I thought that the early release of Ronnie Biggs was wrong, and also the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. In both cases, they did not serve their full sentences - yes I know most people only serve just over half but these people had not even done that. To release them on compassionate grounds sounds great, but where was their compassion when they allowed or made innocent people die?
Following on from these bad decisions, the attention has turned onto our PM and his views about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Yesterday, on his release from a forced holiday, Mr Brown stated that he found the jubilant scenes in Libya of al-Megrahi's return repulsive.
The PM was repeatedly asked whether it was right for al-Megrahi to be released, and the line repeated was that this is a decision for Scotland's parliament alone and the UK should not have a view.
What a load of bunkum. Firstly, although the legal decision was for Scotland alone its impact on UK foreign policy is profound and should have been considered. Secondly, if GB takes that view then he will not be able to express a view on other issues for which Scotland has sole responsibility. So what happens when the SNP recommends a referendum on independence? Can you imagine Gordon Brown saying that it's entirely a matter for Scotland? Not on your nellie, he'll be the first to say that it shouldn't happen.
So why does he say things which are plain wrong? If he has nothing to hide then it's simply bad politics, it would be bolder to express a view and cope with the consequences. So maybe he is just rubbish at politics.
Or is it that he has something to hide, and we would all want to know what deal had been done for GB to agree with the SNP's release policy. Or would he be exposed if he disagreed with the judgement as being duplicitous? Maybe he is frit. So much for the author of 'Courage'.
Squiffy.
Wednesday 26 August 2009
Friday 21 August 2009
What happened to A-Levels?
It's a while since I completed my A-Levels, but the one thing that has always stuck out in my mind was how tough the exams were. My A-level physics exams was the toughest of my life, even more so than degree exams. Getting an A grade in it was one of the happiest days of my life.
The year was 1991, and 18 long years have passed. Since that day, each year has shown an increase in the number of A-level A grades. Amongst the talk of increasing intelligence, do I believe that it is tenable that each year has got better? No, I do not. I don't doubt that students nowadays are working as hard as I did back then and deserve their success, but what use is having everyone achieving high grade pass rates? It certainly doesn't help Universities and Companies which are looking for a differentiating factor! That's why secondary assessment methods are needed.
I think, although I cannot be sure, that before the introduction of league tables the grades were awarded proportionally, so that the top 10% got A grades, next 20% B grades etc. Obviously this would not be easy to show improvements in education standards for a school but would show only relative changes between schools. I think league tables have skewed results and diminished the grades of GCSEs and A-Levels.
I think we should return to proportional rather than absolute grading schemes and return the A-Level as the Blue Riband of the educational establishment. We should shun any easing of the exams, and stop the 'everyone will get a grade/no one shall fail' mentality. It's such lily-livered attitudes which means that every child gets a prize when they rip off a wrapping in pass the parcel! Life is slightly tough, and should remain so.
Squiffy.
The year was 1991, and 18 long years have passed. Since that day, each year has shown an increase in the number of A-level A grades. Amongst the talk of increasing intelligence, do I believe that it is tenable that each year has got better? No, I do not. I don't doubt that students nowadays are working as hard as I did back then and deserve their success, but what use is having everyone achieving high grade pass rates? It certainly doesn't help Universities and Companies which are looking for a differentiating factor! That's why secondary assessment methods are needed.
I think, although I cannot be sure, that before the introduction of league tables the grades were awarded proportionally, so that the top 10% got A grades, next 20% B grades etc. Obviously this would not be easy to show improvements in education standards for a school but would show only relative changes between schools. I think league tables have skewed results and diminished the grades of GCSEs and A-Levels.
I think we should return to proportional rather than absolute grading schemes and return the A-Level as the Blue Riband of the educational establishment. We should shun any easing of the exams, and stop the 'everyone will get a grade/no one shall fail' mentality. It's such lily-livered attitudes which means that every child gets a prize when they rip off a wrapping in pass the parcel! Life is slightly tough, and should remain so.
