Posts filed under 'Politics'
Honest, it started as a book review, it is in no way intended to comment on any cabinet reshuffle…
Spent some pleasant time with Graeme and Shona over yesterday afternoon/evening and this morning, and discovered that one of the books in Shona’s recent acquisitions for her girls is Milly Molly Mandy.
For the uninitiated, Milly Molly Mandy is, as you can probably tell, very much a book that girls get to read at a youngish age. It fits in quite well around the Enid Blyton type stage. MMM (as I will now refer to her) lives in a little white cottage with a thatched roof, and has a series of shops at her disposal in the village. For added interest, there is a map of her village in the front of the book, to help you picture it for yourself.
I enjoyed MMM when younger, though to be honest any books that came within range were devoured from c. 6 onwards. Looking back it it, I realised I had to do a bit of explaining for Janna, my story time listener. Some of it is long changed: one of her friend wants to be a nurse, ‘with a hat with long white streamers’. Some of it seems up to date again: MMM helps her friend’s dad repaint a garden roller and a water butt. It won’t be so long until thatched roofs are back in, surely?
But after all, MMM speaks to all kids who want routine plus a little excitement. MMM has a group of friends, and they all talk about what they want to do when they’re grown up. MMM gets to mind one of the shops for an hour, and decides that, although she’d like to work in that kind of shop in the future, an hour is enough for now.
No one is talking of three day weeks just yet, as their economic strategy for surviving the recession, but perhaps an hour of work here or there, that you could happily stop when the owner came back, does sound attractive…
In these dark days, I do commend to you another childhood pastime which does well in adulthood: making up sequel titles with a given phrase. Perhaps it’s time to write “Milly Molly Mandy goes to Hollywood”, that long undiscovered follow up…
October 11th, 2008
…but they killed the leading lady. Being a bit taken aback by the sudden departure of Marion as a character from “Robin Hood”, with the series recently finished on the BBC, thought I’d see what others’ reactions were.
Talk about an outpouring. I didn’t sit and count how many comments(though it was a fairly interesting indication of how many different countries now view the programme, one way or another), but there must have been nigh on a hundred responses on a BBC page.
It did make me think back to my own reaction when another leading lady, Trinity, was killed in the final part of the Matrix trilogy. I may not have been ‘in shock’ and all the other descriptions when Marion was killed, but I do remember the shock seeing it happen the first time, as it were. (After all, sword through the middle vs large metal pole through the middle - not a lot to choose between them as a way to go.)
Here’s one way in which the internet is interesting - if you do feel upset, cheated (or equally elated, amazed) about the outcome of something you’ve been following, you can quickly find some more people who share the same opinion, or round up a few if you’re an early commenter.
It’s worth noting that only about 10% of those who commented upheld the way “Robin Hood” was handled - the rest laid in with some pretty strong adjectives describing the distress viewers had. Maybe it’s more so because ”Robin Hood” was seen as a family show. (I do struggle with that a bit, given the amount of death and bloodshed shown in it week by week.)
But clearly, Marion’s character had impressed on the feisty heroine front. It seems we have a need for such roles on TV. One person commented on comparisons between Billie Piper’s character of Rose (in “Doctor Who”), and that of Marion, as an indication of how strong female roles are really popular with viewers, but get stopped after a while.
I wondered why this has such a shock factor. Is it because we are unused to seeing female characters die in film or TV? Is it because we don’t normally see female characters who are also fighters? It’s worth bearing in mind that it’s only relatively recently that women in the British army have been allowed into front line positions, and some are still unhappy with this decision, even though there are women who are prepared to serve there.
Are we upset at the death of a woman, or the death of the love interest? Or are we just shocked at story conventions being turned upside down? I remember a similar reaction at the downbeat ending of “Twin Peaks”, nearly two decades before. It seems to be worse where a couple show signs of getting together in a drama, and then the opportunity is taken away from them.
This is a long post already; I’ll bring things to a close. But I think it’s interesting to see what people demand of their entertainment, and why, in relation to ‘real life’. Deputy article following soon.
January 8th, 2008
It’s not often that I manage a politics reference, but here’s my chance.
Ten years…well yes, it’s about Tony Blair, but also about me and Dan.
We chalked up ten years together at the end of April. Admittedly, we then spent a lot of the first year apart, while I was teaching in Poland, and Dan was finishing his degree, plus a few work trips on either side since then, but it’s still a decade of thee-n-me, which is quite something.
So yes, our relationship has been played out with Blair in the background, and all the New Labour developments. We predate Tony’s election result by a few days, but thankfully we aren’t now off to do speaking tours around the world. (Occasionally, it feels slightly like that on the odd work trip…)
Given that we’re in the generation which had never really known anything but Tory governments until New Labour came to power, it’s quite something to see the end of another long-running campaign. In addition, with the swing towards SNP in the recent Scottish elections, the political background is set to change quite a bit more.
Here’s to another decade in power meanwhile…(sorry love. Both of us. Really. Of course.)
May 14th, 2007
Here’s how to re-invent a tired old corporate identity.
March 29th, 2007
The second area Gordon could have worked some tax wonders was with the environment.
It’s easy to say that the polluter should pay - though does this really work? We all think that multinationals like BP, Shell, etc., should pay more if they pump nasties into the biosphere, but what about us? If you take the principle to the logical conclusion, we should pay more tax for the amount of rubbish we produce and pay more tax on the fuel that we use.
I wonder whether consumers are motivated more by ease and pleasure than by saving money. We could all save a lot of money by not going on nice holidays to somewhere warm and most of the people I know who drive could save lots by driving smaller cars - but the thing is - we don’t.
