I added Harry Barnes' Three Score Years and Ten to my blogroll a while ago, and his latest posts demonstrate the calibre of the man:
Firstly, he critiques Nick Cohen's What's Left in quite a bit of detail. He's been extremely thorough in showing where he agrees with Cohen, where he doesn't, and most importantly, with good arguments.
Secondly, he demonstrates how Cohen has ignored people like him who opposed the Iraq War, are critical of the US and UK occupation and yet offer support for Iraqis, particularly socialists and trades unionists.
I have, following Harry's posts, gone here: http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=202 to do a small bit.
I notice that Nick Cohen has been too busy promoting his book to publicise the efforts of Trade Unionists to support their Iraqi counterparts in the matter. It's easy to be 'leftier than thou' isn't it!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Saturday, March 03, 2007
You are not allowed to publish this picture
On account of how it's of David Cameron, Boris Johnson and his chums in the Bullingdon Club:
For those not aware of the Bullingdon Club, it's a exclusive group for Oxford students. The uniform costs a packet. They are notorious for their drunken antics, which go up to vandalism on a grand scale. When caught they (or their daddies) offer to pay their way out of trouble. Boris has disclosed a 'night in the cells' for one outing, which means, apparently he can sympathise with the suspected terrorist held for 28 days without charge.
For those not aware of the Bullingdon Club, it's a exclusive group for Oxford students. The uniform costs a packet. They are notorious for their drunken antics, which go up to vandalism on a grand scale. When caught they (or their daddies) offer to pay their way out of trouble. Boris has disclosed a 'night in the cells' for one outing, which means, apparently he can sympathise with the suspected terrorist held for 28 days without charge.
New job
Last night was the Crawley Labour Party AGM. A pretty dry affair, except for when the old personal feuds get dragged into things.
However, the upshot is that I have been elected to the post of 'Press Officer'. As a result, I have added the disclaimer to the bottom of this website - what I put here is from me, and is not part of that role unless explicitly stated (in which case it will probably be part of a press release anyway).
The weird thing for me is that until recently, the post didn't exist. In fact, it was only created because when I was the Chairman back in 2004/5, I urged the party to look at how it dealt with publicity.
I should have known that I'd end up with the job some time.
[edit - for clarification, this job is not a paid position, and it is not for Laura Moffat, but for the local Party]
However, the upshot is that I have been elected to the post of 'Press Officer'. As a result, I have added the disclaimer to the bottom of this website - what I put here is from me, and is not part of that role unless explicitly stated (in which case it will probably be part of a press release anyway).
The weird thing for me is that until recently, the post didn't exist. In fact, it was only created because when I was the Chairman back in 2004/5, I urged the party to look at how it dealt with publicity.
I should have known that I'd end up with the job some time.
[edit - for clarification, this job is not a paid position, and it is not for Laura Moffat, but for the local Party]
Technical Woe
What a fortnight I've had!
Two weeks ago, I dropped my laptop and broke it. Luckily the main parts worked - processor, hard drive, networking - but the screen and monitor output were dead. Crawley Computer Centre and my home insurance both told me it was 'beyond economic repair'. So I had to wait for that to be confirmed and a replacement to be sent out.
In the meantime, I had to use my old desktops. I have two, because neither can handle being connected to the internet for long before throwing a wobbly, and one can handle some sites while the other refuses to see them (and vice versa). This meant it took ages just to read emails, and the only reliable way to post here was the Blogger email interface.
Then, the phone line went on the blink, my MP3 player decided to take a dislike to a large number of tracks (which I can't refresh, because I used the old, dead laptop to burn them), the internet stopped working completely and my car battery went flat.
Now, the new laptop has arrived, all of the other bits are fixed (except the MP3 thing), and everything is lovely.
Two weeks ago, I dropped my laptop and broke it. Luckily the main parts worked - processor, hard drive, networking - but the screen and monitor output were dead. Crawley Computer Centre and my home insurance both told me it was 'beyond economic repair'. So I had to wait for that to be confirmed and a replacement to be sent out.
In the meantime, I had to use my old desktops. I have two, because neither can handle being connected to the internet for long before throwing a wobbly, and one can handle some sites while the other refuses to see them (and vice versa). This meant it took ages just to read emails, and the only reliable way to post here was the Blogger email interface.
