One of my favourite days of the year as far as the media goes is here. I love April Fool's Day for all the stories that the press try and convince us are genuine. Past favourites include the spaghetti growers (obviously), the Emperor Mars Bar and one story about how the sky is gradually becoming less blue!
This year I hope not to be disappointed and all indications are there are some good ones out there. Already spotted are:
- The Guardian: Labour unleashes Gordon Brown's inner hard man
- The Metro's story about the renaming of the 1000 and 2000 guineas because of EU diktats!
I will update further as soon as I spot more, but feel free to let me know others that are out there.
P
Update #1: Wonder how many people tried the story on p. 17 of the Sun on the train this morning?!
Update #2: The Express try to convince us that the Queen took an Easyjet flight yesterday, costing us a mere £22.99, on p. 9. Also not sure about the story on p. 29 claiming Debrett's are publishing a driving etiquette guide.
Thursday, 1 April 2010
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Smoke and mirrors
Before we begin, let’s review a few facts:
1. Unite’s predecessors were instrumental in the founding of the Labour party in 1900
2. Unite represents almost 2 million people today (and other unions a further 5 million)
3. Since 2007 it has donated £11m to the Labour party, an average of £5.50 per person
4. Lord Ashcroft, one man, has donated £3,628,238.62, an average of £3,628,238.62 per person, all through his private company, Bearwood Corporate Services.
5. Trade unions are democratic organisations, dedicated to the betterment of conditions for working people. If you do not want any of your subscription to be donated to a (the Labour) party, you can opt out at any time.
The simple fact of the matter is, Unite are doing the job their members signed up for, representing their interests to the powers that be, in much the same way that the Association of British Insurers or the Law Society represent their professions to government and opposition.
And don’t we want to encourage more participation in the democratic process? With almost 7 million members, won’t trade unions play an important part in this? And if members do not agree with the direction their union is taking, they are free to try to alter it or resign their membership.
Basically, this is an attempt by the Conservatives and their allies in the press, to distract attention from their own problems with regards party financing. They are trying to present Unite’s support of Labour as an equivalent, or worse, to Lord Ashcroft’s of the Tories. The important thing to remember is, however, one man contributed to the Tories 700,000 times the average amount one Unite member did to the Labour party.
Noone wants to see the BA strikes go ahead, but all the stirring by the opposition and the supine media is merely allowing them to escape scrutiny of their own embarrassing financial arrangements.
P
1. Unite’s predecessors were instrumental in the founding of the Labour party in 1900
2. Unite represents almost 2 million people today (and other unions a further 5 million)
3. Since 2007 it has donated £11m to the Labour party, an average of £5.50 per person
4. Lord Ashcroft, one man, has donated £3,628,238.62, an average of £3,628,238.62 per person, all through his private company, Bearwood Corporate Services.
5. Trade unions are democratic organisations, dedicated to the betterment of conditions for working people. If you do not want any of your subscription to be donated to a (the Labour) party, you can opt out at any time.
The simple fact of the matter is, Unite are doing the job their members signed up for, representing their interests to the powers that be, in much the same way that the Association of British Insurers or the Law Society represent their professions to government and opposition.
And don’t we want to encourage more participation in the democratic process? With almost 7 million members, won’t trade unions play an important part in this? And if members do not agree with the direction their union is taking, they are free to try to alter it or resign their membership.
Basically, this is an attempt by the Conservatives and their allies in the press, to distract attention from their own problems with regards party financing. They are trying to present Unite’s support of Labour as an equivalent, or worse, to Lord Ashcroft’s of the Tories. The important thing to remember is, however, one man contributed to the Tories 700,000 times the average amount one Unite member did to the Labour party.
Noone wants to see the BA strikes go ahead, but all the stirring by the opposition and the supine media is merely allowing them to escape scrutiny of their own embarrassing financial arrangements.
P
Monday, 4 January 2010
Make sure we keep up with Jones
First of all, a happy new year to everyone. I hope 2010 is a prosperous one for all.