Squiffy.
Monday 17 August 2009
Ferrari are being sneaky
During Michael Schumacher's short return to F1, Ferrari were trying to get a dispensation from the other teams for Schumacher to be able to test this years car, even though there is a ban on testing.
They were told that, no, they would have to adhere to the rules. But, lo, what is this? Luca Badoer, the erstwhile test driver replacement for Massa is going to be doing some demonstration runs in the F60. Not a test session, just going around the Ferrari test track with a camera. Definitely not a test session then.
Squiffy.
They were told that, no, they would have to adhere to the rules. But, lo, what is this? Luca Badoer, the erstwhile test driver replacement for Massa is going to be doing some demonstration runs in the F60. Not a test session, just going around the Ferrari test track with a camera. Definitely not a test session then.
Squiffy.
Sunday 16 August 2009
Bob Ainsworth on Sunday AM
This morning I watched Bob Ainsworth on the Andrew Marr show and was struck by his relative honesty. Unfortunately his frankness shows some of the failings of Labour's treatment of the armed forces.
Firstly, he said that he'd personally been going around the MoD to make sure that everyone was committed to the Afghan war effort and to the forces. He said that was more that needed to be done. So there are members of the MoD not committed to our forces? Really that's quite shocking!
He then said two things which exposed the problem of lack of helicopters. He said that the Merlin helicopters had been in Iraq and we could not have two supply chains running at the same time - if that is true, how could we support two wars? Then he said that we needed the Merlins in Afghanistan otherwise there would be needless deaths. The extrapolation being that they are not there now and have been in Iraq, so there have been needless deaths.
There goes another Nokia.
Squiffy.
Firstly, he said that he'd personally been going around the MoD to make sure that everyone was committed to the Afghan war effort and to the forces. He said that was more that needed to be done. So there are members of the MoD not committed to our forces? Really that's quite shocking!
He then said two things which exposed the problem of lack of helicopters. He said that the Merlin helicopters had been in Iraq and we could not have two supply chains running at the same time - if that is true, how could we support two wars? Then he said that we needed the Merlins in Afghanistan otherwise there would be needless deaths. The extrapolation being that they are not there now and have been in Iraq, so there have been needless deaths.
There goes another Nokia.
Squiffy.
Friday 14 August 2009
Let's stop talking guff about the NHS
I've just read that Andy Burnham, the Health secretary, has described Dan Hannan as unpatriotic to have a go at the NHS on American television. Whatever you say about Mr Hannan, it's not unpatriotic to have a different view on how a service should be funded. It's this kind of childish comment which is so belittling modern politics. It's the same tactic as used by Government ministers to describe anybody against unchecked immigration as racist.
Could we have a sensible debate about funding of Health? I doubt it. Since its inception in 1948, made in the aftermath of a devastating world war where everything was rationed, it has become a totem of a generous society - at least it has to us Brits. To question it in any form is to want to privatise it/abolish it/belittle the achievements of the NHS staff/introduce a two tier system. We've heard all these arguments over the last 30 years but learnt very little.
Whatever model you'd like for health provision, if you can't even discuss it without your patriotism being questioned then we really are in a sorry state (literally).
Nobody thinks that the NHS is perfect; waiting lists are too long, drugs and treatment are rationed and hospitals are getting farther away from their patients. But it is a reasonably fair system for access to health care and an easy way to pay for it.
Had we been deciding a model to use for a new health system, I doubt we would have decided upon the NHS now. As it is, it's unique in the world - no one else has copied it. As Daniel Hannan pointed out, it is the third biggest employer in the world after the Chinese army and Indian Railways. That is one helluva large employer! It also provides a large voting block (admittedly if everyone voted the same way) to whoever wants to protect it.
The sacred cow could do with some slimming (especially of administrators) and some services should be put out for private tender. We should look for ways in which the Government via the NHS can look for better ways to make the money we put in go further. If that means more private companies providing health services then so be it. I would feel perfectly relaxed if a new Tory Government made it known that it was very willing to look at new health providers who provided good value for money and good care standards.