Then, the phone line went on the blink, my MP3 player decided to take a dislike to a large number of tracks (which I can't refresh, because I used the old, dead laptop to burn them), the internet stopped working completely and my car battery went flat.
Now, the new laptop has arrived, all of the other bits are fixed (except the MP3 thing), and everything is lovely.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
New Labour, Newer Leader
The title is a kid of plug for Tom Miller's site, Newer Labour. However, the post is about what is shaping up to be the longest and most tedious leadership battle ever.
I have a pretty good record - I have never backed a winner in the Labour leadership contest. I voted for Gould in 1992, abstained when Benn challenged Smith in 1993 and supported Beckett in 1994.
So, before I put the kiss of death onto anybody else's campaign, I have some thinking to do. I might as well do it out loud.
My basic view is this. I will probably vote for the most viable, most left-wing candidate, as long as there isn't a more viable candidate to the right of Brown.
At present, that means John McDonnell, assuming he gets the necessary 44 MP nominations. If he fails to but Michael Meacher gets in to the vote proper, I suppose I'll back the wacko. Perhaps. I met Meacher once, and he was a pretty nice guy. But the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing is a bit much.
If, for example, Milburn or Clarke enter the fray and seem to be picking up support, I will be forced to support Brown.
I might think about it a bit more deeply, but my essential feeling is that Brown is the best option in reality, but I want to register a protest from the left if it won't jeopardise his candidacy. Of course, if a better option put themselves forward (Hilary Benn anyone?), I'd jump on that bandwagon.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Tesco loses it's license
The local Tesco has just lost it's license to sell alcohol after having been caught selling booze to underage children three times.
On the one hand, it's a good thing. This is clearly a management problem, not a simple mistake, and so it should be the company that suffers.
On the other hand, I'll have to walk further to get me beers!
[update: the Worthing Branch has lost it's appeal, and the appeals for the two Crawley branches are due to be heard in July]
On the one hand, it's a good thing. This is clearly a management problem, not a simple mistake, and so it should be the company that suffers.
On the other hand, I'll have to walk further to get me beers!
[update: the Worthing Branch has lost it's appeal, and the appeals for the two Crawley branches are due to be heard in July]
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
They don't like it up 'em!
I posted the previous article on the Maidenbower website here (second post down), as it is a place where you can publicly ask Henry Smith and others questions.
You can see how well Tory Councillors respond to a bit of detailed criticism if you look further on. A mixture of personal attacks, ignoring the question and getting basic facts wrong.
I am still not angry.
You can see how well Tory Councillors respond to a bit of detailed criticism if you look further on. A mixture of personal attacks, ignoring the question and getting basic facts wrong.
I am still not angry.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Hospital Campaign built on thin air?
When I first heard about the Campaign for Pease Pottage Hospital, I was suspicious, it sounded just like an opportunistic attempt by local Tories to jump onto a bandwagon.
After some time, the campaign has produced a document, which they say backs up their case and anyone who disagrees is clearly just trying to land political blows.
Having now read the extensive (!) 7 page proposal document, I am even more sceptical about the Smith-Maude campaign.
First of all, I spotted at least two spelling mistakes. Now, that may mark me out as a pedant, but they are clear and they are evidence that the document was not properly proof-read. One wonders if any of the numbers are also incorrect.
Next, it is full of assumptions. Firstly, that the acute healthcare spend in Horsham PCT per person is uniformly applied across the other areas covered. Secondly that the percentage of that to be spent at the new hospital would be 75%. Thirdly that the refinancing (what we call interest) rate would be 7%. Fourthly, that East Surrey Hospital will be affected but will still be tenable if it widens it's catchment along the M25 (but no consideration of the knock on effects to the East or West of Redhill) - oh, but if it isn't the new hospital would be able to cope and the people of Redhill and Reigate would be happy.
There are lots of numbers, but some are given as 'of the order of', or 'indicative' (which means that they are not accurate estimates) and others are absolute, despite seemingly having been derived from the earlier estimates. The operating cost is given based on Frimley Park, but no more local hospital 'given their state of turmoil', and because that is a larger hospital it is scaled, but the scaling has not been enumerated. Are there local factors which differentiate this area from Camberley such as housing pressure?
