The Boundary Committee has just published its advice that Exeter City Council should be abolished in favour of a single council for Devon. Not good news.
It's now up to John Denham, the Labour MP for Southampton Itchen, who is currently Secretary of State for "Communities and Local Government" to make a final decision on what happens to Exeter's city democracy.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Some tweets
For no other reason than an attempt to discern patterns in my interests, here are some selected tweets from the last week or so...
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using Scottish General Election vote%? Labour(40%):1 on panel,SNP(18%):1,LibDem(23%):0,Tory(16%):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using UK seat%? Labour(55%):1 on panel,SNP(1%):1,LibDem(10%):0,Tory(31%):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using UK vote%? Labour(35%):1 on panel,SNP(2%):1,LibDem(22%):0,Tory(32%):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using MSPs? Labour(46 MSPs):1 on panel,SNP(47 MSPs):1,LibDem(16 MSPs):0,Tory(16 MPs):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using MP numbers? Labour(39 MPs):1 on panel,SNP(7 MPs):1,LibDem(12 MPs):0,Tory(1 MP):2 [RT'd]
@bbcquestiontime Would appreciate some help in answering the questions posed in the last few tweets.
RT @Forgotten_Man: I wonder when #bbcqt and #thisweek will ask a Scientist about climate change rather than a politician. [RT'd]
hehehe RT @serafinowicz Cause of death: Autopsy
Andrew Neil, one of the most cynical news journalists in the UK, asks why there is so much cynicism around. #thisweek
Audio progs I can't listen to on public transport because I laugh out loud like a nutter: Adam&Joe, Mitchell&Webb, The Unbelievable Truth
Scary. @TimMontgomerie disbelieves #climate science; & even if true, disbelieves solutions; & even if solutions, disbelieves political will
Shocked, angry & a little confused as to why there isn't a dedicated Tiger Woods TV channel to cover the crisis 24/7 [RT'd]
How likely is hung parliament with Lab, Con, LibDem the seat ranking & Con, LibDem, Lab the vote ranking? Inspired by http://bit.ly/6JdGw6
Conclusions? Slightly obsessive on climate change. Not quite a political nerd, but a distinct danger. Needs to get out more.
CrossCountry trains need to be pumping heat into the carriages at sauna levels because...?
New blog post: Exeter has a Tory county council, a LibDem city council, a Labour MP & a Sword of Damocles http://bit.ly/4ExX08
Wha...?! Blogpost by @DuncanStott recalling that over 60% of Lib Dem MPs back NHS Homeopathy http://bit.ly/3zZ5IB
Great post by Millennium Elephant on Doctor Who and the Waters of Mars http://bit.ly/3V03cZ
Quote of the day from @sarabedford "Sometimes only schadenfreude will do!"
Oh no! I must've forgotten to vote in the elections for the EU govt, and now I don't know the new President's policies.
Just dropped a small piece of chocolate on the floor. GUTTED [my most heartfelt tweet]
News from 2011: Chief Mathematics Advisor says politicians are inumerate. Ed Balls backs him 150%
Justin Webb R4 26.06.09 "I'm useless when it comes to science and maths". Is journalism the kind of profession where that doesn't matter?
Super Mario Bros Wii getting good reviews e.g. http://bit.ly/7LeUrg But then again http://bit.ly/8wNybz Anyone played it?
Not entirely sure what #xfactor #scd #pdc really are. Fairly sure I don't need to care. [less subsequent hate-mail than I was expecting]
powerful stuff RT @HrothgirOD Why I think Bishop Spong is awesome http://j.mp/3bdn8g #atheist #athesim Only downside - one more god than me
Why are vampires, visions and fame such preoccupations of 21st century humanity?
This has been bugging me for 2 weeks. Ollie thinks he's Josh #TheThickOfIt Were the speechwriters Sam, Toby & Will not heroic enough? [sadly, no answer to this one]
Free the data RT @jamesgraham RT @libcon How to commit a global warming fraud http://bit.ly/6Jsjje [RT'd]
Save us from the dogmatists! Roy Hattersley & @iaindale say minority govt = compromise = bad legislation http://bit.ly/63AqAu [RT'd]
Is the "revelation" of a No10 Iraq cover-up actualy going to change any votes?