It is probably for the best that the NHS is funded via the tax payer and provides services free at the point of use, but a period of enforced efficiency savings would not be a bad thing.
Now, let's have a grown up debate about it and stop the stupidity!
Squiffy.
Could we have a sensible debate about funding of Health? I doubt it. Since its inception in 1948, made in the aftermath of a devastating world war where everything was rationed, it has become a totem of a generous society - at least it has to us Brits. To question it in any form is to want to privatise it/abolish it/belittle the achievements of the NHS staff/introduce a two tier system. We've heard all these arguments over the last 30 years but learnt very little.
Whatever model you'd like for health provision, if you can't even discuss it without your patriotism being questioned then we really are in a sorry state (literally).
Nobody thinks that the NHS is perfect; waiting lists are too long, drugs and treatment are rationed and hospitals are getting farther away from their patients. But it is a reasonably fair system for access to health care and an easy way to pay for it.
Had we been deciding a model to use for a new health system, I doubt we would have decided upon the NHS now. As it is, it's unique in the world - no one else has copied it. As Daniel Hannan pointed out, it is the third biggest employer in the world after the Chinese army and Indian Railways. That is one helluva large employer! It also provides a large voting block (admittedly if everyone voted the same way) to whoever wants to protect it.
The sacred cow could do with some slimming (especially of administrators) and some services should be put out for private tender. We should look for ways in which the Government via the NHS can look for better ways to make the money we put in go further. If that means more private companies providing health services then so be it. I would feel perfectly relaxed if a new Tory Government made it known that it was very willing to look at new health providers who provided good value for money and good care standards.
It is probably for the best that the NHS is funded via the tax payer and provides services free at the point of use, but a period of enforced efficiency savings would not be a bad thing.
Now, let's have a grown up debate about it and stop the stupidity!
Squiffy.
Wednesday 12 August 2009
Oh, Mandy!
Lord Mandelson has provided me with an opportunity to vent my spleen today, after commenting on George Osborne's claim that the Tories are now the progressive party. So never one to miss out on the chance.
Ok Mandy, let's look at the points you made regarding the Tories.
Firstly, you mention the Tories inaction over the recession. Hello, an opposition cannot act to do anything on the economy. You lot are in charge, and apart from opposing the VAT cut which has added £12Bn to the national debt and enabled two thirds of companies not to pass the VAT cut on they have largely supported Government measures. If consumer spending has not reduced by the expected amount it is due to drastically cheaper mortgages rather than a few quid off the weekly shopping. Their £50Bn loan guarantee scheme would have helped businesses but new Labour dawdled and came out with a paltry amount which has achieved very little. Your help for mortgages was not agreed with the banks when announced, and has helped very few.
On debt, you and your leader have your heads in the sand, when you pull them out you will see the largest debt this country has ever witnessed and painful cuts will be necessary. To deny it behind woolly talk of re-prioritisation merely shows how out of touch with reality you have become.
You mention that they are being 'coy' with their policies. Well, you tend to nick them or come up with completely inaccurate and false statements about them, it's no wonder is it? You have singly failed to explain how we'll cope with the countries debt after the election - glasshouses and the throwing of stones comes to mind. I seem to remember you only having 5 specific pledges before the 97 election, you must be proud.
Let's look at your 'successes'.
On Health, yes, there have been some improvements. That's what happens when you double the spending. Have we got value for money, not particularly. When you came in you abolished the internal market, then 4 years later brought it back. Is that original reform? No. Not progressive, just throwing money at it. You cocked up the GP contracts which paid them more to do less. Productivity has reduced. And we're still waiting for the expensive NHS IT system to be delivered, only 4 years late. Have you not heard of building Agile IT development into your contracts?