Some startling omissions as well. Nowhere is training mentioned. Nowhere does it refer to Royal College guidelines. Why should it? Because the Royal Colleges suggest that for training to be of sufficient value, a unit must have a decent catchment area, of around the 400-500,000 range. In order to attract employees, a hospital really wants to be recognised by the Royal Colleges, as most doctors want to move up the ranks and gain experience. The proposed 300,000 catchment area might be too small, and this was pretty much the same problem that Crawley Hospital had in the first place. Find me an acute hospital which has lost accreditation from a Royal College and where that service is not under threat (or already gone).
Also, this would not be a PFI hospital, it would be privately managed, rather than being run by the NHS and leased from a PFI vehicle, according to the proposals. Do we have such a hospital in the UK? Would the managers seek to carve out part of the hospitals facilities for lucrative private care? What will the costs be to the NHS of oversight of a privately run hospital? Will the operating company be allowed to make a profit? If it makes a loss, or suffers financial strain, what are the guarantees that services will be maintained?
Bagnall's report was far more detailed, and we were able to see the 'working out'. I supported the Bagnall Plan because it was well considered and the proposal was a viable 776-bed hospital. The C4PPH proposals are, going by a document of seven pages, less grounded in detailed research and less sustainable.
After some time, the campaign has produced a document, which they say backs up their case and anyone who disagrees is clearly just trying to land political blows.
Having now read the extensive (!) 7 page proposal document, I am even more sceptical about the Smith-Maude campaign.
First of all, I spotted at least two spelling mistakes. Now, that may mark me out as a pedant, but they are clear and they are evidence that the document was not properly proof-read. One wonders if any of the numbers are also incorrect.
Next, it is full of assumptions. Firstly, that the acute healthcare spend in Horsham PCT per person is uniformly applied across the other areas covered. Secondly that the percentage of that to be spent at the new hospital would be 75%. Thirdly that the refinancing (what we call interest) rate would be 7%. Fourthly, that East Surrey Hospital will be affected but will still be tenable if it widens it's catchment along the M25 (but no consideration of the knock on effects to the East or West of Redhill) - oh, but if it isn't the new hospital would be able to cope and the people of Redhill and Reigate would be happy.
There are lots of numbers, but some are given as 'of the order of', or 'indicative' (which means that they are not accurate estimates) and others are absolute, despite seemingly having been derived from the earlier estimates. The operating cost is given based on Frimley Park, but no more local hospital 'given their state of turmoil', and because that is a larger hospital it is scaled, but the scaling has not been enumerated. Are there local factors which differentiate this area from Camberley such as housing pressure?
Some startling omissions as well. Nowhere is training mentioned. Nowhere does it refer to Royal College guidelines. Why should it? Because the Royal Colleges suggest that for training to be of sufficient value, a unit must have a decent catchment area, of around the 400-500,000 range. In order to attract employees, a hospital really wants to be recognised by the Royal Colleges, as most doctors want to move up the ranks and gain experience. The proposed 300,000 catchment area might be too small, and this was pretty much the same problem that Crawley Hospital had in the first place. Find me an acute hospital which has lost accreditation from a Royal College and where that service is not under threat (or already gone).
Also, this would not be a PFI hospital, it would be privately managed, rather than being run by the NHS and leased from a PFI vehicle, according to the proposals. Do we have such a hospital in the UK? Would the managers seek to carve out part of the hospitals facilities for lucrative private care? What will the costs be to the NHS of oversight of a privately run hospital? Will the operating company be allowed to make a profit? If it makes a loss, or suffers financial strain, what are the guarantees that services will be maintained?
Bagnall's report was far more detailed, and we were able to see the 'working out'. I supported the Bagnall Plan because it was well considered and the proposal was a viable 776-bed hospital. The C4PPH proposals are, going by a document of seven pages, less grounded in detailed research and less sustainable.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Book Review
Not by me, but by Harry Barnes, Labour ex-MP. He lays into Dawkins' The God Delusion. On Three Score Years and Ten, he explains why he finds the book so disappointing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