#elevatorpitchesforblogs Guido Fawkes "What if a troll was occasionally sent gossip?"
C4News story about Murdoch & Microsoft - I wonder if Google's current dominance depends on future of open web?
#climate prof on @channel4news comes across as slightly stumbling but unworldly & genuine. Shame media now go ad hominem against science
@HrothgirOD Perhaps our civilization's remnants will be washed up on the shores of an ice-free Antarctica...
Did your Labour MP vote against the 10:10 campaign on the orders of the Labour whips? TheyWorkForYou.com has the votes http://bit.ly/72DeH1
RT @sarabedford A Christian's take on British Humanist Association's latest campaign http://tinyurl.com/ygvj59b @PlsDontLabelMe
@campbellclaret BBC 10 o'clock news doesn't think its audience is clever enough to cope with leaders' CBI speeches
Extreme Précis: attemtping to summarise Clegg's speech to the CBI http://bit.ly/7YmiAi [RT'd]
On secret £61bn loan, Vince Cable: The Govt has treated taxpayers like children while expecting them to foot the bill http://bit.ly/4TmYSE
Guido's cod-libertarian bile factory is a new rallying point for #climate sceptics http://bit.ly/5wR1VJ
Brigstocke has crowd on his side with witty reasonableness... oh no! he's gone too far #bbcqt #fantasyreenactmentofbbcqtbeforeitsevenstarted [I thought this was my best effort this haul!]
Melanie Phillips booed by Twitter on climate change. Desperate applause in studio #bbcqt #fantasyreenactmentofbbcqtbeforeitsevenstarted [Most accurate prediction]Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using Scottish General Election vote%? Labour(40%):1 on panel,SNP(18%):1,LibDem(23%):0,Tory(16%):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using UK seat%? Labour(55%):1 on panel,SNP(1%):1,LibDem(10%):0,Tory(31%):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using UK vote%? Labour(35%):1 on panel,SNP(2%):1,LibDem(22%):0,Tory(32%):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using MSPs? Labour(46 MSPs):1 on panel,SNP(47 MSPs):1,LibDem(16 MSPs):0,Tory(16 MPs):2
Does #bbcqt decide Scottish panel using MP numbers? Labour(39 MPs):1 on panel,SNP(7 MPs):1,LibDem(12 MPs):0,Tory(1 MP):2 [RT'd]
@bbcquestiontime Would appreciate some help in answering the questions posed in the last few tweets.
RT @Forgotten_Man: I wonder when #bbcqt and #thisweek will ask a Scientist about climate change rather than a politician. [RT'd]
hehehe RT @serafinowicz Cause of death: Autopsy
Andrew Neil, one of the most cynical news journalists in the UK, asks why there is so much cynicism around. #thisweek
Audio progs I can't listen to on public transport because I laugh out loud like a nutter: Adam&Joe, Mitchell&Webb, The Unbelievable Truth
Scary. @TimMontgomerie disbelieves #climate science; & even if true, disbelieves solutions; & even if solutions, disbelieves political will
Shocked, angry & a little confused as to why there isn't a dedicated Tiger Woods TV channel to cover the crisis 24/7 [RT'd]
How likely is hung parliament with Lab, Con, LibDem the seat ranking & Con, LibDem, Lab the vote ranking? Inspired by http://bit.ly/6JdGw6
Conclusions? Slightly obsessive on climate change. Not quite a political nerd, but a distinct danger. Needs to get out more.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Extreme précis
Not, you know, précising a text that is extreme, but trying to summarise in the way one might approach extreme surfing, extreme skiing or extreme ironing. With not quite the same risks of death.
Slightly impatient with political verbiage around economics, but also baffled as to why yesterday's BBC 10 o'clock news failed to even mention the speeches by the leaders of all three main parties to the CBI, I decided to have a go at précising Nick Clegg's speech.
At 2,237 words it's not a huge speech to start with. But I always like speeches shorter if possible.
I managed to reduce his 5 main points to 5 tweets:-
That's a reduction from 13,289 characters to 545 characters (assuming people don't actually read URLs). That's a reduction of 96% in terms of characters (and of course even more in terms of subtlety and reasoning).