2. Reduce tax for good behaviour - 1p/£1 for each category
If we were to be encouraged to do good rather than punished for being bad, I wonder whether we’d do better. We could get tax breaks for doing good stuff. Perhaps a penny off income tax if you use public transport, another penny off if you reach recycling targets and a penny off if you switch to alternative energy use.
Companies could be encouraged by doing the same - less corporation tax if they behave well - rather than considering it as an extra cost. By giving a carrot rather than a stick, consumers and companies would have a reason to do good.
If you meet all the good criteria you have more money to spend to boost the economy (potentially inflationary) or to put into pensions / investments / savings. You will probably have spent some money to achieve some of the criteria needed to get the reductions in tax.
It might be that the reductions in your own pollution comes off your council tax rather than your income tax, but then that’s a topic for the next post . . . how to get your tax from you.
March 25th, 2007
It’s that time again - post budget and pre-end of tax year - we’re being bombarded with messages about saving in ISAs. It’s a good thing that it’s there to do tax free, etc., but it suddenly feels like a lot of pressure. In the past I’ve never really paid much attention to it, but this year we could indeed lump all our savings in that direction.
I’ve been thinking of putting money into some funds that give a high return, but couldn’t be described as being environmentally friendly (natural resources) or ethically sound (China), but would produce a good return where I could then decide what I do with the profits.
Up until recently it was a bit of an academic point, but with the approach of the ISA tax-free deadline I have to decide what to do. I’m probably going to wimp out and keep the money in the bank - staying liquid and giving myself the option to buy a car instead. It’s all about long-term gain vs short-term benefit and for the moment I don’t feel like being particularly high-minded.
Brown’s budget this week didn’t set a particularly good example. He’s made the tax system more complicated than ever and made it easy for his political enemies to make accusations that it’s only about winning votes. Unfortunately it was a lost opportunity to win more people around - the people who are likely to switch from Labour to the Conservatives when he’s Prime Minister.
So, what would I have done if I was Chancellor? Well, that’s a question I’ll answer over the next few days. I’m going to start off by suggesting that we have a flat rate of tax - a particularly easy one to suggest, but one that I think would kick start our economy in a massive way, so:
1. Flat rate of tax
20% for everything - all income tax, corporate tax and inheritance tax
Let the government play with the allowance levels, not the rates. That makes it easier for all of us.
More to come . . .
March 24th, 2007
Really pleased that old Euro-sceptic right-wingers are leaving the Conservative Party. It will ensure that Cameron’s drift to the centre of British Politics is a one way journey. There can be no turning back.
Don’t worry reader, I’m not an arch-Tory, but I do think that the UK really needs some engaging public debate on policy and with people thinking that the Conservatives might drift back to Thatcherism, we’ve got another eight years of New Labour to look forward to.
Every government needs a credible opposition. I’m looking forward to a New New Labour and a Conservative Party that is re-engaging with the British people. Add a re-invigorated Liberal Democratic Party and we can see some proper movement when Gordon takes over.
January 20th, 2007
Been reading about plans by the UK government to pool data into one big database so that different government departments can have access to the same data. Am I the only one around that thinks this is a great idea?! What a brilliant thing to have all the data in the same place, making sure there’s not duplication of work and data.
Inigo are working with a government body that shares its reports with the bodies that it writes reports about. We’ll be implementing an RSS news feed (to be confirmed) between the body and local authorities to share those reports.
Under the Freedom of Information Act and the ability for citizens to be able to see data held about them, it would be a one stop shop - benefits, tax, medical, legal, etc. Why not put all the data in the hands of those who govern us? They can then make responsible, sensible decisions. After all, the info that they have is currently not much good for joined up government if the information isn’t joined up.
The ideal scenario (if it all works) is that as soon as all of the info is together in one big database, the Inland Revenue will see what I’m earning and recommend ways to invest; for libraries to see that I’ve got a planning application lodged with my local authority and recommend books I might like to read about it and for my doctor to let me know that next time I go to Africa, I might like to have a particular set of jabs.
When I move I only need to tell one organisation and if the passport authority see that I’ve left the country, another government department doesn’t try to call me at home. It’s all very obvious. It’s all very sane. Little brothers are already watching, we might as well just have one really big brother who knows us really well than dozens who hardly know us at all.
Think of it as a citizenship clubcard. No points, just better services and an easier life. Those with nothing to hide need have nothing to fear. Those who have something to hide better get used to some smart government. The politicians aren’t that smart - but that doesn’t mean that the machinery of the state needs to be dumb.
January 19th, 2007
Poor Russia. Putin’s Russia seems to be on the edge. Whether the poisoning of Litvinenko was to do with the FSB [Russia’s secret services - the wearer of the KGB’s mantle] or some oligarch inspired security force, it’s reminiscent of a bygone age.
Chechnya and the oil fields of Central Asia feel like a million miles away, but the intrigue and murder happening on our own soil feels like we’ve been violated. Why are we so surprised? Why are we thrilled by the chase and death in the Bourne Supremacy, but when it turns up in a familiar environment do we throw up our hands and wonder where the world is going?
London has always been an international city. While it has benefited from the wealth of the Russian oligarchs and become the playground of the oil-billionaires, it is now also a battle ground seeing the settling of scores and the death of enemies.
We are seeing a restructuring of the world around us - an unfortunate globalisation of assinations alongside our cola, computers and other comforts. We shouldn’t be surprised if more of this is to happen. As London becomes richer and a place where the world does business instead of New York, it is going to see more danger.
December 1st, 2006