrase as "bloody student!". She also said "He'll probably be leading your party in the future as that's how politics works". She didn't mean that as a compliment!
Anyways, she decided on the order:
Ros - 1
Lembit - 2
Chandila - 3
which, interestingly, was exactly the same as mine.
Friday, 17 October 2008
Whadda mistaka to maka
It seems a junior lawyer has made an Excel conversion error that caused Barclays to buy up more of Lehman Brothers than it meant (ie. it got some extra rubbish bits).
Well, we've all made such mistakes, but usually not as costly.
Well, we've all made such mistakes, but usually not as costly.
Controversial Policies - Drop or Explain?
Himmelgarten Cafe has picked up on Chris Huhne defending judges ignoring minimum sentences and giving lower sentences and wonders whether we will, over time, avoid being crucified by the right-wing/populist press.
Well, I think it's the only strategy we can go with. If we are to have the numerous sensible, well-thought out policies that are also controversial or easily badly spun by our opponents that we undoubtedly and rightly do have, then hiding them away and hoping no-one will notice is not an option.
Because they will notice and they will say nothing now, but will bring them up at election time in a blaze of publicity when it is too late to even try and explain the nuances.
Unless we plan to drop these policies altogether (which would be bad) we have no choice but to get them out there and start defending them repeatedly as soon as possible.
One of reasons the establishment parties and media can characterise us as flip-flopping when we actually have the most stable and consistent platform of all the parties (since our inception) is that sometimes the answer really is "yes and no". We're never going to be able to overcome this in the current soundbite debate. So either we dilute our principles or we find better ways of explaining ourselves.
I know conventional wisdom is that people don't look at literature for very long and you can't get away with any kind of detailed argument but I've always wondered whether the party literature topbods could produce a serious of single issue (and I really mean single issue) foci that would explain one of our nuances positions (Why mandatory sentences are bad, Why should drug possessors not go to jail, etc.) in detail. Maybe a "What We Think" series. (since no one bloody knows anyway!)
I suspect this may be pie in the sky but one can dream...
Well, I think it's the only strategy we can go with. If we are to have the numerous sensible, well-thought out policies that are also controversial or easily badly spun by our opponents that we undoubtedly and rightly do have, then hiding them away and hoping no-one will notice is not an option.
Because they will notice and they will say nothing now, but will bring them up at election time in a blaze of publicity when it is too late to even try and explain the nuances.
Unless we plan to drop these policies altogether (which would be bad) we have no choice but to get them out there and start defending them repeatedly as soon as possible.
One of reasons the establishment parties and media can characterise us as flip-flopping when we actually have the most stable and consistent platform of all the parties (since our inception) is that sometimes the answer really is "yes and no". We're never going to be able to overcome this in the current soundbite debate. So either we dilute our principles or we find better ways of explaining ourselves.
I know conventional wisdom is that people don't look at literature for very long and you can't get away with any kind of detailed argument but I've always wondered whether the party literature topbods could produce a serious of single issue (and I really mean single issue) foci that would explain one of our nuances positions (Why mandatory sentences are bad, Why should drug possessors not go to jail, etc.) in detail. Maybe a "What We Think" series. (since no one bloody knows anyway!)
I suspect this may be pie in the sky but one can dream...
Thursday, 16 October 2008
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Presidential ballot papers
Well, I got the presidential ballot papers today.
Lembit has the better looking and set-out bit of A4 although his pitch seems to be "I can build on my high profile" for the benefit of the party of course but I'm not surely sure he really needs to or needs the position of president to do it.
At least he has a realistic membership target: "Achieve positive membership growth by 2010". I seem to recall Simon promising something ridiculous like doubling membership last time.
Ros's was the second best A4 although I'm not sure it was really necssary to have a contact cut-out and send back box (I want to: Sign up as a supporter, Help, Find out more about Ros, Make a donation, Receive campaign news) . Surely that's a bit late? I imagine LibDems are the kind to return their ballots pretty quickly (is there evidence either way?).
I suspect it's the experience of too many focii!
Not too much jumps out at me from the page but I suspect not being Lembit maybe sufficient.
Chandila Fernando's is an odd one. He seems to have quite diverse "Industry Experience" (I want to know more about the Indian cinema themed restaurant!). However I'm always slightly put off by candidates who do the CV thing but with the same kind of wording you use to impress employers by claiming wider experience than one may have (I'm not saying this is the case but it reads that way to me).