Could the précis go all the way to a single tweet? Possibly, but I'm fairly sure I'm not up to the challenge of doing that while keeping enough of the detail in to make the tweet worth reading. It really does become a series of slogans. On the other hand, I didn't fancy bombarding my twitter followers with 5 tweets about a speech that they'd probably not be interested in; or if they were interested in, had probably already read.
Oh well...
Slightly impatient with political verbiage around economics, but also baffled as to why yesterday's BBC 10 o'clock news failed to even mention the speeches by the leaders of all three main parties to the CBI, I decided to have a go at précising Nick Clegg's speech.
At 2,237 words it's not a huge speech to start with. But I always like speeches shorter if possible.
I managed to reduce his 5 main points to 5 tweets:-
- LibDems on banking: Get bailed-out highstreet banks lending responsibly. Tax profits at 10%. More competition & mutuals http://bit.ly/8UgQFt
- LibDems on the deficit: Labour in denial; Tories secretive. Instead, stop the spending on bad ideas http://bit.ly/8UgQFt
- LibDems on capital spending: Invest in energy infrastructure to cope with new generation technologies http://bit.ly/8UgQFt
- LibDems on promoting growth: Decentralise decision-making. Create a local/regional investment fund http://bit.ly/8UgQFt
- LibDems on tax: Needs to be simpler & fairer. Reward hard work & initiative. Penalise polluters. A tax switch, not a tax rise http://bit.ly/8UgQFt
That's a reduction from 13,289 characters to 545 characters (assuming people don't actually read URLs). That's a reduction of 96% in terms of characters (and of course even more in terms of subtlety and reasoning).
Could the précis go all the way to a single tweet? Possibly, but I'm fairly sure I'm not up to the challenge of doing that while keeping enough of the detail in to make the tweet worth reading. It really does become a series of slogans. On the other hand, I didn't fancy bombarding my twitter followers with 5 tweets about a speech that they'd probably not be interested in; or if they were interested in, had probably already read.
Oh well...
Monday, November 16, 2009
Exeter politics rather interesting
Exeter is rather an interesting place to live politically. Our county council, Devon, is Conservative; our city council is LibDem; and our MP, Ben Bradshaw, is Labour.
Yet even these facts hide further complexity. Devon County Council was LibDem until this year; on Exeter City Council there are roughly equal numbers of Labour, LibDem and Conservative councillors; and until 1997 the parliamentary seat was Conservative for much of its history.
So what's happening at the moment?
Devon County Council, which is based in Exeter, is having to make £20 million worth of cuts, including the loss of 500 jobs. Care homes look to be particularly badly affected.
In relation to Exeter City Council, we continue to wait for the long-delayed results of the Boundary Committee's review of local government in Devon. Like a Sword of Damocles hanging over us, the city's 800-year-old rights to take decisions about its own affairs could be removed at any time, without a vote by its inhabitants.
Having an MP from the governing party has not helped us with this issue, as with most other issues. Ben Bradshaw is a decent, well-liked chap, last week named Politician of the Year by Stonewall. He's often seen on his bicycle around the city, and he comes across very well both on television and in person. He claims far less in MPs' expenses than most of his colleagues; and he supported reform of the expenses system in 2008, well before the recent scandal.
But as a member of the Government since 2001, he never votes against the party line.
According to TheyWorkForYou.com, Ben has voted for student top-up fees, ID cards, the Iraq war, nuclear power, the hunting ban, 90-day detentions without charge, and reduced Parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation.
Recently, Ben has...
We live in interesting times.
Yet even these facts hide further complexity. Devon County Council was LibDem until this year; on Exeter City Council there are roughly equal numbers of Labour, LibDem and Conservative councillors; and until 1997 the parliamentary seat was Conservative for much of its history.
So what's happening at the moment?
Devon County Council, which is based in Exeter, is having to make £20 million worth of cuts, including the loss of 500 jobs. Care homes look to be particularly badly affected.
In relation to Exeter City Council, we continue to wait for the long-delayed results of the Boundary Committee's review of local government in Devon. Like a Sword of Damocles hanging over us, the city's 800-year-old rights to take decisions about its own affairs could be removed at any time, without a vote by its inhabitants.
