One software package that is universal, right from IT professionals, through managers, to students, is the humble spreadsheet. I use spreadsheets for income tax and VAT, for collating statistics, anything with figures – but I rarely use that facility for which they became famous, the “what if” analysis. Right now, someone at News International may well be doing some “what if” analyses. And the figures may not make comfortable reading.
How so? Well, if the numbers in Nick Davies’ Guardian article today are anything to go by, there may be as many as three thousand individuals who have had their mobile phones hacked by those operating on behalf of the News of the World and Sun. So far, very few of these have taken legal action against either paper, but even so, News International have stumped up around a million notes.
Now remember that figure, then consider the comments by former Murdoch editor Andrew Neil in this Guardian piece. Neil raises the prospect – and a chilling one for anyone in the Murdoch empire – of more of those whose mobiles have been hacked coming together to sue the NotW and Sun, in what those Stateside would call a “class action”. The costs could become truly eye-watering, and the previous attempt by News International to have all concerned keep schtum would be instantly nullified as such an action gathered pace.
This is poised to be the main event, but of course, the potential involvement of Andy Coulson will enable Labour MPs to engage in some routine mischief making. The problem for David Cameron, who was earlier “relaxed” and is now “standing by his man” is straightforward: if he blinks first, sacking Coulson, only to find out that there is nothing to implicate him, he gets it in the neck for giving in too easily. If he holds on to Coulson, and there really is a smoking gun, then he gets it for not giving in when those then benefiting from a substantial portion of hindsight say he should have done.
Meanwhile, Nick Davies is slated to appear before the House of Commons culture committee next Tuesday. Don’t even think about getting a seat. There won’t be any.
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Murdoch is Served (3)
Reading Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News, as it considers events at the Sunday Times during the editorship of Andrew Neil, there is one inescapable conclusion as to Neil’s political allegiance: it was, plainly and unequivocally, to the Tory Party. So when Neil, now anchoring the Beeb’s Daily Politics, says that Davies’ revelations in today’s Guardian are one of the “most significant media stories of modern times”, following that by telling that the News of the World had a newsroom “out of control” and could not have mounted a public interest defence of its phone hacking, that ought to tell us something.
And that something is that the Guardian story is first and foremost about the behaviour of the Murdoch empire in the UK, about the potentially thousands of individuals whose mobile phones were hacked, and about the widespread practice of “blagging” – obtaining confidential information about people under false pretences.
Hot on the heels comes a corollary of some substance: that the police knew that a number of public figures, right up to the then Deputy Prime Minister, had been the victims of phone hacking, yet somehow managed not to inform them.
And following close behind is the news that Rupe’s bods have paid out around a million quid – much of it to former Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) chief Gordon Taylor – to avoid matters ending up in court, and to cause those involved to keep schtum.
That’s one hell of a triumvirate.
But, because he was editor of the NotW at the time of the proven hacking of the Royal mobiles, Andy Coulson inevitably gets dragged into this, as of course does current Sun editor Rebekah Wade, his predecessor.
So what? Well, there are already some claims that Coulson, now Tory Party communications chief, is being targeted by Labour as an act of retaliation for Damian McBride, whose inexcusable behaviour I considered a while back. Unfortunately, none of those trying to make this assertion stick have provided any evidence to back up their claims, nor indeed supplied any credible motive. There is good reason for this: it’s total crap.
Labour has seized on the Coulson angle, but the story, as I’ve already shown, is about Murdoch and his empire. There may be discomfort to come for David Cameron, but nothing like the fall that could await Rupe if some of the victims of that “out of control” newsroom decided to join forces and go looking for him.
How so? I’ll consider that next.
And that something is that the Guardian story is first and foremost about the behaviour of the Murdoch empire in the UK, about the potentially thousands of individuals whose mobile phones were hacked, and about the widespread practice of “blagging” – obtaining confidential information about people under false pretences.
Hot on the heels comes a corollary of some substance: that the police knew that a number of public figures, right up to the then Deputy Prime Minister, had been the victims of phone hacking, yet somehow managed not to inform them.
And following close behind is the news that Rupe’s bods have paid out around a million quid – much of it to former Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) chief Gordon Taylor – to avoid matters ending up in court, and to cause those involved to keep schtum.
That’s one hell of a triumvirate.
But, because he was editor of the NotW at the time of the proven hacking of the Royal mobiles, Andy Coulson inevitably gets dragged into this, as of course does current Sun editor Rebekah Wade, his predecessor.
So what? Well, there are already some claims that Coulson, now Tory Party communications chief, is being targeted by Labour as an act of retaliation for Damian McBride, whose inexcusable behaviour I considered a while back. Unfortunately, none of those trying to make this assertion stick have provided any evidence to back up their claims, nor indeed supplied any credible motive. There is good reason for this: it’s total crap.
Labour has seized on the Coulson angle, but the story, as I’ve already shown, is about Murdoch and his empire. There may be discomfort to come for David Cameron, but nothing like the fall that could await Rupe if some of the victims of that “out of control” newsroom decided to join forces and go looking for him.
How so? I’ll consider that next.
Murdoch is Served (2)
So Young Dave is relaxed about the whole business. Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?
Relaxed was not how the Tories were in the dog days of “Shagger” Major’s leadership, after several of their MPs were fingered by the Guardian and shown in a less than positive light. Jonathan Aitken, Tim Smith, and most enjoyably for those of us in the North West, Neil Hamilton, all suffered an unwelcome end to their political careers.
Aitken’s was the most spectacular fall from grace, when his mission to “wield the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play” was ended after he was shown to be prepared to get one of his children to lie on his behalf. Aitken had been involved with the Saudis. Smith and Hamilton had made a yet more dubious call, to do business with Mohammed “you can call me Al” Fayed.
Tim Smith had, memorably, won an improbable by-election victory for the Tories in Ashfield, back in 1977. He couldn’t hold on to the seat in the following General Election, but was well enough regarded to be selected to fight another by-election, this time in the safe seat of Beaconsfield, in 1982. His Labour opponent, tipped at the time for great things by party leader Michael Foot, was a smart young man called Tony Blair.
Smith could have stayed an MP as long as he desired: unfortunately, he was fingered for taking cash to ask questions in parliament on behalf of the deeply unpleasant Fayed. The Guardian dubbed him “The Dishonourable Member”: Smith resigned as an MP, and left politics. It would be different with Hamilton.
Mostyn Neil Hamilton came from the right of the Tory tradition. Selected to fight the Tatton constituency in 1983, he was married to the formidable Christine just a few days before the poll. Except in the House of Commons, she was always at his side. But Hamilton also got fingered for taking Fayed’s cash. The Guardian’s front page, appearing during the 1997 General Election campaign (when he lost Tatton to Martin Bell) showed an unflattering photo, and above it, in large and bold letters, “A Liar and a Cheat”.
Yes, the Guardian has previous with the Tories. But that doesn’t mean that it goes in to bat for Labour: if that were the case, Young Dave would not have got his recent coverage. But that thought is starting to blind some to the seriousness of what is being unearthed in Nick Davies’ probing of the Murdoch empire.
I’ll look at that next.
Relaxed was not how the Tories were in the dog days of “Shagger” Major’s leadership, after several of their MPs were fingered by the Guardian and shown in a less than positive light. Jonathan Aitken, Tim Smith, and most enjoyably for those of us in the North West, Neil Hamilton, all suffered an unwelcome end to their political careers.
Aitken’s was the most spectacular fall from grace, when his mission to “wield the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play” was ended after he was shown to be prepared to get one of his children to lie on his behalf. Aitken had been involved with the Saudis. Smith and Hamilton had made a yet more dubious call, to do business with Mohammed “you can call me Al” Fayed.