On Education, you've spent a lot more. You've also fiddled a lot more. No-one believes that our GCSE, A-Level and Degree standards are the same as when you arrived. You can say that more people achieve 5 grade C GCSEs now than before, but when the most difficult question is to identify the order of traffic lights it's not surprising is it? Admittedly, the schools building programme has given us some lovely new buildings in which to downgrade our standards. Did you pay for them all? No, we'll be paying for them for the next 30 years under PFI.
Better help for the unemployed? That would be why we're now at 2.5 million of them. It's a mish-mash of schemes which don't work, the new deal was an expensive flop. You helped them to disappear of the unemployed register and claim for sickness. If the figures weren't lying they'd be nearer 6.5 million.
Better workplace rights. Yes, some progress at the expense of business competitiveness. Still it's hard to completely lose your paymaster's - the unions - influence.
Greater devolution of Government. Yes, completely true. But you did try to put your placemen into the top positions. Let's not forget though, in place of a great democracy, we now have decisions devolved to quangos and committees. None accountable, but I'd guess you'd prefer it that way.
Let's not forget either...
Economy. Inheriting a golden legacy, and leaving a basket case. You have done it again. From the things above you know that when you have no ideas you throw money at it and leave us with debts. Now we are reaping your dividend, and remember no Labour Government has left office with unemployment lower.
Civil Liberties. Complete disaster, the most authoritarian British Government in history. You should hang your heads.
Europe. Back sliding and cowardice. When is a treaty not a treaty? When you pretend it isn't and deny the country their say - on which you got elected. Let's not ever believe your Manifesto again. Not worth the paper...
Foreign Policy & Defence. War, war and war. Admittedly, some war were right like Afghanistan. But the who WMD/45 minutes has destroyed any good will we had to be upholders of the world's good intentions. On top of that, your behaviour towards the armed forces is absolutely shameful. You cannot fight two wars on a shoestring. Give them the equipment they need to do the job properly or don't even go there.
So, in summary, Mr Mandelson your party is the most 'progressive' party, and have shown it by progressively destroying all the good in this country and taking us to the brink. That is why you will be out for a generation come next year, and we won't, hopefully, have to listen to your half-truths and misinformation again.
Squiffy.
Ok Mandy, let's look at the points you made regarding the Tories.
Firstly, you mention the Tories inaction over the recession. Hello, an opposition cannot act to do anything on the economy. You lot are in charge, and apart from opposing the VAT cut which has added £12Bn to the national debt and enabled two thirds of companies not to pass the VAT cut on they have largely supported Government measures. If consumer spending has not reduced by the expected amount it is due to drastically cheaper mortgages rather than a few quid off the weekly shopping. Their £50Bn loan guarantee scheme would have helped businesses but new Labour dawdled and came out with a paltry amount which has achieved very little. Your help for mortgages was not agreed with the banks when announced, and has helped very few.
On debt, you and your leader have your heads in the sand, when you pull them out you will see the largest debt this country has ever witnessed and painful cuts will be necessary. To deny it behind woolly talk of re-prioritisation merely shows how out of touch with reality you have become.
You mention that they are being 'coy' with their policies. Well, you tend to nick them or come up with completely inaccurate and false statements about them, it's no wonder is it? You have singly failed to explain how we'll cope with the countries debt after the election - glasshouses and the throwing of stones comes to mind. I seem to remember you only having 5 specific pledges before the 97 election, you must be proud.
Let's look at your 'successes'.
On Health, yes, there have been some improvements. That's what happens when you double the spending. Have we got value for money, not particularly. When you came in you abolished the internal market, then 4 years later brought it back. Is that original reform? No. Not progressive, just throwing money at it. You cocked up the GP contracts which paid them more to do less. Productivity has reduced. And we're still waiting for the expensive NHS IT system to be delivered, only 4 years late. Have you not heard of building Agile IT development into your contracts?