Having an MP from the governing party has not helped us with this issue, as with most other issues. Ben Bradshaw is a decent, well-liked chap, last week named Politician of the Year by Stonewall. He's often seen on his bicycle around the city, and he comes across very well both on television and in person. He claims far less in MPs' expenses than most of his colleagues; and he supported reform of the expenses system in 2008, well before the recent scandal.
But as a member of the Government since 2001, he never votes against the party line.
According to TheyWorkForYou.com, Ben has voted for student top-up fees, ID cards, the Iraq war, nuclear power, the hunting ban, 90-day detentions without charge, and reduced Parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation.
Recently, Ben has...
- jumped on the media bandwagon that centred on misquoting Emma Thompson on racism in Exeter and the University of Exeter.
- lent credibility to the ridiculous suggestion to sell off the Met Office, at just the moment when we need the Met Office most focused on research in climate change rather than commercial shenanigans.
- supported the proposal for 10 new nuclear power stations around the country, including Hinkley Point, less than 40 miles from Exeter (as the wind blows).
- (on the plus side) pleaded with Transport Secretary over the £2 million the city council has to find to fund the Government's concessionary bus fare scheme. But we're not in the clear yet, and he makes no acknowledgment that it was his government that imposed the scheme without funding it properly.
We live in interesting times.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Why is Any Questions better than Question Time?
I'm sure this is an old, old debate. And some people might reject the premise, pointing to a greater audience for the BBC1 television programme Question Time than the BBC Radio 4 programme Any Questions. Question Time (hereafter "QT" to minimise confusion between the two programmes) also seems to me to have a greater sense of a national political theatre about it, more of a political "event": QT is often mentioned in the full range of news media, whereas Any Questions is only rarely mentioned.
But I enjoy Any Questions much more: the discussions seem to be more interesting, deeper, more reflective than QT. Perhaps my preference is not widely shared, but I've been thinking a lot recently about why Any Questions ends up more satisfying to me, and decided it was time to write some of these possibilities down.
1. The panel members
I've no idea if there's any difference at all between the kinds of people invited on QT and those invited on any Any Questions. I haven't noticed a big difference. It seems unlikely, although QT has a reputation for some "stunt" invitations, such as soap stars and other celebrities, so perhaps there's a slightly narrower background for panel members on Any Questions.
2. The number of panel members
This might seem like a trivial thing, but I'm sure it's not. I can't remember exactly when QT moved from a panel of 4 to a panel of 5, but I remember thinking at the time that this would dilute the contributions of the members, make it harder for members to build an argument and comment on others' arguments, make it harder to chair, make it harder for the audience to follow arguments and distinguish the views. All in all, it would move the dynamics away from that of a panel towards that of 5 people being asked a succession of questions. On the positive side, I was hoping for a wider range of views and space for panel members from outside the usual political circles. My current view is that these expectations - both positive and negative - have been borne out.
3. The questions
It's only recently that I've wondered how different the questions are between the two programmes. The questions for both programmes come from the audience, and are presumably selected by the producers on the basis of popularity, topicality and the likelihood of a good discussion. My perception has been in recent years that QT questions have been tended to be more superficial; more focused on personality, trivia, gossip and petty politics and less focused on the political principles underlying decisions to be made; more provocative, but in a rhetoric-provoking rather than thought-provoking way.
4. The cameras
It's possible the sense of being looked at by millions rather than just hundreds puts people on the spot. The bright lights, the challenge of controlling one's facial expressions and mannerisms at the same time as thinking about what one is saying, the certainty that any slip will be instantly taken up and used for years by newspapers, television and YouTube... Many experienced speakers have appeared to turn into startled rabbits on QT. Conversely, some panel members seem to become more hectoring than usual.
5. The chair
This is often cited by friends as the biggest reason for why Any Questions is superior. David Dimbleby on QT, they say, is alternately bland or rude, interrupting perfectly reasonable responses to put irritating and unexpected side questions or to challenge the speaker with quotes. But I'm not sure than Jonathan Dimbleby on Any Questions is all that different. Jonathan is probably slightly more considered in how he puts his side questions, and but on the whole they detract from the discussion in much the same way. To be fair, both presenters are also often effective in cutting through waffle, or in keeping the discussion on track. I don't think they do a terrible job on the while. On Any Questions, when Jonathan Dimbleby is away, Eddie Mair and the late Nick Clarke have been better. And before David Dimbleby on QT, Peter Sissons was blander, and Robin Day was slightly sparkier with more charm. But I'm not sure the chair makes as big a difference as sometimes claimed.