Tim Smith had, memorably, won an improbable by-election victory for the Tories in Ashfield, back in 1977. He couldn’t hold on to the seat in the following General Election, but was well enough regarded to be selected to fight another by-election, this time in the safe seat of Beaconsfield, in 1982. His Labour opponent, tipped at the time for great things by party leader Michael Foot, was a smart young man called Tony Blair.
Smith could have stayed an MP as long as he desired: unfortunately, he was fingered for taking cash to ask questions in parliament on behalf of the deeply unpleasant Fayed. The Guardian dubbed him “The Dishonourable Member”: Smith resigned as an MP, and left politics. It would be different with Hamilton.
Mostyn Neil Hamilton came from the right of the Tory tradition. Selected to fight the Tatton constituency in 1983, he was married to the formidable Christine just a few days before the poll. Except in the House of Commons, she was always at his side. But Hamilton also got fingered for taking Fayed’s cash. The Guardian’s front page, appearing during the 1997 General Election campaign (when he lost Tatton to Martin Bell) showed an unflattering photo, and above it, in large and bold letters, “A Liar and a Cheat”.
Yes, the Guardian has previous with the Tories. But that doesn’t mean that it goes in to bat for Labour: if that were the case, Young Dave would not have got his recent coverage. But that thought is starting to blind some to the seriousness of what is being unearthed in Nick Davies’ probing of the Murdoch empire.
I’ll look at that next.
Murdoch is Served (1)
As we move into mid July, folks start to wind down, and organise holidays. Everything gets quieter on the news front. So I’ll have less to comment on, right?
Wrong.
Just to show that the Maily Telegraph does not have a monopoly on embarrassing politicians, the deeply subversive Guardian has unearthed what looks like a large amount of illegal activity within the empire of Rupert Murdoch. It could be bad news for Rupe, and a whole lot worse for David Cameron. Because Young Dave’s communications chief, Andy Coulson, whose influence on the Tory approach I considered a while ago, may be involved.
Coulson was editor of the News of the World at the time that so-called “royal reporter” Clive Goodman took the hit for illegally hacking into the mobile phone records of some of the Royal Family. Goodman went to jail; Coulson claimed he didn’t know about it, but resigned because the acts of forthright criminality had taken place on his watch.
The defence of the Murdoch empire has always been that this was one isolated incident, that the NotW and its journalists otherwise confined themselves to, shall we say, more traditional forms of journalistic enquiry. This is the line taken by Murdoch’s right hand man in the UK, Les Hinton. The Guardian’s revelation suggests, rather, that the incidents for which Goodman served time were merely the tip of a very large iceberg. And the reporter behind the article is not known for deference towards other newspapers: step forward Nick Davies, the man behind the excellent Flat Earth News.
Davies’ efforts make occasionally startling reading. And they also suggest the implication not only of Coulson, but also the twinkle-toed yet domestically combative Rebekah Wade, editor of the NotW before Coulson, now editing the Sun, and set to become Chief Executive of News International later this year.
So Rupe may find his papers in the crosshairs. And for one political party, the thought of having the Guardian on their case will summon bad, bad memories: the Tories are that party, and I’ll look at their prospects next.
Wrong.
Just to show that the Maily Telegraph does not have a monopoly on embarrassing politicians, the deeply subversive Guardian has unearthed what looks like a large amount of illegal activity within the empire of Rupert Murdoch. It could be bad news for Rupe, and a whole lot worse for David Cameron. Because Young Dave’s communications chief, Andy Coulson, whose influence on the Tory approach I considered a while ago, may be involved.
Coulson was editor of the News of the World at the time that so-called “royal reporter” Clive Goodman took the hit for illegally hacking into the mobile phone records of some of the Royal Family. Goodman went to jail; Coulson claimed he didn’t know about it, but resigned because the acts of forthright criminality had taken place on his watch.
The defence of the Murdoch empire has always been that this was one isolated incident, that the NotW and its journalists otherwise confined themselves to, shall we say, more traditional forms of journalistic enquiry. This is the line taken by Murdoch’s right hand man in the UK, Les Hinton. The Guardian’s revelation suggests, rather, that the incidents for which Goodman served time were merely the tip of a very large iceberg. And the reporter behind the article is not known for deference towards other newspapers: step forward Nick Davies, the man behind the excellent Flat Earth News.
Davies’ efforts make occasionally startling reading. And they also suggest the implication not only of Coulson, but also the twinkle-toed yet domestically combative Rebekah Wade, editor of the NotW before Coulson, now editing the Sun, and set to become Chief Executive of News International later this year.
So Rupe may find his papers in the crosshairs. And for one political party, the thought of having the Guardian on their case will summon bad, bad memories: the Tories are that party, and I’ll look at their prospects next.
Wednesday, 8 July 2009
Tweet With Sarah
Yes, last year’s Party Conference season is a long time in the past. But humour me – there’s a point to the brief reminiscence. Remember how Pa Broon was going to have to give the speech of his life? Right up until that point, his leadership was supposedly on a knife edge (nothing new there, then) and it was going to have to be something special.
Then, in an unexpected move, up stepped Team Broon’s secret weapon. Wife Sarah took to the stage to introduce her husband. Almost at once the conference was charmed: the leader’s speech may have been half decent, but her presence set the mood, and pulled him well clear of the hole.
Well, now the secret weapon is being deployed once more, though in a more subtle way. Sarah Brown, we are being told – and rather a lot, thanks – has taken to Twitter, and will be Tweeting from the G8, from Downing Street, in fact from wherever – and whenever.
It’s all so very unthreatening. We can find out about baking cakes, although my first culinary priority is tomorrow’s vat of curry, so I’ll pass on the baking. But seriously, this isn’t being done without a purpose. Pa Broon may have baulked at the idea of using his children as objects of propaganda (compare with the ultra cheesy first frames of WebCameron), but Sarah is savvy, she’s smart, and she knows her PR.
So what? So if Labour thinks there is any chance of their winning the next General Election, the party will be ready to throw all their weaponry into the fight. Expect to see more tweets from Sarah Brown, and more of whatever else is considered useful to the cause.
And all the way to Election day.
Then, in an unexpected move, up stepped Team Broon’s secret weapon. Wife Sarah took to the stage to introduce her husband. Almost at once the conference was charmed: the leader’s speech may have been half decent, but her presence set the mood, and pulled him well clear of the hole.
Well, now the secret weapon is being deployed once more, though in a more subtle way. Sarah Brown, we are being told – and rather a lot, thanks – has taken to Twitter, and will be Tweeting from the G8, from Downing Street, in fact from wherever – and whenever.
It’s all so very unthreatening. We can find out about baking cakes, although my first culinary priority is tomorrow’s vat of curry, so I’ll pass on the baking. But seriously, this isn’t being done without a purpose. Pa Broon may have baulked at the idea of using his children as objects of propaganda (compare with the ultra cheesy first frames of WebCameron), but Sarah is savvy, she’s smart, and she knows her PR.
So what? So if Labour thinks there is any chance of their winning the next General Election, the party will be ready to throw all their weaponry into the fight. Expect to see more tweets from Sarah Brown, and more of whatever else is considered useful to the cause.
And all the way to Election day.
Something About Auntie – 2
Those less than happy with the perceived mindset of the BBC, its approach to its audience (and their criticism), and its funding, are wont to voice some unconventional solutions, as I mentioned yesterday. But perhaps we should check out how this kind of thing is done elsewhere. How do other countries deal with public service broadcasting? Do they use the same model as the UK, with the BBC?
