I’m taking a break from reading about the tabloid press in 1992 – because it’s deeply depressing me – to react with amusement at the latest issue Queens Park News. Yes, I am still the happy recipient of these school missives, and I have to say I do honestly think this is one of the better designed bits of communication in recent years:
Enterprise Skilz
What Saoirse would make of this I dread to think, I really do. However, it is a good question – just how far am I taking my ‘enterprise skills’ after leaving school? Let’s see now…
A ‘Can Do’ Attitude – very much so. I could get up this morning (eventually), even though my bed was comfortable and warm.
Leadership – bit of a let-down on that front today I’m afraid. But there’s still many hours of the day left to go, so I’ll endeavour to find some people to lead.
Team Work – afraid this has also been a bit lacking today: I’m starting to feel a bit of a failure actually.
Respect for Evidence – aha, yes! Now here we go – by reading and carefully making notes from so many books and articles, I think I am demonstrating the most steadfast respect.
The Ability to Plan – before I went to the library, I planned which books I would take out and where to get this from. Box ticked.
Responsibility – absolutely. After cutting my cheese sandwich in slices, I carefully placed the sharp knife back in the cupboard rather than waving it around like a demented madman.
Continue Reading
Determined to finally make some use of out my extravagant Union Society membership, I went to see Lord Levy give a speech there last night. (The BBC mention it for the fundraising angle, though The Cambridge Student were better – I’ll link to them when it comes online.) Obviously, I had only heard of Levy in relation to all the honours controversy, and he did promise to “have some fun” with the issue after talking about the Israel \ Palestine situation first. Which, after all, is rather more important. Levy makes a good speaker – with a thoughtful analysis of the problems – and also slamming the Bush administration for neglecting the issue for seven years, and Bush’s personal failure to visit.
The questions afterwards – which were pleasingly thoughtful, incidental – led to a rather exclusive opportunity: hearing Levy turn on the schmooze to role-play in trying to raise money from one of us for the Oxford debating society, which are apparently in financial problems (hah 
). And to be fair, he wasn’t Blair’s top fundraiser for nothing: I even felt an urge to rush forward with money, though I managed to suppress it. He’s good though. Charismatic and charming.
I don’t know why these events always have to attract the odd ridiculous question though. For Jack Straw, it was the guy who demanded ‘human rights for Muslims!’ without offering much of an explanation other than an angry tone of voice. For Levy, the guy who insisted that terrorism wasn’t a big issue ‘because lightning kills more people’ irritated me, for being self-evidently stupid. There’s an important point lurking inside the twisted formulation – on the potential to use terrorism to achieve other ends, but there is a point when grandstanding presentation and idiotic phrasing renders you nothing more than a fool.
Now, moving on! Salt. Ghandi Gandhi [see comments] may have marched for it, but I think even he would have recognised its limits. So what do we make of this shocking undercover picture?
Photo obtained at great personal risk
My sources suggest that this salt – McDonald’s salt, no less – has been consumed on its own, on a plate, in the private residence of a student who will not be named at the present time. But honestly, Sophie, stop eating so much salt
- Lucy came to see me for a few hours in a surprise visit!
- I discovered one of my supervisors was on Facebook, thus greatly boosting his or her collection of cool points
- Dick Cheney confused Peru with Venezuela in a speech. Clearly, it would be utterly immature for me to wish ill of Mr Cheney, so how shall I phrase this… I would be able to contain my grief if he suddenly fell off a cliff in either Peru or Venezuela
- I’ve been working on an essay about New Labour – how very modern!
- I upgraded Nucleus – and so should you! – if only to finally see ‘Red Dalek’ in the version history
- Most of the historians managed to get together for lunch, courtesy of Maryam’s admirable organisation – thanks!
I was very struck by Nick Robinson’s post on the ‘English votes for English matters’ debate, and also by Robert Kirton’s comment (#4) on the problem that faces the Labour Party in the event of English or effective English independence.
If we make two assumptions:
1) That Scottish independence is a real possibility, with the rise of the SNP and possibly a Conservative shift given that:
2) The Conservatives stand to benefit electorally from an English Parliament, under First Past the Post
then those of us who desperately want to avoid Conservative hegemony have several options, it seems to me:
1) Embrace PR, and do it as quickly as possible whilst Brown still has his eye on constitutional reform. With the progressive votes of Labour and Lib Dem MPs, the Conservatives can actually be reduced in power.
2) Try and avoid Scottish independence, or ‘English votes for English MPs’, on the basis that the issue will go away. But it seems to be popular and there’s a certain logic which is undeniable.
3) Put faith in the conversion of the Conservatives to New Labourish principles: just as New Labour followed Thatcher on economic reform, so the Tories can follow Blair and Brown on welfare. The problem here is obvious: even if this did occur in the leadership, there’s still a large core backing in the country for conservative principles.
4) Accept the situation and look elsewhere for progressive politics: at the EU level, or at a local, devolved level of cities, mayors etc. Let the conservative areas of the country follow conservative principles, and we’ll go our own way thanks. But the EU is unpopular, slow and too far removed, whilst even if local politics had a revival it would require significant power and money, and yet be unable to deal with central national and international policies.
5) Keep First Past The Post but re-align the parties – a broad coalition of the centre, and then a party of the right and a party of the left. Good luck trying to get that to happen.
6) Reject the premise – Labour can win in England by mobilising its broad base of support and winning over floating voters.
I’ve no idea what will happen, but it seems like an important question for the long-term future of the political system.
I just wanted to give a quick demonstration of the utterly facile nature of the Conservatives at the moment:
What’s gone wrong? Again if we don’t understand why Labour are failing we won’t succeed. I think it’s because the reform has been topped down. Targets imposed from above, endless re-organisation…
…we’ve got to scrap those top down targets and trust our professionals in the NHS…
…we’ve got to replace those process targets with measures of outcomes that’s what people care about…
…we will reform the police. We will cut out that paperwork, we will get rid of the performance assessments, get rid of the targets…
(Source: Cameron’s 2007 conference speech, BBC News – my emphasis)
Please ignore, for the moment, the idiocy of talking about how ‘measures of outcomes’ are completely different from targets to consider two news articles from the past week:
The government has denied a Tory charge that it has dropped targets for reducing truancy in England’s schools.
(Source: ‘Pupil absences reopen controversy’, BBC News)
The Conservatives have attacked the government over plans to “deep clean” English hospitals after ministers said it would not be centrally monitored.
(Source: ‘Hospital deep clean ‘a gimmick”, BBC News)
Which is it then Dave?
(Edit – oh, and in this article on Jack Straw: “in a speech to Cambridge University’s law faculty” – I was there! )
Linda Moffitt on Colombia: “Such a sweet memory of the four of you meeting up in Colombia!” Dec 2, 07:42