6. The audiences
There have been some truly terrible audiences on QT, booing or shouting endlessly, intimidating panel members. There have been a few bad ones on Any Questions, but perhaps not quite so many, and typically much more restrained. Audience contributions on Any Questions generally seem calmer, more rational. Is this because a radio programme attracts a more cerebral audience than its more glamorous counterpart on television? Or is it another example of the effect of cameras mentioned above?
Have I missed any other possibilities? Am I being fair? I've not backed up any of the assertions here with evidence, so this is all quite weak stuff. It's all perception. Has anyone carried out empirical research into differences between the discussions on these programmes?
Update 1 Nov 2009
Oh how could I forget this one...!
7. The medium
For me, neither programme seems to need 100% of my attention. I can't just sit and listen to Any Questions, or I'll get restless. Listening to it while washing up, walking or driving is perfect. And without the distractions of what the speakers look like, I'm free to focus on the arguments, the rhetorical devices, and what they're not saying.
Meanwhile, watching QT while washing up, walking or driving are not options. However, maybe sometime I should try listening to QT while engaged in these activities, to see how the experience compares with Any Questions, and whether the pictures are adding or detracting. So occupy the excess brain-power that isn't needed in watching the programme, I've taken to Twitter or a couple of the live web chats. Unfortunately I've found that formulating intelligible sentences while continuing to watch and also trying to work out what I think of what others are saying on the internet is actually slightly more than I can cope with in order to completely follow everything that is being said on the programme. And so I think this split attention is perhaps reducing rather than enhancing what I think of the programme. However, my enjoyment of watching is definitely enhanced by these chats. So, slightly perversely, I end up thinking less of the programme, but enjoying it more.
But I enjoy Any Questions much more: the discussions seem to be more interesting, deeper, more reflective than QT. Perhaps my preference is not widely shared, but I've been thinking a lot recently about why Any Questions ends up more satisfying to me, and decided it was time to write some of these possibilities down.
1. The panel members
I've no idea if there's any difference at all between the kinds of people invited on QT and those invited on any Any Questions. I haven't noticed a big difference. It seems unlikely, although QT has a reputation for some "stunt" invitations, such as soap stars and other celebrities, so perhaps there's a slightly narrower background for panel members on Any Questions.
2. The number of panel members
This might seem like a trivial thing, but I'm sure it's not. I can't remember exactly when QT moved from a panel of 4 to a panel of 5, but I remember thinking at the time that this would dilute the contributions of the members, make it harder for members to build an argument and comment on others' arguments, make it harder to chair, make it harder for the audience to follow arguments and distinguish the views. All in all, it would move the dynamics away from that of a panel towards that of 5 people being asked a succession of questions. On the positive side, I was hoping for a wider range of views and space for panel members from outside the usual political circles. My current view is that these expectations - both positive and negative - have been borne out.
3. The questions
It's only recently that I've wondered how different the questions are between the two programmes. The questions for both programmes come from the audience, and are presumably selected by the producers on the basis of popularity, topicality and the likelihood of a good discussion. My perception has been in recent years that QT questions have been tended to be more superficial; more focused on personality, trivia, gossip and petty politics and less focused on the political principles underlying decisions to be made; more provocative, but in a rhetoric-provoking rather than thought-provoking way.
4. The cameras
It's possible the sense of being looked at by millions rather than just hundreds puts people on the spot. The bright lights, the challenge of controlling one's facial expressions and mannerisms at the same time as thinking about what one is saying, the certainty that any slip will be instantly taken up and used for years by newspapers, television and YouTube... Many experienced speakers have appeared to turn into startled rabbits on QT. Conversely, some panel members seem to become more hectoring than usual.