Looking across the English Channel, there seems to be some consistency in the approach: the use of a licence fee – as with the BBC – but with on-air advertising contributing to the budget. There is also, however, a more direct state control in some countries: the former French broadcaster ORTF was called “the Government in every Frenchman’s living room”, and the Italian Government is the major shareholder in national broadcaster RAI. And there’s the problem.
RAI is in competition with commercial broadcasters like Mediaset, which is owned by Silvio “Duce” Berlusconi, who is, er, the Italian Prime Minister. A proposed partial sell off of RAI in 2005 was shelved following suggestions that the share on offer could find its way into the hands of Mediaset. Perhaps we should be grateful that the BBC is not, despite some of the more wacky assertions of its critics, owned by the Government.
There are other models for public service broadcasting: Germany’s ZDF (the so called “Second German Television”) is also funded by a combination of licence fee and advertising, but is run as a not-for-profit company. However, the interest in ZDF is with the various Bundesländer, or federal states, of Germany. These are an example of seriously devolved Government, and in the UK our politicians talk of such things, but in reality can’t get their heads round it.
Of course, there’s an elephant in this particular room, and that beast is the purely commercial broadcaster. Or perhaps that should be beasts plural, as in addition to ITV, we now have the satellite and cable providers, which for the most part means the Murdoch owned Sky. So what if we left it to dear old Rupe?
Don’t go away – we’ll be back after this short break.
Looking across the English Channel, there seems to be some consistency in the approach: the use of a licence fee – as with the BBC – but with on-air advertising contributing to the budget. There is also, however, a more direct state control in some countries: the former French broadcaster ORTF was called “the Government in every Frenchman’s living room”, and the Italian Government is the major shareholder in national broadcaster RAI. And there’s the problem.
RAI is in competition with commercial broadcasters like Mediaset, which is owned by Silvio “Duce” Berlusconi, who is, er, the Italian Prime Minister. A proposed partial sell off of RAI in 2005 was shelved following suggestions that the share on offer could find its way into the hands of Mediaset. Perhaps we should be grateful that the BBC is not, despite some of the more wacky assertions of its critics, owned by the Government.
There are other models for public service broadcasting: Germany’s ZDF (the so called “Second German Television”) is also funded by a combination of licence fee and advertising, but is run as a not-for-profit company. However, the interest in ZDF is with the various Bundesländer, or federal states, of Germany. These are an example of seriously devolved Government, and in the UK our politicians talk of such things, but in reality can’t get their heads round it.
Of course, there’s an elephant in this particular room, and that beast is the purely commercial broadcaster. Or perhaps that should be beasts plural, as in addition to ITV, we now have the satellite and cable providers, which for the most part means the Murdoch owned Sky. So what if we left it to dear old Rupe?
Don’t go away – we’ll be back after this short break.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Eternal Flame – 2
Today, on the fourth anniversary of the London bombings, there is at last a focus for remembrance and reflection. I described some time ago a visit to the Bosque Del Recuerdo in Madrid’s Retiro Park, which remembers those who died in the bombings in and around the city’s Atocha station. Now a focus has been provided for remembering those who died in early July 2005.
The memorial to be officially unveiled today is described in the BBC’s report, which also tells that the leaders of all three major political parties will be there. They will not, however, be making speeches. This is as it should be, and reflects the opening ceremony of the memorial in Madrid.
The memorial to be officially unveiled today is described in the BBC’s report, which also tells that the leaders of all three major political parties will be there. They will not, however, be making speeches. This is as it should be, and reflects the opening ceremony of the memorial in Madrid.
Back On Track?
If there is one Government department where continuity would be a good thing, and where there is precious little of it, that department would be Transport. Ministers came and went with monotonous regularity in the Thatcher and Major years, and despite the presence of “Shagger” Prescott, there has been little stability in the Blair and Brown years either.
So the rail industry, as ever rather more closely coupled to prevailing Government policy than other transport modes, has had to make do while the revolving door spins yet again. Until, that is, the recent reshuffle, and the arrival at the DfT of Andrew Adonis.
While there has been much made of the fact that Adonis is an appointed, rather than elected, politician, he has been out and about touring the rail system to experience its strengths and weaknesses first hand. The Guardian’s Ian Jack caught up with him last weekend, and despite the imminent exit of NatEx from the East Coast franchise (as I mentioned here), he is in an optimistic mood.
And he will need to be. The rail industry faces the same resource squeeze (yes, that means less money) as any other recipient of Government funds. But there is also a need to properly modernise more of the network – meaning the spread of electrification: this has been shown to give a more than adequate return on cost benefit analysis for routes such as the Midland and Great Western main lines.
The pressure on costs may well mean making some of the hardware – layouts, signalling, and in particular trains – last longer. This is, however, familiar territory: the InterCity 125 trains introduced in the late 1970s with an intended service life of fifteen years are, suitably refurbished, still going. This is not a problem. As ever, the need is for someone to provide the direction and purpose – with perhaps a little optimism thrown in.
So no pressure, then.
So the rail industry, as ever rather more closely coupled to prevailing Government policy than other transport modes, has had to make do while the revolving door spins yet again. Until, that is, the recent reshuffle, and the arrival at the DfT of Andrew Adonis.
While there has been much made of the fact that Adonis is an appointed, rather than elected, politician, he has been out and about touring the rail system to experience its strengths and weaknesses first hand. The Guardian’s Ian Jack caught up with him last weekend, and despite the imminent exit of NatEx from the East Coast franchise (as I mentioned here), he is in an optimistic mood.
And he will need to be. The rail industry faces the same resource squeeze (yes, that means less money) as any other recipient of Government funds. But there is also a need to properly modernise more of the network – meaning the spread of electrification: this has been shown to give a more than adequate return on cost benefit analysis for routes such as the Midland and Great Western main lines.
The pressure on costs may well mean making some of the hardware – layouts, signalling, and in particular trains – last longer. This is, however, familiar territory: the InterCity 125 trains introduced in the late 1970s with an intended service life of fifteen years are, suitably refurbished, still going. This is not a problem. As ever, the need is for someone to provide the direction and purpose – with perhaps a little optimism thrown in.
So no pressure, then.
Something About Auntie - 1
Into a quiet room a discussion grenade is hurled, and the room is quiet no more: that grenade is labelled BBC. Monopoly, bias, sniffy arrogance: all these allegations will be deployed. Yet more radical will be the solutions urged: breaking up, selling off, political purging and more will be coldly advanced by otherwise sane beings. This is an organisation about which some find it difficult – impossible, even – to make rational judgment. Why so?
The British Broadcasting Corporation, as it has been called since getting its Royal Charter in 1927, is funded primarily from the Licence Fee, which in plain terms means a payment of over 140 notes a year from every household with a television receiver. So we’re all paying for it. By law, it must eschew political association or bias, and there must be a clear separation of news and comment (a concept that most newspapers in the UK find increasingly difficult to grasp). As no two licence payers have exactly concurrent political viewpoints, it is not hard to find occasions where BBC reporting diverges from what the public would like it to say (something I touched upon some time ago). Thus the accusations of bias start to fly.
Politicians on the right accuse the BBC of left wing bias; those on the left counter with assertions of rightward drift. As I concluded previously, the BBC is on to a hiding to nothing as soon as it fails to deliver the style of reportage, content and judgment that its critics want. So a failure to promote a particular story (there is invariably competition for prominence on the news agenda), coupled with an inconvenient habit of putting more than one point of view, topped off with a lack of screaming condemnation, is sufficient for any interest group to feel slighted, and the victim of bias – which is invariably put down to an opposite political viewpoint. Therefore if the Tory Party doesn’t get a forthright denouncement of Pa Broon (or Corporal Clegg), the BBC is held to be a nest of leftist subversion.