Now, the real business of this, the first blog of the new decade. As you may know from today's press, GQ magazine have decided Gordon Brown is the worst dressed man of the year. David Cameron comes in at number eight, on the best-dressed list, more on this later. (Full story here.)
Ordinarily, I would have no problem with this, apart from it being a nonsense story. In this case however, I am stimulated to speak out as there is an undeniable conflict of interest in this piece, that is not being reported on. Another instance of Mainstream Media fail?
Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ magazine, and also the author of 'Cameron on Cameron', a rather sickly, sycophantic book from the Antony Seldon-Blair school of hagiography. Jones also penned a piece in this weekend's Mail on Sunday supplement on 'Karaoke Cameron' and how he plans to 'strike the keynote for the great election battle.'
Is this not a clear conflict of interest? A magazine edited by someone who has interviewed Cameron dozen of times over the past few years, decides Brown dresses badly (which he does, no complaint from me) and Cameron dresses well (again, not an unreasonable assertion) and noone mentions the rather pertinent connection between the two? If it were in the Commons, Jones would have to declare it!
Now, the real business of this, the first blog of the new decade. As you may know from today's press, GQ magazine have decided Gordon Brown is the worst dressed man of the year. David Cameron comes in at number eight, on the best-dressed list, more on this later. (Full story here.)
Ordinarily, I would have no problem with this, apart from it being a nonsense story. In this case however, I am stimulated to speak out as there is an undeniable conflict of interest in this piece, that is not being reported on. Another instance of Mainstream Media fail?
Dylan Jones is the editor of GQ magazine, and also the author of 'Cameron on Cameron', a rather sickly, sycophantic book from the Antony Seldon-Blair school of hagiography. Jones also penned a piece in this weekend's Mail on Sunday supplement on 'Karaoke Cameron' and how he plans to 'strike the keynote for the great election battle.'
Is this not a clear conflict of interest? A magazine edited by someone who has interviewed Cameron dozen of times over the past few years, decides Brown dresses badly (which he does, no complaint from me) and Cameron dresses well (again, not an unreasonable assertion) and noone mentions the rather pertinent connection between the two? If it were in the Commons, Jones would have to declare it!
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Tax and Marriage? Do they go together like a horse and carriage?
I hadn’t thought I was going to post anything this side of Christmas now, but the story on the BBC website (here) detailing a new Conservative green paper on encouraging marriage has roused me from my stupor!
My first question is this: is this not the kind of government interference usually eschewed by those of a Conservative bent? Government has no business compiling huge databases, should not interfere in the markets and definitely ought to steer clear of child-raising, they usually cry. So why do they care what my or anyone else’s domestic arrangements are, and why are they planning on offering a tax break to encourage marriage?
The answer is obvious; children raised in stable households turn out as better human beings. This is very difficult to argue with and frankly, I am not going to, as I happen to agree with it. What I don’t agree with is the assertion that you have to be married to provide a stable environment for kids. And I certainly don’t agree that people should be incentivised to remain married, when sometimes the best for all parties is divorce!
Numerous reports have shown stability is vital to a child’s development but a recent report from Cornell University showed that one group of kids performed worse than those from ‘broken, unstable homes.’ This group consisted of children from families who had remained together for the monetary benefits, but probably would have been served by separating.
The Tory proposals lead onto to further, obvious questions; what about children raised by same-sex couples? Will they get the tax break? And what about widows and widowers? They are not single out of choice, nor are they any less ‘stable’ environments just for their misfortune.
It is not government’s job to encourage marriage or any other domestic arrangement. A stable environment for children can be provided for in any number of ways, it is just a question of finding the right option for the individuals in question. No matter what David Cameron might say, these proposals do create a system whereby some family set-ups are deemed second-class. For once, I agree with Ed Balls!
P
My first question is this: is this not the kind of government interference usually eschewed by those of a Conservative bent? Government has no business compiling huge databases, should not interfere in the markets and definitely ought to steer clear of child-raising, they usually cry. So why do they care what my or anyone else’s domestic arrangements are, and why are they planning on offering a tax break to encourage marriage?