5. The chair
This is often cited by friends as the biggest reason for why Any Questions is superior. David Dimbleby on QT, they say, is alternately bland or rude, interrupting perfectly reasonable responses to put irritating and unexpected side questions or to challenge the speaker with quotes. But I'm not sure than Jonathan Dimbleby on Any Questions is all that different. Jonathan is probably slightly more considered in how he puts his side questions, and but on the whole they detract from the discussion in much the same way. To be fair, both presenters are also often effective in cutting through waffle, or in keeping the discussion on track. I don't think they do a terrible job on the while. On Any Questions, when Jonathan Dimbleby is away, Eddie Mair and the late Nick Clarke have been better. And before David Dimbleby on QT, Peter Sissons was blander, and Robin Day was slightly sparkier with more charm. But I'm not sure the chair makes as big a difference as sometimes claimed.
6. The audiences
There have been some truly terrible audiences on QT, booing or shouting endlessly, intimidating panel members. There have been a few bad ones on Any Questions, but perhaps not quite so many, and typically much more restrained. Audience contributions on Any Questions generally seem calmer, more rational. Is this because a radio programme attracts a more cerebral audience than its more glamorous counterpart on television? Or is it another example of the effect of cameras mentioned above?
Have I missed any other possibilities? Am I being fair? I've not backed up any of the assertions here with evidence, so this is all quite weak stuff. It's all perception. Has anyone carried out empirical research into differences between the discussions on these programmes?
Update 1 Nov 2009
Oh how could I forget this one...!
7. The medium
For me, neither programme seems to need 100% of my attention. I can't just sit and listen to Any Questions, or I'll get restless. Listening to it while washing up, walking or driving is perfect. And without the distractions of what the speakers look like, I'm free to focus on the arguments, the rhetorical devices, and what they're not saying.
Meanwhile, watching QT while washing up, walking or driving are not options. However, maybe sometime I should try listening to QT while engaged in these activities, to see how the experience compares with Any Questions, and whether the pictures are adding or detracting. So occupy the excess brain-power that isn't needed in watching the programme, I've taken to Twitter or a couple of the live web chats. Unfortunately I've found that formulating intelligible sentences while continuing to watch and also trying to work out what I think of what others are saying on the internet is actually slightly more than I can cope with in order to completely follow everything that is being said on the programme. And so I think this split attention is perhaps reducing rather than enhancing what I think of the programme. However, my enjoyment of watching is definitely enhanced by these chats. So, slightly perversely, I end up thinking less of the programme, but enjoying it more.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
On not fixing a broken system
Don't campaign to clean up politics.- Don't campaign to tighten the rules on MPs' expenses.
- Don't campaign to increase openness and enhance accountability.
- Don't campaign to reform the electoral system.
Er... what?
No, really. Do you think the electorate is stupid? Voters know that parties' promises on reforming politics are typically well-intentioned but over-sold. Devious people will always find ways to cheat the system. And politicians are seen as devious people.
But we need to prevent the abuses of MPs' expenses that were discovered this year!
The only reason these abuses were discovered this year was through the leaking of the information. Illegal, of course, but no jury in the land would have convicted. It'll be great if new systems stop these abuses, but it will always be the threat of discovery that will act as the real deterrent to future abuses.
What about recall systems for MPs found guilty of breaking the rules?
Again, great idea, but the details are tricky to get right. In the meantime, an MP who refuses to go hemorrhages support from their party, increasing pressure on them to go. Obviously it's not ideal, but if you're already of the view that "they're all as bad as each other", replacing one crook with another isn't going to help.
But electoral reform... surely it's ridiculous that one party can get control over Parliament even if only a quarter of people vote for them? It's mad that in safe constituencies you could pin a blue or red rosette on a donkey and it'd still win!
Meh.
What kind of a reasoned response is that?!
An honest one. If the voters were to consider the problems with the current system hard enough, a sizeable proportion might well demand just the kind of changes that many politically interested folks support. But they don't consider these problems, because they see them as secondary to their real concerns.
Which are...?
Maybe in another blog post.
But surely the lack of engagement by the electorate in these issues stems from a failure of communication? A failure to get across to the electorate the importance of fixing a broken political system.
Meh.
Is that your catch-all answer then?
OK. You tried to communicate. And maybe you failed. Or maybe these issues really are of secondary importance to most people.
So you're saying do nothing to repair politics?
No, by all means put forward sensible proposals. In fact you need to have some proposals to counter the argument that you don't care about the abuses and that you're just the same as all the other parties. Just don't expect the voters to care too much about your actual proposals or to fall over themselves to put a tick in your box on that basis. Besides which, all the other parties will also have proposals to drone on about.