Certainly in its past, the BBC has been directly involved in politics: the use of the Corporation, on the watch of John Reith (a man of dubious sexuality) to further the cause of Stanley Baldwin ( a Prime Minister of dubious motivation) during the 1936 Abdication Crisis is not in dispute. But in the modern era, the Beeb has been careful to steer a middle course, thus having Denis Thatcher registering his displeasure over “pinkos”, while later Alastair Campbell registered his displeasure over the unwise reliance on Andrew Gilligan. The object of their annoyance cannot have been two different organisations.
And, if the status quo is less than satisfactory, there would have to be something to take its place. What might that be? I’ll return to this one very soon.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, as it has been called since getting its Royal Charter in 1927, is funded primarily from the Licence Fee, which in plain terms means a payment of over 140 notes a year from every household with a television receiver. So we’re all paying for it. By law, it must eschew political association or bias, and there must be a clear separation of news and comment (a concept that most newspapers in the UK find increasingly difficult to grasp). As no two licence payers have exactly concurrent political viewpoints, it is not hard to find occasions where BBC reporting diverges from what the public would like it to say (something I touched upon some time ago). Thus the accusations of bias start to fly.
Politicians on the right accuse the BBC of left wing bias; those on the left counter with assertions of rightward drift. As I concluded previously, the BBC is on to a hiding to nothing as soon as it fails to deliver the style of reportage, content and judgment that its critics want. So a failure to promote a particular story (there is invariably competition for prominence on the news agenda), coupled with an inconvenient habit of putting more than one point of view, topped off with a lack of screaming condemnation, is sufficient for any interest group to feel slighted, and the victim of bias – which is invariably put down to an opposite political viewpoint. Therefore if the Tory Party doesn’t get a forthright denouncement of Pa Broon (or Corporal Clegg), the BBC is held to be a nest of leftist subversion.
Certainly in its past, the BBC has been directly involved in politics: the use of the Corporation, on the watch of John Reith (a man of dubious sexuality) to further the cause of Stanley Baldwin ( a Prime Minister of dubious motivation) during the 1936 Abdication Crisis is not in dispute. But in the modern era, the Beeb has been careful to steer a middle course, thus having Denis Thatcher registering his displeasure over “pinkos”, while later Alastair Campbell registered his displeasure over the unwise reliance on Andrew Gilligan. The object of their annoyance cannot have been two different organisations.
And, if the status quo is less than satisfactory, there would have to be something to take its place. What might that be? I’ll return to this one very soon.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Partners for the Quango
Another day, another battleground opened up: today, as the deeply subversive BBC has reported, Young Dave’s latest target is the Quasi-Autonomous National Government Organisation, or quango. He’s proposing to reduce their number, the inference being that this will save money. Unsurprisingly, Labour have moved to rubbish this particular Tory idea by claiming that Dave is actually going to increase the number of quangos. Is it a story, or more politicking?
Quangos, not surprisingly, have previous: they were well established sufficiently to make good material for Yes, Minister many years ago. A prime example is Ofcom, the media watchdog. Dave says that Ofcom is not just regulating, but making policy, which is not what an unelected body should be doing. Noises from Ofcom suggest that they merely report to the Government, and policy is made there.
Another soft target is provided when the numbers are totted up: quangos spend tens of billions of pounds every year. However, this is not, as some would suggest, the cost of running quangos, but merely the sum that passes through their hands: the money would be spent regardless of the ideological purity of the body spending it. But this doesn’t put Dave off: he’s also hot on the heels of the heads of many quangos, over their pay levels.
So are the Tories proposing pay cuts for those in Quangoland? Ah well. On this, Dave isn’t quite so forthright. But he does want to make quangos “more accountable”. If he’s meaning that ministers will no longer be able to play “blame the quango”, as the Beeb’s Nick Robinson has touched on in his blog this morning, I’m with him all the way.
But, and as ever, it’s a big but, we’ve been here before. Pa Broon claimed to have quangos in his crosshairs in the days when he was in opposition. For the Tories, “Tarzan” Heseltine appeared similarly minded. It didn’t happen: if it had, we wouldn’t be where we are today. And, as with the EU, quangos are easy to scapegoat: it would be more than disappointing if this particular Cameron initiative were just another product of the Coulson claptrap machine, and that “blame the quango” was still being practised, but with the veneer of “accountability”.
Call me sceptical, but I’m not buying Dave’s sandwich until he shows me the filling.
Quangos, not surprisingly, have previous: they were well established sufficiently to make good material for Yes, Minister many years ago. A prime example is Ofcom, the media watchdog. Dave says that Ofcom is not just regulating, but making policy, which is not what an unelected body should be doing. Noises from Ofcom suggest that they merely report to the Government, and policy is made there.
Another soft target is provided when the numbers are totted up: quangos spend tens of billions of pounds every year. However, this is not, as some would suggest, the cost of running quangos, but merely the sum that passes through their hands: the money would be spent regardless of the ideological purity of the body spending it. But this doesn’t put Dave off: he’s also hot on the heels of the heads of many quangos, over their pay levels.
So are the Tories proposing pay cuts for those in Quangoland? Ah well. On this, Dave isn’t quite so forthright. But he does want to make quangos “more accountable”. If he’s meaning that ministers will no longer be able to play “blame the quango”, as the Beeb’s Nick Robinson has touched on in his blog this morning, I’m with him all the way.
But, and as ever, it’s a big but, we’ve been here before. Pa Broon claimed to have quangos in his crosshairs in the days when he was in opposition. For the Tories, “Tarzan” Heseltine appeared similarly minded. It didn’t happen: if it had, we wouldn’t be where we are today. And, as with the EU, quangos are easy to scapegoat: it would be more than disappointing if this particular Cameron initiative were just another product of the Coulson claptrap machine, and that “blame the quango” was still being practised, but with the veneer of “accountability”.
Call me sceptical, but I’m not buying Dave’s sandwich until he shows me the filling.
Sunday, 5 July 2009
The Pink Vote
Politicians fall over themselves to court a variety of voters: the “Swing Voter” has been a prime target for decades, as more recently have religious and ethnic groups. In the last few days, it has come clear that both Labour and Tory have been focusing on the gay vote: after all, that electorate potentially counts into the millions. It was not always thus.
At the beginning of the 60s, homosexual acts were illegal: this made radio shows like Round the Horne, with its polari speaking duo of Julian and Sandy, seem that bit more edgy (although, it must be stressed, “camp” and “gay” are not necessarily the same thing). Private Eye, after the 1964 General Election, asked on its front cover “How many Pooves are there in Wilson’s Government?”, an approach that had not changed more than a decade later, when then Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe was outed by a former partner. The idea of marketing men and pollsters targeting gays was not even on the radar.
And, for the Tories at least, that was still the de facto policy as late as 1997: in Exeter, the Tory opponent of openly gay Labour candidate Ben Bradshaw told the electorate, more or less, that they should not vote for Bradshaw solely because of his sexuality. Bradshaw won with a five figure majority: this may have brought home to the Tories that, on the issue of gays, they needed a new approach. And, another decade on, they have that new approach, with David Cameron apologising for the now infamous Section 28, and giving his blessing to colleague Alan Duncan (aka The Member for Sunbed South) when the latter entered into a Civil Partnership.