The answer is obvious; children raised in stable households turn out as better human beings. This is very difficult to argue with and frankly, I am not going to, as I happen to agree with it. What I don’t agree with is the assertion that you have to be married to provide a stable environment for kids. And I certainly don’t agree that people should be incentivised to remain married, when sometimes the best for all parties is divorce!
Numerous reports have shown stability is vital to a child’s development but a recent report from Cornell University showed that one group of kids performed worse than those from ‘broken, unstable homes.’ This group consisted of children from families who had remained together for the monetary benefits, but probably would have been served by separating.
The Tory proposals lead onto to further, obvious questions; what about children raised by same-sex couples? Will they get the tax break? And what about widows and widowers? They are not single out of choice, nor are they any less ‘stable’ environments just for their misfortune.
It is not government’s job to encourage marriage or any other domestic arrangement. A stable environment for children can be provided for in any number of ways, it is just a question of finding the right option for the individuals in question. No matter what David Cameron might say, these proposals do create a system whereby some family set-ups are deemed second-class. For once, I agree with Ed Balls!
P
Friday, 18 December 2009
Worst Crapital Disconnect
I am sure that by now most interested people are aware that this year First Group will receive a subsidy of approximately £140m from the Government (i.e. us). This is due to clauses in their franchise contracts that mean the Government (i.e. us) cover up to 80 per cent in any shortfalls in anticipated revenue. This is across all rail lines currently operated by First Group. (See here for the Guardian story.)
Now, I must at this point declare an interest. I am a regular commuter on the Thameslink line of First Capital Connect, so have been subject to the recent cancellations, delays and disruption on that line. It is therefore clear that on this topic, I might have an axe to grind.
I find it absolutely horrendous that we are still passing on government (i.e. our) money to this organisation, despite an inferior level of service and massive disruptions over the past two months. It is saying a lot that since they took over the service in early 2007, it has gotten worse. The old Thameslink franchise holder was not perfect by any means but the current lot make them look like operators par excellence.
All of this is against a background of increased fares too. My season ticket last year increased from £345.60 to £374.40, a rise of 8.3 per cent. This was against average increases (because the TOCs are allowed to aggregate the rises!) of 6 per cent. To be fair to FCC, they have said fares will either remain the same or fall in 2010 (here.)
And finally, we get to the current problems. On Thameslink, First Group have been operating on the assumption that they can rely on the goodwill of their drivers to work overtime and on their rest days to run the level of service they propose. This has recently been exposed as a sham, as drivers have refused and FCC have been forced to decimate their services.
In this instance, I do have a lot of sympathy for the drivers. Management are to blame for this, not having trained up more drivers, knowing (or at least I hope they knew) that something like this could happen, owing to current staffing levels. Perhaps they could have put some of the £51m profit they made in 2008 towards hiring and training more drivers?!
So, in short, I hope the government (i.e. us) finds some way to punish First Group for their incompetence and recoup some of the millions they (i.e. we) are chucking down their gullet. God knows we commuters, who have very little choice when it comes to how we get to work, are paying too high a price at the moment.
Now, I must at this point declare an interest. I am a regular commuter on the Thameslink line of First Capital Connect, so have been subject to the recent cancellations, delays and disruption on that line. It is therefore clear that on this topic, I might have an axe to grind.
I find it absolutely horrendous that we are still passing on government (i.e. our) money to this organisation, despite an inferior level of service and massive disruptions over the past two months. It is saying a lot that since they took over the service in early 2007, it has gotten worse. The old Thameslink franchise holder was not perfect by any means but the current lot make them look like operators par excellence.
All of this is against a background of increased fares too. My season ticket last year increased from £345.60 to £374.40, a rise of 8.3 per cent. This was against average increases (because the TOCs are allowed to aggregate the rises!) of 6 per cent. To be fair to FCC, they have said fares will either remain the same or fall in 2010 (here.)
And finally, we get to the current problems. On Thameslink, First Group have been operating on the assumption that they can rely on the goodwill of their drivers to work overtime and on their rest days to run the level of service they propose. This has recently been exposed as a sham, as drivers have refused and FCC have been forced to decimate their services.