In the same way his degree is (Lond.) which could mean almost anything from Imperial to South Bank. Not that that matters in the slightest, it just feels wrong somehow. In fact that was the first thing that leapt out at me.
The second thing was "Atrract (sic) new talent". Oh well, we've all left a typo in and only noticed once we've printed silly amounts. I can only imagine the pit of the stomach feeling he must have felt (or do I just over-react!)
As other have pointed out, he seems to be a breath of fresh air but some of his ideas are dangerously half-cock I think. I would fight tooth and nail any hare-brained attempt to replace our Libby in some fruitless rebranding exercise!
Also, outside of the blogosphere and party apparachiks, who has actually heard of the Bones commision or if they have, read it?
Also he did a politics degree, so I don't like him! :) Way to insult the majority of the political blogosphere, I'd wager.
I shall be voting Ros 1 but haven't yet decided on further preferencing...
Lembit has the better looking and set-out bit of A4 although his pitch seems to be "I can build on my high profile" for the benefit of the party of course but I'm not surely sure he really needs to or needs the position of president to do it.
At least he has a realistic membership target: "Achieve positive membership growth by 2010". I seem to recall Simon promising something ridiculous like doubling membership last time.
Ros's was the second best A4 although I'm not sure it was really necssary to have a contact cut-out and send back box (I want to: Sign up as a supporter, Help, Find out more about Ros, Make a donation, Receive campaign news) . Surely that's a bit late? I imagine LibDems are the kind to return their ballots pretty quickly (is there evidence either way?).
I suspect it's the experience of too many focii!
Not too much jumps out at me from the page but I suspect not being Lembit maybe sufficient.
Chandila Fernando's is an odd one. He seems to have quite diverse "Industry Experience" (I want to know more about the Indian cinema themed restaurant!). However I'm always slightly put off by candidates who do the CV thing but with the same kind of wording you use to impress employers by claiming wider experience than one may have (I'm not saying this is the case but it reads that way to me).
In the same way his degree is (Lond.) which could mean almost anything from Imperial to South Bank. Not that that matters in the slightest, it just feels wrong somehow. In fact that was the first thing that leapt out at me.
The second thing was "Atrract (sic) new talent". Oh well, we've all left a typo in and only noticed once we've printed silly amounts. I can only imagine the pit of the stomach feeling he must have felt (or do I just over-react!)
As other have pointed out, he seems to be a breath of fresh air but some of his ideas are dangerously half-cock I think. I would fight tooth and nail any hare-brained attempt to replace our Libby in some fruitless rebranding exercise!
Also, outside of the blogosphere and party apparachiks, who has actually heard of the Bones commision or if they have, read it?
Also he did a politics degree, so I don't like him! :) Way to insult the majority of the political blogosphere, I'd wager.
I shall be voting Ros 1 but haven't yet decided on further preferencing...
Saturday, 11 October 2008
Troopergate: Unbridled Joy!
Is it wrong/immature to react to the conclusion of the Troopergate report with unbridled joy?
I have to say I did. When I heard the news on the 9am Radio 4 news this morning whilst lying in bed and did let out a semi-shouted "Yes!". That was in reaction to the news by the way (Mrs. L was still asleep:). And when it came round again at 10am I still listened to it with a big grin on my face.
I've found it fascinating to follow its reporting on US news sites and especially how the Republicans/Fox News are responding (by pretending it said something else really). Apparently the reason it came out so late on Friday was that the Republicans were delaying it past the deadline for the evening news bulletins. I hope it isn't forgotten or spun away by Monday.
I've found this US election the most interesting one I can remember.
I have to say I did. When I heard the news on the 9am Radio 4 news this morning whilst lying in bed and did let out a semi-shouted "Yes!". That was in reaction to the news by the way (Mrs. L was still asleep:). And when it came round again at 10am I still listened to it with a big grin on my face.
I've found it fascinating to follow its reporting on US news sites and especially how the Republicans/Fox News are responding (by pretending it said something else really). Apparently the reason it came out so late on Friday was that the Republicans were delaying it past the deadline for the evening news bulletins. I hope it isn't forgotten or spun away by Monday.
I've found this US election the most interesting one I can remember.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)