So now both Labour and Tory are overtly “gay friendly”, and are both targeting the gay vote. Into this new-found area of competition was thrown last week’s grenade, in the form of a poll suggesting that the percentage of gays intending to vote Tory was higher – although the margin was a mere 1% - than across the population as a whole. Labour have deployed Ben Bradshaw, and also Harriet Harman, to allege that the Tories are, at heart, still homophobic. Alan Duncan was typically forthright in defending his party, as the BBC has reported.
But in one country which so many still think is like the UK, because they speak English, the established right of centre party is not following the Tories’ example. On today’s Andy Marr Show, guesting on the sofa was Martina Navratilova, who knows about being a citizen of the USA and dealing with homophobia. She reminded Marr that the Republican Party is not at all gay friendly: the GOP is homophobic, and proud of it.
Maybe it’s better to have a dust-up than the stance of the Republicans.
At the beginning of the 60s, homosexual acts were illegal: this made radio shows like Round the Horne, with its polari speaking duo of Julian and Sandy, seem that bit more edgy (although, it must be stressed, “camp” and “gay” are not necessarily the same thing). Private Eye, after the 1964 General Election, asked on its front cover “How many Pooves are there in Wilson’s Government?”, an approach that had not changed more than a decade later, when then Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe was outed by a former partner. The idea of marketing men and pollsters targeting gays was not even on the radar.
And, for the Tories at least, that was still the de facto policy as late as 1997: in Exeter, the Tory opponent of openly gay Labour candidate Ben Bradshaw told the electorate, more or less, that they should not vote for Bradshaw solely because of his sexuality. Bradshaw won with a five figure majority: this may have brought home to the Tories that, on the issue of gays, they needed a new approach. And, another decade on, they have that new approach, with David Cameron apologising for the now infamous Section 28, and giving his blessing to colleague Alan Duncan (aka The Member for Sunbed South) when the latter entered into a Civil Partnership.
So now both Labour and Tory are overtly “gay friendly”, and are both targeting the gay vote. Into this new-found area of competition was thrown last week’s grenade, in the form of a poll suggesting that the percentage of gays intending to vote Tory was higher – although the margin was a mere 1% - than across the population as a whole. Labour have deployed Ben Bradshaw, and also Harriet Harman, to allege that the Tories are, at heart, still homophobic. Alan Duncan was typically forthright in defending his party, as the BBC has reported.
But in one country which so many still think is like the UK, because they speak English, the established right of centre party is not following the Tories’ example. On today’s Andy Marr Show, guesting on the sofa was Martina Navratilova, who knows about being a citizen of the USA and dealing with homophobia. She reminded Marr that the Republican Party is not at all gay friendly: the GOP is homophobic, and proud of it.
Maybe it’s better to have a dust-up than the stance of the Republicans.
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Prague Spring
Perhaps it was too late in the year to call it Spring, but Prague was a welcome sight and a welcoming city. So what’s it like as a destination? Is it true that most Brits go there in pursuit of entering a state of advanced alcoholic derangement? Is there any problem with making yourself understood? How do you get downtown from the airport, and get around? What are the hotels like?
The sights of Prague are well known: Charles Bridge, Prague Castle, Tyn Church (which overlooks Old Town Square), the Astrological Clock, St Vitus Cathedral, and of course the statue of King Wenceslas on his horse at the south east corner of the square that bears his name. There’s a “City Tour” here, and for those wanting to see a bit more of the city, some extras here.
And here’s the boring bit: in four days, I had no language problems. Everyone I needed to communicate with – in supermarkets, hotel and restaurants – spoke decent English. So yet again, good for Brits abroad, despite their shameful lack of language learning. And it was pleasantly warm – but be warned: it can be bitterly cold in winter.
Drinks? More drinks? Too many drinks? I’ve no doubt that there is an element of Brits Abroad (tm) dedicated to excess, but probably no more than in many other European cities and resorts. Have a good sit down nosh, and linger over chat and beers – that’s agreeable, and the locals tend to do it too. From my hotel on the corner of Namesti I P Pavlova (very convenient for the tram and metro), a walk down Jecna revealed plenty of eateries with staff happy to keep the Pilsener Urquell coming. It’s not expensive. Relax.
Hotels are not expensive – well, not if you can get B&B in a three star one at less than fifty notes a night. Many places have their own websites, and in any case, there are always places like roomsnet where you can book and reserve beforehand.
How to get around? This is not difficult – trust me on this one. The local public transport provider has counters in both Terminals 1 and 2 at the airport. They speak English (again!) and can sell you all the tickets you need – beforehand. You validate them as you need: a one journey ticket on the first bus or tram (or on entering the Metro ticket area), and day tickets on the first trip only. A regular bus service – number 119 – takes you from the airport to the Metro terminus at Dejvicka, and from there it’s quick and easy. Learn to love trams – they’ll take you up to the Castle, around the city, and back from evenings out. All for around three quid a day.
And don’t worry about getting that camera out and pointing it at something that just caught your eye. It’s not like the UK, you know.
The sights of Prague are well known: Charles Bridge, Prague Castle, Tyn Church (which overlooks Old Town Square), the Astrological Clock, St Vitus Cathedral, and of course the statue of King Wenceslas on his horse at the south east corner of the square that bears his name. There’s a “City Tour” here, and for those wanting to see a bit more of the city, some extras here.
And here’s the boring bit: in four days, I had no language problems. Everyone I needed to communicate with – in supermarkets, hotel and restaurants – spoke decent English. So yet again, good for Brits abroad, despite their shameful lack of language learning. And it was pleasantly warm – but be warned: it can be bitterly cold in winter.
Drinks? More drinks? Too many drinks? I’ve no doubt that there is an element of Brits Abroad (tm) dedicated to excess, but probably no more than in many other European cities and resorts. Have a good sit down nosh, and linger over chat and beers – that’s agreeable, and the locals tend to do it too. From my hotel on the corner of Namesti I P Pavlova (very convenient for the tram and metro), a walk down Jecna revealed plenty of eateries with staff happy to keep the Pilsener Urquell coming. It’s not expensive. Relax.
Hotels are not expensive – well, not if you can get B&B in a three star one at less than fifty notes a night. Many places have their own websites, and in any case, there are always places like roomsnet where you can book and reserve beforehand.
How to get around? This is not difficult – trust me on this one. The local public transport provider has counters in both Terminals 1 and 2 at the airport. They speak English (again!) and can sell you all the tickets you need – beforehand. You validate them as you need: a one journey ticket on the first bus or tram (or on entering the Metro ticket area), and day tickets on the first trip only. A regular bus service – number 119 – takes you from the airport to the Metro terminus at Dejvicka, and from there it’s quick and easy. Learn to love trams – they’ll take you up to the Castle, around the city, and back from evenings out. All for around three quid a day.
And don’t worry about getting that camera out and pointing it at something that just caught your eye. It’s not like the UK, you know.
Station – No More Sellout?
Previously, I covered the sorry story of how Crewe nearly lost its railway station, as a result of Network Rail (NR) opportunism and the inexcusable fence-sitting of the local MP (the whole of the “Station Sellout” series of posts can be read by filtering on “Crewe and Nantwich”). NR have since been forced to desist from any idea of moving the station, but updating both buildings and facilities has remained urgent.
Fortunately, some lobbying has been taking place in the meantime, aimed at getting NR – and any other interested parties – to revisit the original Crewe Gateway scheme, which would have revamped the station on its current site, together with a new concourse and car park. This has built on the work done by campaigning group CREAM. Councillor Roy Cartlidge, who did so much to get the CREAM campaign into the local media, has got Labour PPC David Williams on board, and they have lobbied Transport Minister Andrew Adonis.