On Education, you've spent a lot more. You've also fiddled a lot more. No-one believes that our GCSE, A-Level and Degree standards are the same as when you arrived. You can say that more people achieve 5 grade C GCSEs now than before, but when the most difficult question is to identify the order of traffic lights it's not surprising is it? Admittedly, the schools building programme has given us some lovely new buildings in which to downgrade our standards. Did you pay for them all? No, we'll be paying for them for the next 30 years under PFI.
Better help for the unemployed? That would be why we're now at 2.5 million of them. It's a mish-mash of schemes which don't work, the new deal was an expensive flop. You helped them to disappear of the unemployed register and claim for sickness. If the figures weren't lying they'd be nearer 6.5 million.
Better workplace rights. Yes, some progress at the expense of business competitiveness. Still it's hard to completely lose your paymaster's - the unions - influence.
Greater devolution of Government. Yes, completely true. But you did try to put your placemen into the top positions. Let's not forget though, in place of a great democracy, we now have decisions devolved to quangos and committees. None accountable, but I'd guess you'd prefer it that way.
Let's not forget either...
Economy. Inheriting a golden legacy, and leaving a basket case. You have done it again. From the things above you know that when you have no ideas you throw money at it and leave us with debts. Now we are reaping your dividend, and remember no Labour Government has left office with unemployment lower.
Civil Liberties. Complete disaster, the most authoritarian British Government in history. You should hang your heads.
Europe. Back sliding and cowardice. When is a treaty not a treaty? When you pretend it isn't and deny the country their say - on which you got elected. Let's not ever believe your Manifesto again. Not worth the paper...
Foreign Policy & Defence. War, war and war. Admittedly, some war were right like Afghanistan. But the who WMD/45 minutes has destroyed any good will we had to be upholders of the world's good intentions. On top of that, your behaviour towards the armed forces is absolutely shameful. You cannot fight two wars on a shoestring. Give them the equipment they need to do the job properly or don't even go there.
So, in summary, Mr Mandelson your party is the most 'progressive' party, and have shown it by progressively destroying all the good in this country and taking us to the brink. That is why you will be out for a generation come next year, and we won't, hopefully, have to listen to your half-truths and misinformation again.
Squiffy.
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Rail Privatisation. Good or Bad?
Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 show, The Long View, looked at the similarities between the financial plight that beset National Express when running the East Coast Mainline against the historical perspective of the troubles which blighted the Great Western Railway in late 19th Century.
It was an interesting programme with last section focusing on the general situation since rail privatisation occurred in the mid nineties. Which made me think was privatisation a good thing?
I think we can all categorically say that one thing that came out of privatisation was that the Government decided to spend more money on the railways. This wasn't anything to do with the public/private model of running a railway, but making a new organisation seem to work better than the old one. It's fair to say the railways had been severely neglected through the Eighties and early Nineties, and just the act of taking a fresh look at the system encouraged more spending.
If we take increased funding as a given then we can look at the model. Unfortunately, we will be comparing a British Rail starved of money against a privatised railway with greater money and so some comparisons are difficult to make and we will have to make an estimated guess.
Many people seem to have a rosy view of British Rail, with trains on time, no overcrowding and a great service. As someone who frequently travelled and does still on trains lets forget this bunkum. The trains were old, dirty, frequently late, the food was horrible, coffee disgusting and stations were crumbling. It did however continue to run many routes which were for the public good but not economical. It was also easy to remember many accidents, thankfully many without loss of life.
There were also several projects which we should look at. Electrification of the East Coast Main line was a success, but the story of the APT (Advanced Passenger Train) was much less so. The West Coast Main Line follows a more curved route than on the East and so to achieve greater speeds, it was deemed that a train which tilted around corners would be needed. I believe it cost £1Bn to develop the APT but with Government pressure to show a return on its investment, a demonstration run was held with journalists as guests. It was a PR disaster, many reported feeling sick. Later, the problems were solved, but the damage had been done and the project was canned. A waste of money due to political interference.