Meh
Nice try. But "meh" doesn't work as a response in that context.
Meh
OK, well done. So there it does.
Meh
Now you're over-doing it.
Sorry
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Vote to save the planet
The British General Election in 2010
Dear Voter
You lucky thing. Not so long ago, you would have had no say in who made the decisions about your country. In 2010, your vote could decide the future of the entire world.
OK. Perhaps that's putting it a little dramatically. But look at the facts. The best scientific evidence we have suggests that without massive and sustained global action on carbon emissions starting now, our world will change quickly and irreversibly for the worse.
Maybe you think there's some uncertainty about the science. Maybe you think it'd be better to wait until the evidence is clearer. Maybe you think little old Britain shouldn't act while America and China are dragging their feet. Maybe you think it's all fine and dandy being concerned for the environment when times are good, but what about jobs? Maybe you think new technologies will solve the problem. Maybe you think climate change might at worst bring Mediterranean weather to our cold damp country.
If you believe any of these things, search Google. You'll find plenty of people who will agree with you. But also take a little time to hunt down the counter arguments (e.g. the Met Office, the Royal Society, New Scientist, and the IPCC), and decide for yourself. If afterwards you still believe these things, I doubt there's anything I could say to change your mind, so goodbye, bonne chance. I hope in the end it'll turn out you were right after all.
If you're still reading, then the question is: Who should you vote for to do what's needed to fight climate change?
At election time it's easy to be fooled into thinking that you should be voting for the politicians with the best sound-bites, the best put-downs, the best haircuts. Despite all the fine words, though, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are prepared to do what's necessary to fight climate change, if that means compromising on the economy.
Why? Because they know that the economy is the most immediate issue that most voters care about. They know that saying they're against new roads and runways would be unpopular. They know that taxing carbon emissions would be unpopular with motorists, holiday-makers and consumers of gas and electricity. They know that tightening regulations on energy efficiency would increase the costs of building new homes, hospitals and schools.
Labour and Conservative politicians are going to tell you grimly and sincerely that tough measures are needed in order to sort out public debt and so build a strong economy. And they're right. But they are placing economic prosperity above the fight against climate change, because they think that's what you want.
Is that what you want? Is it?
Dear Voter
You lucky thing. Not so long ago, you would have had no say in who made the decisions about your country. In 2010, your vote could decide the future of the entire world.
OK. Perhaps that's putting it a little dramatically. But look at the facts. The best scientific evidence we have suggests that without massive and sustained global action on carbon emissions starting now, our world will change quickly and irreversibly for the worse.
Maybe you think there's some uncertainty about the science. Maybe you think it'd be better to wait until the evidence is clearer. Maybe you think little old Britain shouldn't act while America and China are dragging their feet. Maybe you think it's all fine and dandy being concerned for the environment when times are good, but what about jobs? Maybe you think new technologies will solve the problem. Maybe you think climate change might at worst bring Mediterranean weather to our cold damp country.
If you believe any of these things, search Google. You'll find plenty of people who will agree with you. But also take a little time to hunt down the counter arguments (e.g. the Met Office, the Royal Society, New Scientist, and the IPCC), and decide for yourself. If afterwards you still believe these things, I doubt there's anything I could say to change your mind, so goodbye, bonne chance. I hope in the end it'll turn out you were right after all.
If you're still reading, then the question is: Who should you vote for to do what's needed to fight climate change?
At election time it's easy to be fooled into thinking that you should be voting for the politicians with the best sound-bites, the best put-downs, the best haircuts. Despite all the fine words, though, neither Labour nor the Conservatives are prepared to do what's necessary to fight climate change, if that means compromising on the economy.
Why? Because they know that the economy is the most immediate issue that most voters care about. They know that saying they're against new roads and runways would be unpopular. They know that taxing carbon emissions would be unpopular with motorists, holiday-makers and consumers of gas and electricity. They know that tightening regulations on energy efficiency would increase the costs of building new homes, hospitals and schools.
Labour and Conservative politicians are going to tell you grimly and sincerely that tough measures are needed in order to sort out public debt and so build a strong economy. And they're right. But they are placing economic prosperity above the fight against climate change, because they think that's what you want.
Is that what you want? Is it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)