And there’s the rub: yes, this looks on the face of it to be a totally Labour Party effort, but as Tory MP Edward Timpson (the man with marginally more charisma than a Burton’s dummy) either cannot, or will not, bring himself to get on board, and the Lib Dems aren’t showing any visibility on the issue (Corporal Clegg take note – you keep on like this, you’ll keep coming third in Crewe and Nantwich), there is no other major party contribution in sight.
But, and as is customary, this is a big but, the Gateway scheme is not yet on the starting blocks. The Government has confirmed that this is a “regional priority for investment”, but that is merely the start of the really hard work. A business case must now be worked up and presented, and the commitment of the new East Cheshire Council is also key. This last has a sizeable Tory majority, and hence they are of the same stripe as the local MP: as this scheme would being new jobs to the area, it might be thought that his fellow Tories would come to Timpson’s aid.
Unless, of course, they’ve concluded he’ll lose next year. Another one to watch.
Fortunately, some lobbying has been taking place in the meantime, aimed at getting NR – and any other interested parties – to revisit the original Crewe Gateway scheme, which would have revamped the station on its current site, together with a new concourse and car park. This has built on the work done by campaigning group CREAM. Councillor Roy Cartlidge, who did so much to get the CREAM campaign into the local media, has got Labour PPC David Williams on board, and they have lobbied Transport Minister Andrew Adonis.
And there’s the rub: yes, this looks on the face of it to be a totally Labour Party effort, but as Tory MP Edward Timpson (the man with marginally more charisma than a Burton’s dummy) either cannot, or will not, bring himself to get on board, and the Lib Dems aren’t showing any visibility on the issue (Corporal Clegg take note – you keep on like this, you’ll keep coming third in Crewe and Nantwich), there is no other major party contribution in sight.
But, and as is customary, this is a big but, the Gateway scheme is not yet on the starting blocks. The Government has confirmed that this is a “regional priority for investment”, but that is merely the start of the really hard work. A business case must now be worked up and presented, and the commitment of the new East Cheshire Council is also key. This last has a sizeable Tory majority, and hence they are of the same stripe as the local MP: as this scheme would being new jobs to the area, it might be thought that his fellow Tories would come to Timpson’s aid.
Unless, of course, they’ve concluded he’ll lose next year. Another one to watch.
Friday, 3 July 2009
Realignment Of The Wrong (2)
I touched recently on David Cameron’s first big idea on Europe: to create a new right of centre grouping in the European Parliament (EP), away from the currently mainstream European Peoples’ Party (EPP), which includes Germany’s Christian Democrats, the party of current Chancellor Angela Merkel. Well, Young Dave has now done the deed – so what does this new grouping look like, and how does the idea behind it stack up?
Well, first of all, this new grouping has an awful lot of one member representations. Five of them, in fact: only the Tories, the Polish Law and Justice Party, and the Czech Civic Democratic Party are there in any force. This means that it would not take more than a couple of defections to bring the whole thing down: while the minimum criterion of 25 MEPs isn’t a problem – the new group has more than twice that number – the rule that these must come from at least seven member states is the one that could spell trouble.
All the re-grouping is for the apparent purpose of showing that the Tories are not merely a right of centre party, but a eurosceptic one. Young Dave doesn’t want his chaps to sit with the EPP, as he says they are “federalists”, which might sound jolly distinctive until you realise that the Tories are also “federalists” – except that their definition of the term is different to their former colleagues from Germany and France.
Moreover, the idea that the Tories can’t coexist with the rest of the EPP is tosh. To follow that to its logical conclusion, the Tory front bench in the Commons should not have the substantial presence of Europhile “smoking” Ken Clarke anywhere near it. He’d have to sit well away from Young Dave, and align himself with other Euro-lovers. Yes, it would look plain daft, and that is, more or less, what the Tories are doing in the EP right now.
And all this is before any consideration of the less than totally mainstream views voiced by some of the Tories’ partners in their new Euro-venture. Then there is the strange case of Tory MEP Dan Hanann and his recent Spanish sojourn involving a party headed by a Franco apologist. Put together, this is a diversion that one would imagine Young Dave could do without.
If he were taking the EU seriously, that is.
Well, first of all, this new grouping has an awful lot of one member representations. Five of them, in fact: only the Tories, the Polish Law and Justice Party, and the Czech Civic Democratic Party are there in any force. This means that it would not take more than a couple of defections to bring the whole thing down: while the minimum criterion of 25 MEPs isn’t a problem – the new group has more than twice that number – the rule that these must come from at least seven member states is the one that could spell trouble.
All the re-grouping is for the apparent purpose of showing that the Tories are not merely a right of centre party, but a eurosceptic one. Young Dave doesn’t want his chaps to sit with the EPP, as he says they are “federalists”, which might sound jolly distinctive until you realise that the Tories are also “federalists” – except that their definition of the term is different to their former colleagues from Germany and France.
Moreover, the idea that the Tories can’t coexist with the rest of the EPP is tosh. To follow that to its logical conclusion, the Tory front bench in the Commons should not have the substantial presence of Europhile “smoking” Ken Clarke anywhere near it. He’d have to sit well away from Young Dave, and align himself with other Euro-lovers. Yes, it would look plain daft, and that is, more or less, what the Tories are doing in the EP right now.
And all this is before any consideration of the less than totally mainstream views voiced by some of the Tories’ partners in their new Euro-venture. Then there is the strange case of Tory MEP Dan Hanann and his recent Spanish sojourn involving a party headed by a Franco apologist. Put together, this is a diversion that one would imagine Young Dave could do without.
If he were taking the EU seriously, that is.
You Say You Want A Referendum (3)
Previously, I looked at the history of the Referendum in the UK, brief as it is. Later I considered the various interests working to secure another Referendum. As promised there, here are some thoughts about one country whose constitution demands a Referendum on occasion: Ireland.
The Lisbon Treaty has already been put to a Referendum in Ireland, and the electorate there voted by a majority to reject the Treaty. There were a number of issues specific to that country: the guarantee of neutrality in case of war was one such. The country’s ban on abortion – Ireland has a strong Catholic tradition – was another. Assurances on these two areas, and confirmation that Ireland would still be free to set its own tax rates, have now been given, and there will be another Referendum soon.
This situation is seen differently, depending on whether the viewer is pro or anti EU: for the pros, it demonstrates that the EU is not monolithic and unresponsive, and that it can adopt a flexibility of approach to the needs of member states. The antis see it as proof that the EU is “undemocratic”, which is an interesting way to describe two referenda.
But the fact remains that Ireland is bound to put the issue to a Referendum. So why doesn’t the UK do likewise? Well, the simple answer is this: these are two different countries. Ireland is largely Catholic in religious outlook; the UK is largely Protestant. The UK has no problem getting involved in wars; Ireland has always maintained its neutrality. And, just to remind those who might believe Ireland is some kind of brake on the progress of the EU which they should encourage, the Irish have adopted the Euro as their currency.
Here, then, is another example of the fallacy of assuming that those who share a common language are most alike. Allied to the idea of cherry picking ideas, it’s not much of a way to proceed. Ireland will, ultimately, do what is best for Ireland. The UK will do what is best for the UK. Both can still coexist within the EU.
With or without the odd Referendum.
The Lisbon Treaty has already been put to a Referendum in Ireland, and the electorate there voted by a majority to reject the Treaty. There were a number of issues specific to that country: the guarantee of neutrality in case of war was one such. The country’s ban on abortion – Ireland has a strong Catholic tradition – was another. Assurances on these two areas, and confirmation that Ireland would still be free to set its own tax rates, have now been given, and there will be another Referendum soon.