Privatisation of the system brought many problems, notably a maintenance nightmare which led to a large period of delays and speed restrictions. The private company Railtrack was found wanting in this regard and I'm glad it has gone. But after a much quieter period I think we can more accurately reflect on the upheaval.
This last year, the punctuality target of 90% has been reached - something which the old BR never achieved. Admittedly, a lot of this has been achieved by increased contingency in schedules.
The number of new trains on the network has been bewildering, and this is showing some real investment. We have bought in experience and trains from abroard where necessary. Ironically the new Virgin Pendolino trains which run on the West Coast Main Line, use the same technology as the old APT, that's no surprise as the Italian railways bought the technology off BR in the first place. I think this is a real success and not just down to Government investment, the TOC's have also contributed. As for food, coffee and stations there has definitely been a real improvement.
For some of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) there have been problems, notably GNER and National Express, both holders of the East Coast Main Line franchise because they overestimated the revenue they would get. Like those people mis-sold endowment mortgages, they relied on 6% annual growth - which is a bit optimistic in current climates! But with only 2 failures in 15 years, it's a record which many business sectors would regard as a success.
There has been a large amount of growth in customer travel, taking us to close to World War II records. Obviously this has brought overcrowding issues which need tackling. I can see some efforts to alleviate this, on Thameslink they are adding an extra 4 carriages to each train and lengthening platforms.
For accidents, there were some severely bad accidents such as the Ladbroke Grove and Paddington disasters. The Paddington crash was particularly bad showing that the old carriages are not as safe as they should have been leaving 31 dead. A new Virgin train derailing in Cumbria showed the safety standards which should be in place. Without the two west London accidents the record would not be so bad, alas safety needs to be improved.
The recently improved customer experience has shown in a spirit to re-open some old lines cut by Dr Beeching in the sixties. There have even been two new companies running new services which did not run before, the Grand Central and Wrexham and Shropshire railway companies have demonstrated the original idea behind privatisation, finding a niche and filling it.
For these reasons, I think that we now have to look on privatisation as a qualified success. There needs to be further improvements to safety, but many experiences are better than in the past. So I think it is a good thing.
Squiffy.
It was an interesting programme with last section focusing on the general situation since rail privatisation occurred in the mid nineties. Which made me think was privatisation a good thing?
I think we can all categorically say that one thing that came out of privatisation was that the Government decided to spend more money on the railways. This wasn't anything to do with the public/private model of running a railway, but making a new organisation seem to work better than the old one. It's fair to say the railways had been severely neglected through the Eighties and early Nineties, and just the act of taking a fresh look at the system encouraged more spending.
If we take increased funding as a given then we can look at the model. Unfortunately, we will be comparing a British Rail starved of money against a privatised railway with greater money and so some comparisons are difficult to make and we will have to make an estimated guess.
Many people seem to have a rosy view of British Rail, with trains on time, no overcrowding and a great service. As someone who frequently travelled and does still on trains lets forget this bunkum. The trains were old, dirty, frequently late, the food was horrible, coffee disgusting and stations were crumbling. It did however continue to run many routes which were for the public good but not economical. It was also easy to remember many accidents, thankfully many without loss of life.
There were also several projects which we should look at. Electrification of the East Coast Main line was a success, but the story of the APT (Advanced Passenger Train) was much less so. The West Coast Main Line follows a more curved route than on the East and so to achieve greater speeds, it was deemed that a train which tilted around corners would be needed. I believe it cost £1Bn to develop the APT but with Government pressure to show a return on its investment, a demonstration run was held with journalists as guests. It was a PR disaster, many reported feeling sick. Later, the problems were solved, but the damage had been done and the project was canned. A waste of money due to political interference.
Privatisation of the system brought many problems, notably a maintenance nightmare which led to a large period of delays and speed restrictions. The private company Railtrack was found wanting in this regard and I'm glad it has gone. But after a much quieter period I think we can more accurately reflect on the upheaval.