In this instance, I do have a lot of sympathy for the drivers. Management are to blame for this, not having trained up more drivers, knowing (or at least I hope they knew) that something like this could happen, owing to current staffing levels. Perhaps they could have put some of the £51m profit they made in 2008 towards hiring and training more drivers?!
So, in short, I hope the government (i.e. us) finds some way to punish First Group for their incompetence and recoup some of the millions they (i.e. we) are chucking down their gullet. God knows we commuters, who have very little choice when it comes to how we get to work, are paying too high a price at the moment.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Trafigura up to their old tricks
So, it seems Trafigura and Carter Ruck solicitors are once again making a strong case for a law guaranteeing free speech. Apparently, trying to silence the Guardian from reporting matters of public record was not enough and now they have the BBC in their sights. A Newsnight story was deemed too inconveniently true for the wayward multinational and writs ensued, forcing Auntie to remove the offending article from their website.
Anyway, at certain other bloggers' suggestion, I present in all its glory the proscribed piece for your consumption:
Anyway, at certain other bloggers' suggestion, I present in all its glory the proscribed piece for your consumption:
The Express are idiots - here are 5 reasons why (there are more probably)
OK, by now most people would have seen yesterday's piece in the Express saying anthropogenic climate change is a myth (if someone can post a link, I would be grateful, I can't seem to access the Express website) and it is all a natural process. Whether you agree or not with this stance (and I do not as it goes), I think most people welcome debate on topics such as this; it is a contentious issue. However, the piece detailing 40 reasons why climate change is natural that appeared in the Express was, to put it mildly, rubbish, though not for the reasons you might expect:
Again, I am for vigorous debate, however the Express piece in question is ridiculous. To the casual reader, it might seem like there are 40 distinct reasons why climate change is man-made, and it still might be. However, that is not what the Express published yesterday, instead resorting to irrelevant, dated and confused reporting that does nothing to further the debate, merely muddies the water.
N.B. I have tried to write this piece without resorting to my prejudices in favour of a belief in man-made climate change, as I wanted to discuss the journalism displayed by the Express.
P
- Repetition - Several of the 'reasons' are repeated, for example one explaining how the 0.7 degrees Celsius is within normal ranges appears as numbers 7 and 16;
- Irrelevance - Quoting Peter Lilley MP as saying 'fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our government and our political class are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country.' If anyone can explain how this 'reason' makes climate change natural rather than man-made (other than by a process of wishful thinking) you are cleverer than I am;
- Further irrelevance - 'Reason' 15 says '...wind farms will do very little or nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.' This maybe true, I have heard tell that turbines take a lot of carbon to manufacture, but why this is a 'reason' for natural climate change is, again, beyond me;
- Confusion - At one point, the piece tries to argue that while the IPCC expected a 0.2 degree C rise in temperatures between 1998 and 2008, it actually experienced a rise of .7 degrees C +/- .7 degrees C. Now, forgive my maths but .7 is a bigger number than 0.2, isn't it? And even +/- .7 means that it could have risen by as much as 1.4 degrees or as little as zero degrees, so what exactly are they getting at?
- Out-of-date - apparently climate change is natural because there was a petition signed by scientists called the Heidelberg appeal, given to politicians in June 1992. Now, I am no scientist, but that seems an awfully long time ago now. Back then there were no mobile phones, no Internet, heck John Major had not even won the election that was to be held that year. Is it too much to ask that they might want to publish more up-to-date information?
Again, I am for vigorous debate, however the Express piece in question is ridiculous. To the casual reader, it might seem like there are 40 distinct reasons why climate change is man-made, and it still might be. However, that is not what the Express published yesterday, instead resorting to irrelevant, dated and confused reporting that does nothing to further the debate, merely muddies the water.
N.B. I have tried to write this piece without resorting to my prejudices in favour of a belief in man-made climate change, as I wanted to discuss the journalism displayed by the Express.
P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