This situation is seen differently, depending on whether the viewer is pro or anti EU: for the pros, it demonstrates that the EU is not monolithic and unresponsive, and that it can adopt a flexibility of approach to the needs of member states. The antis see it as proof that the EU is “undemocratic”, which is an interesting way to describe two referenda.
But the fact remains that Ireland is bound to put the issue to a Referendum. So why doesn’t the UK do likewise? Well, the simple answer is this: these are two different countries. Ireland is largely Catholic in religious outlook; the UK is largely Protestant. The UK has no problem getting involved in wars; Ireland has always maintained its neutrality. And, just to remind those who might believe Ireland is some kind of brake on the progress of the EU which they should encourage, the Irish have adopted the Euro as their currency.
Here, then, is another example of the fallacy of assuming that those who share a common language are most alike. Allied to the idea of cherry picking ideas, it’s not much of a way to proceed. Ireland will, ultimately, do what is best for Ireland. The UK will do what is best for the UK. Both can still coexist within the EU.
With or without the odd Referendum.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Exit NatEx
The “R” word has made a reappearance in rail travel: that’s R as in Renationalisation, following the Government takeover of the running of what used to be called InterCity East Coast (ICEC). Until yesterday, this franchise – to run trains out of London’s Kings Cross terminus to Leeds, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh and points north – was part of the National Express empire. Or so it appeared.
Much recent talk has been devoted to the idea that, should a company lose one franchise, they will forfeit any others they hold. This idea went the rounds when FirstGroup was having initial problems – and experiencing much customer dissatisfaction – with the enlarged Great Western franchise. But NatEx hold two other franchises – East Anglia and C2C – and they appear to be holding on to those. How does that work?
A clue can be gleaned from the Beeb’s Robert Peston, who has added an interesting post to his blog. It seems that National Express East Coast (NXEC) is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with a limited connection to the National Express Group. That connection is so tenuous that NatEx has been told by its legal advisors that the Government can’t call in those other franchises, even if NatEx walks away from this one. Andrew Adonis isn’t too sure about that, but if he wants to pursue matters, it will have to go to law. That’ll be extra.
So what happens now? The Government reckons that it will soon be able to put ICEC out to tender once more. But whether anyone will even come near the premium payment of 1.4 billions over the lifetime of the franchise – which was what NatEx bid – is another matter. At that time, franchises were looked on as a one way bet, and the winning bid was predicated on a revenue growth of 9% - every year.
Also, Stagecoach – who are the incumbents at South West Trains (SWT) are making unhappy sounds about the terms of their agreement with the Government. They, too, have signed up for large premia over the coming years.
So the number of unwanted franchises may be set to increase.
Much recent talk has been devoted to the idea that, should a company lose one franchise, they will forfeit any others they hold. This idea went the rounds when FirstGroup was having initial problems – and experiencing much customer dissatisfaction – with the enlarged Great Western franchise. But NatEx hold two other franchises – East Anglia and C2C – and they appear to be holding on to those. How does that work?
A clue can be gleaned from the Beeb’s Robert Peston, who has added an interesting post to his blog. It seems that National Express East Coast (NXEC) is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) with a limited connection to the National Express Group. That connection is so tenuous that NatEx has been told by its legal advisors that the Government can’t call in those other franchises, even if NatEx walks away from this one. Andrew Adonis isn’t too sure about that, but if he wants to pursue matters, it will have to go to law. That’ll be extra.
So what happens now? The Government reckons that it will soon be able to put ICEC out to tender once more. But whether anyone will even come near the premium payment of 1.4 billions over the lifetime of the franchise – which was what NatEx bid – is another matter. At that time, franchises were looked on as a one way bet, and the winning bid was predicated on a revenue growth of 9% - every year.
Also, Stagecoach – who are the incumbents at South West Trains (SWT) are making unhappy sounds about the terms of their agreement with the Government. They, too, have signed up for large premia over the coming years.
So the number of unwanted franchises may be set to increase.
Ten Quid A Night
The economy may be in a less than ideal state in the UK right now. But, as the saying goes, there’s always someone worse off than you, and a look across the EU proves this: in Spain, unemployment is well into a double figure percentage. And then there are all those hotels and apartments with increasing numbers of empty rooms.
I did notice, back in March, that there was no problem getting B&B in Alicante for just over 30 notes a night. What I’ve discovered since is that, provided you commit to a month’s booking, a room can be had for the equivalent of a tenner. This news came from a feature in the deeply subversive Guardian, which focused on efforts by the management of the Al-Bahia Hotel to fill rooms during less busy times.
The photo in the Guardian article doesn’t do full justice to the sheer size of the Al-Bahia. This is one very large complex: where the main road coming out of central Alicante towards the north west passes it, the place looks substantial, and that road is well up the cliff, so much so that several of the lower floors are not visible from that angle. You get a better idea of size by taking the half hourly tram-train which goes out to Benidorm: this runs at the foot of the cliff behind the hotel, which means for most of the time the railway is in the Al-Bahia’s shadow, as can be seen here.
So what? Well, when a hotel this big moves to make ten quid a night rooms available, the rest of the market – and there’s a lot of market in and around Alicante – takes notice. When business is bad enough that the name of the game is survival, prices will reflect this. Moreover, there is a good potential supply of takers thanks to the number of budget airlines flying in to Alicante airport. And it’s not always warm and sunny in the UK.
Also, those of suitably rigorous budget mentality can rest easy: from the Airport, there is a regular bus into Alicante, and it terminates by the Puerta del Mar tram station. No taxis needed.
Tempting.
I did notice, back in March, that there was no problem getting B&B in Alicante for just over 30 notes a night. What I’ve discovered since is that, provided you commit to a month’s booking, a room can be had for the equivalent of a tenner. This news came from a feature in the deeply subversive Guardian, which focused on efforts by the management of the Al-Bahia Hotel to fill rooms during less busy times.
The photo in the Guardian article doesn’t do full justice to the sheer size of the Al-Bahia. This is one very large complex: where the main road coming out of central Alicante towards the north west passes it, the place looks substantial, and that road is well up the cliff, so much so that several of the lower floors are not visible from that angle. You get a better idea of size by taking the half hourly tram-train which goes out to Benidorm: this runs at the foot of the cliff behind the hotel, which means for most of the time the railway is in the Al-Bahia’s shadow, as can be seen here.
So what? Well, when a hotel this big moves to make ten quid a night rooms available, the rest of the market – and there’s a lot of market in and around Alicante – takes notice. When business is bad enough that the name of the game is survival, prices will reflect this. Moreover, there is a good potential supply of takers thanks to the number of budget airlines flying in to Alicante airport. And it’s not always warm and sunny in the UK.
Also, those of suitably rigorous budget mentality can rest easy: from the Airport, there is a regular bus into Alicante, and it terminates by the Puerta del Mar tram station. No taxis needed.
Tempting.
Tesco? Who Said Tesco?
Newsnight (aka The Inquisition of Pax Jeremiah) is a programme I don’t often see. But yesterday was another hot and sticky one, and I tuned in more to catch any major news events than anything else, having missed the main news.
Paxo was trying – not too successfully – to prod Lord Myners into saying something other than what was on the Good Lord’s script. It wasn’t in the “riveting” category, more the stuff of routine. But then there was a discussion on matters financial, featuring among others, the World’s Most Agreeable Politician (tm) Vince Cable. During the discussion, someone said Tesco.
What, I wondered, did Tesco have to do with the economy, other than their rather large share of the supermarket part of it? Then I got a handle on what was being said: that Tesco were being mentioned as a bidder for the currently state owned Northern Rock bank.