This last year, the punctuality target of 90% has been reached - something which the old BR never achieved. Admittedly, a lot of this has been achieved by increased contingency in schedules.
The number of new trains on the network has been bewildering, and this is showing some real investment. We have bought in experience and trains from abroard where necessary. Ironically the new Virgin Pendolino trains which run on the West Coast Main Line, use the same technology as the old APT, that's no surprise as the Italian railways bought the technology off BR in the first place. I think this is a real success and not just down to Government investment, the TOC's have also contributed. As for food, coffee and stations there has definitely been a real improvement.
For some of the Train Operating Companies (TOCs) there have been problems, notably GNER and National Express, both holders of the East Coast Main Line franchise because they overestimated the revenue they would get. Like those people mis-sold endowment mortgages, they relied on 6% annual growth - which is a bit optimistic in current climates! But with only 2 failures in 15 years, it's a record which many business sectors would regard as a success.
There has been a large amount of growth in customer travel, taking us to close to World War II records. Obviously this has brought overcrowding issues which need tackling. I can see some efforts to alleviate this, on Thameslink they are adding an extra 4 carriages to each train and lengthening platforms.
For accidents, there were some severely bad accidents such as the Ladbroke Grove and Paddington disasters. The Paddington crash was particularly bad showing that the old carriages are not as safe as they should have been leaving 31 dead. A new Virgin train derailing in Cumbria showed the safety standards which should be in place. Without the two west London accidents the record would not be so bad, alas safety needs to be improved.
The recently improved customer experience has shown in a spirit to re-open some old lines cut by Dr Beeching in the sixties. There have even been two new companies running new services which did not run before, the Grand Central and Wrexham and Shropshire railway companies have demonstrated the original idea behind privatisation, finding a niche and filling it.
For these reasons, I think that we now have to look on privatisation as a qualified success. There needs to be further improvements to safety, but many experiences are better than in the past. So I think it is a good thing.
Squiffy.
Monday 3 August 2009
Are we mad, or is she?
I think a bit of both. Yesterday's suggestion from Harriet Harman that Labour should always have a woman in one of the top two jobs makes you question her sanity, or maybe it makes you question your own. For one, this woman is driving me mad with the obsession on equality at all costs, she equalises good ideas with really bad ones.
It is unusual for me to agree with John Prescott, but when he says that the leaders of the Labour party should be chosen by ability you have to concur. Surely, this principle should be the same for absolutely every job going (within reason - you couldn't have a man chosen as a top female model! Or maybe you could!).
When she first entered Government in 1997 I quite liked her, I can't remember why now. But the constant nannying and lies that she is peddling (someone should tell her to stop going on about the Tory arrogance that they are going to win, in every utterance they say that the deal is not yet complete and there is no complacency) makes me want to scream whenever I see her.
Harriet Harman absolutely loves her job and would love to move up one grade. I think this is the real reason for her spouting off now. She is trying to make sure that she has a role when Gordon Brown leaves. It may play well to some of the more sanity challenged members of the Labour party but I can see her turning off a large part of her potential electorate. So why say it, she must be stark raving bonkers.
Squiffy.
It is unusual for me to agree with John Prescott, but when he says that the leaders of the Labour party should be chosen by ability you have to concur. Surely, this principle should be the same for absolutely every job going (within reason - you couldn't have a man chosen as a top female model! Or maybe you could!).
When she first entered Government in 1997 I quite liked her, I can't remember why now. But the constant nannying and lies that she is peddling (someone should tell her to stop going on about the Tory arrogance that they are going to win, in every utterance they say that the deal is not yet complete and there is no complacency) makes me want to scream whenever I see her.
Harriet Harman absolutely loves her job and would love to move up one grade. I think this is the real reason for her spouting off now. She is trying to make sure that she has a role when Gordon Brown leaves. It may play well to some of the more sanity challenged members of the Labour party but I can see her turning off a large part of her potential electorate. So why say it, she must be stark raving bonkers.
Squiffy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