That was news to me: it’s clear that whoever is in power, organisations like Northern Rock will ultimately be moved out of state control, but maybe not yet. Unless the Government really, really needs to do some asset selling in order to get said asset off its books and make some money in the process.
And, it seems, rumour is all that the media have to go on (a piece in the Guardian gives some of the background and arguments). The source of the rumour, as the article points out, is the Times, part of the Murdoch press, which isn’t well disposed right now towards Pa Broon. So it could be mere pot stirring. But if there is some substance in the story?
That would be very bad news indeed for Labour. One to watch.
Paxo was trying – not too successfully – to prod Lord Myners into saying something other than what was on the Good Lord’s script. It wasn’t in the “riveting” category, more the stuff of routine. But then there was a discussion on matters financial, featuring among others, the World’s Most Agreeable Politician (tm) Vince Cable. During the discussion, someone said Tesco.
What, I wondered, did Tesco have to do with the economy, other than their rather large share of the supermarket part of it? Then I got a handle on what was being said: that Tesco were being mentioned as a bidder for the currently state owned Northern Rock bank.
That was news to me: it’s clear that whoever is in power, organisations like Northern Rock will ultimately be moved out of state control, but maybe not yet. Unless the Government really, really needs to do some asset selling in order to get said asset off its books and make some money in the process.
And, it seems, rumour is all that the media have to go on (a piece in the Guardian gives some of the background and arguments). The source of the rumour, as the article points out, is the Times, part of the Murdoch press, which isn’t well disposed right now towards Pa Broon. So it could be mere pot stirring. But if there is some substance in the story?
That would be very bad news indeed for Labour. One to watch.
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Another Tortuous Tale
It seems that the handbags are being prepared for use once again: what looked yesterday like a routine act of politicking has developed into another spat between the latest odd couple of Westminster, the Rt Hon Gideon George Oliver Osborne (heir to the seventeenth Baronet) and Pa Broon’s new best friend Lord Mandelson of Indeterminate Guacamole.
The Shadow Chancellor had apparently been trying to get an extract of information from one particular Government database – and in a form that would have been more useful to him than what is on offer (the information is all available, but anyone wanting all of it would have one rather long collating job to do). His request was declined by the Cabinet Secretary: this kind of information extract is not normally available to the opposition.
Following this rebuttal, Osborne then did an interview with the Beeb’s Nick Robinson where he said, unequivocally, that Pa Broon was personally behind the refusal. Ho hum. Osborne’s statement may have been untrue, but the idea of personalising everything as being Brown’s fault is the fuel that feeds the Coulson claptrap machine: nothing has changed since the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, where any kind of issues based campaign was replaced by the tedious repetition of “Send Gordon Brown a message”. The result was that the constituency was landed with Edward Timpson (the man with marginally more charisma than a Burton’s dummy).
The story may have died there and then – the Tory idea of pinning everything on Pa Broon is, I suspect, equally yawn inducing whether you’re in Crewe or Westminster – had it not been for Mandelson’s very deliberate intervention this morning. Mandy didn’t actually call Osborne a liar, but he did say that the heir to the seventeenth Baronet had uttered a “deliberate untruth”, which is, shall we say, a currency of equivalent value.
And Mandelson has demanded a retraction of Osborne’s assertion, which should be interesting to watch, given that the Shadow Chancellor doesn’t do retractions, whether the demand comes from Pa Broon or Nat Rothschild. But an old political hand like Mandy wouldn’t expend the energy doing the rounds of the TV studios to no purpose. So what’s his game?
Whatever that game, it’s probably not over just yet.
The Shadow Chancellor had apparently been trying to get an extract of information from one particular Government database – and in a form that would have been more useful to him than what is on offer (the information is all available, but anyone wanting all of it would have one rather long collating job to do). His request was declined by the Cabinet Secretary: this kind of information extract is not normally available to the opposition.
Following this rebuttal, Osborne then did an interview with the Beeb’s Nick Robinson where he said, unequivocally, that Pa Broon was personally behind the refusal. Ho hum. Osborne’s statement may have been untrue, but the idea of personalising everything as being Brown’s fault is the fuel that feeds the Coulson claptrap machine: nothing has changed since the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, where any kind of issues based campaign was replaced by the tedious repetition of “Send Gordon Brown a message”. The result was that the constituency was landed with Edward Timpson (the man with marginally more charisma than a Burton’s dummy).
The story may have died there and then – the Tory idea of pinning everything on Pa Broon is, I suspect, equally yawn inducing whether you’re in Crewe or Westminster – had it not been for Mandelson’s very deliberate intervention this morning. Mandy didn’t actually call Osborne a liar, but he did say that the heir to the seventeenth Baronet had uttered a “deliberate untruth”, which is, shall we say, a currency of equivalent value.
And Mandelson has demanded a retraction of Osborne’s assertion, which should be interesting to watch, given that the Shadow Chancellor doesn’t do retractions, whether the demand comes from Pa Broon or Nat Rothschild. But an old political hand like Mandy wouldn’t expend the energy doing the rounds of the TV studios to no purpose. So what’s his game?
Whatever that game, it’s probably not over just yet.
There Isn’t Going To Be Any Swearing
You don’t remember “A Wee Swearie”? That exposition on the properties of the most commonly used four letter expletive by Billy Connolly was a classic of 70s comedy. And it started with the understatement “There’s going to be some swearing”. Why I make this brief reminiscence is this: there does seem to be rather more than “some” swearing going on around the blogosphere.
So what? It’s all about freedom of expression, as well as speech, isn’t it? Of course. But, I would caution, freedom does not have to equal foul mouthed. That’s not an attempt at sniffiness – just a highlighting of the obvious: if the blogosphere can’t express itself in coherent and plain language, it won’t replace or even seriously supplement the print and broadcast media any time soon.
But what about all the expletive meisters in the print and broadcast media? Sure, they most certainly exist, not least the legendarily foul mouthed editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. But the effing and blinding that dominates behind the scenes at the Rothermere press does not carry through into the product: rather the opposite – the Mail is typically in the vanguard against swearing in the media, especially when this can be used as a stick to beat the BBC.
That’s not censorship – it’s common sense. The more the f-word is deployed, the less effect it has, and the more the target audience is put off. That’s why the so-called “Industrial Language” of the editorial conference stays on that side of the wall. And if papers like the Daily Mail (and, just to reinforce the reminder, the Sun and Star too) can do without it, so can your average blog.
And that’s Gordon Ramsaying telling you.
So what? It’s all about freedom of expression, as well as speech, isn’t it? Of course. But, I would caution, freedom does not have to equal foul mouthed. That’s not an attempt at sniffiness – just a highlighting of the obvious: if the blogosphere can’t express itself in coherent and plain language, it won’t replace or even seriously supplement the print and broadcast media any time soon.
But what about all the expletive meisters in the print and broadcast media? Sure, they most certainly exist, not least the legendarily foul mouthed editor of the Daily Mail, Paul Dacre. But the effing and blinding that dominates behind the scenes at the Rothermere press does not carry through into the product: rather the opposite – the Mail is typically in the vanguard against swearing in the media, especially when this can be used as a stick to beat the BBC.
That’s not censorship – it’s common sense. The more the f-word is deployed, the less effect it has, and the more the target audience is put off. That’s why the so-called “Industrial Language” of the editorial conference stays on that side of the wall. And if papers like the Daily Mail (and, just to reinforce the reminder, the Sun and Star too) can do without it, so can your average blog.
And that’s Gordon Ramsaying telling you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
