Ah yes, the joys of an evening with Dulwich & West Norwood Liberal Democrats...
We're not terribly ambitious, we're not the most stunningly efficient group, but we all mean well and get on together. Now that I'm not Chair, I can actually enjoy things and contribute the skills I actually have (no sniggering at the back...), rather than ones I ought to have but don't (leadership, discipline, persistence).
Tonight was our second meeting of the year as an Executive Committee, and we achieved quite a lot. A social schedule is emerging, plus some political content and even some campaigning - this is Dulwich, we don't really do that sort of thing here (the Conservatives and ourselves spent less than £10,000 between us during the last General Election, I'm told, which probably explains why our combined vote was roughly that of Tessa Jowell, our absentee MP).
We do tend to stray off-topic at the slightest provocation and tonight's byways included what to do if your yacht is boarded in the Caribbean (shoot to kill, apparently, it makes the investigation much easier), why parking is limited to twenty minutes outside a library and how we can get hold of a picture of Tessa Jowell's North London house (we really don't like her much, which says a lot coming from a group who might be vaguely regretful of a nuclear attack - we don't do raging passion either...).
And yet it works, after a fashion. I know of Local Parties who have pitched battles about ideas and/or personalities but, for good or ill, we're a bit of a throwback to a more innocent era, and I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing...
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Leadership does not necessarily impart wisdom
I've been thinking about my recent, rather narrow, victory in my quest for re-election as Regional Secretary and, it would seem, my problems come down to a mistaken notion that I am unreliable in my approach to confidentiality and in the choices of people I interact with.
The post that follows might well be seen to be confirming that but, sometimes, the only way to put the record straight is to address a problem openly and directly. I will be critical of named individuals so, if you're of a nervous disposition, you might like to look away now...
It seems, from personal contacts who have, hitherto, been pretty reliable, that the Chair of the English Party, Brian Orrell, thought that my continued friendship with Susanne Lamido was a "problem" best solved by having me terminated as Regional Secretary. To achieve this goal, the support of the Regional Chair, Sean Hooker, was required and, as Sean has great respect for Brian, obtained. But who to run against a modestly competent, if eccentric incumbent? It would have to be someone likely to be sympathetic, with some credibility, who could be relied upon to be untroublesome if elected.
Havard Hughes was prevailed upon to fill the role of 'under the radar' candidate and the trap set. Nominations were opened at the Executive Committee meeting and Havard duly nominated. I freely admit to being surprised, and actually indicated that I was willing to concede there and then before being persuaded that I should stand and fight.
And so the contest followed. I wasn't actually able to campaign for myself as, due to a computer fault, I had no contact details for the Executive other than e-mail (and campaigning by e-mail will never replace personal contact to my mind). But I survived. It wasn't pretty, but it was enough.
Sean has since then gallantly confirmed his full support for me. Sorry Sean, but I don't buy it. You yourself told me, immediately after the nominations closed, that, if I lost, you wanted me to take forward our Regional diversity strategy. The more I thought about it, the easier it was to conclude that you not only knew about my challenger (you did at least admit to that) but that you were supporting him. You were willing to believe the worst of my motives without having the courtesy to raise them with me, one of your Officers, first.
In fact, Havard appears to be happy to tell all and sundry that he never actually wanted to be Regional Secretary, and that you put him up to it. Doesn't anyone understand that politicians can be incredibly indiscreet when they think that they're talking to someone apparently sympathetic to their position? So, in future, if you do want to engage in political assassination, do try and do it rather better next time. As Machiavelli said in "The Prince",
The post that follows might well be seen to be confirming that but, sometimes, the only way to put the record straight is to address a problem openly and directly. I will be critical of named individuals so, if you're of a nervous disposition, you might like to look away now...
It seems, from personal contacts who have, hitherto, been pretty reliable, that the Chair of the English Party, Brian Orrell, thought that my continued friendship with Susanne Lamido was a "problem" best solved by having me terminated as Regional Secretary. To achieve this goal, the support of the Regional Chair, Sean Hooker, was required and, as Sean has great respect for Brian, obtained. But who to run against a modestly competent, if eccentric incumbent? It would have to be someone likely to be sympathetic, with some credibility, who could be relied upon to be untroublesome if elected.
Havard Hughes was prevailed upon to fill the role of 'under the radar' candidate and the trap set. Nominations were opened at the Executive Committee meeting and Havard duly nominated. I freely admit to being surprised, and actually indicated that I was willing to concede there and then before being persuaded that I should stand and fight.
And so the contest followed. I wasn't actually able to campaign for myself as, due to a computer fault, I had no contact details for the Executive other than e-mail (and campaigning by e-mail will never replace personal contact to my mind). But I survived. It wasn't pretty, but it was enough.
Sean has since then gallantly confirmed his full support for me. Sorry Sean, but I don't buy it. You yourself told me, immediately after the nominations closed, that, if I lost, you wanted me to take forward our Regional diversity strategy. The more I thought about it, the easier it was to conclude that you not only knew about my challenger (you did at least admit to that) but that you were supporting him. You were willing to believe the worst of my motives without having the courtesy to raise them with me, one of your Officers, first.
In fact, Havard appears to be happy to tell all and sundry that he never actually wanted to be Regional Secretary, and that you put him up to it. Doesn't anyone understand that politicians can be incredibly indiscreet when they think that they're talking to someone apparently sympathetic to their position? So, in future, if you do want to engage in political assassination, do try and do it rather better next time. As Machiavelli said in "The Prince",
"...it must be noted that men must either be caressed or else destroyed, because they will revenge themselves for small injuries, but cannot do so for serious ones. Thus, the injury done to a man must be such that there is no need to fear his vengeance."
It is somewhat fortunate that my loyalty is to the institution rather than to the personality at its head. But a little communication is usually a good thing, and you might want to work on it during the remainder of your final term.
I am yet to understand what Brian's problem is. Alright, I have not always been wholly respectful of some of his 'quirks' but, as Regional Candidates Chair, I have admired his ability to deliver a very difficult job in trying circumstances. Everything works, although the late night telephone calls can be a bit disconcerting - just a personal preference of mine, I admit. And yet he seems determined to show disrespect at every opportunity. The attacks during the last year at Regional Executive meetings became wearing and I became more and more defensive as slight piled upon slight. I can take criticism, especially the constructive kind, but it was always sprung upon me in public forums. It impacted elsewhere too, in that I've been doing Returning Officer 'gigs' outside London for the sole reason that my own Region never asked, unlike South Central and South East, who seem to be satisfied with my work thus far. Ironically, due to the volume of work I'm doing elsewhere, I'm no longer able to do much for Brian's successor...
And as for Havard, if you didn't want the job, you shouldn't have run. It says volumes that you would do so, and then tell people that you were forced to do so. I actually think that you're a better person that that, although my impression is that your political antennae need tuning. I haven't forgotten your manifesto though...
For the record, and so that there can be no doubt, I retain contact with Susanne. I freely accept that she drives some people crazy, and admit that her behaviour is not such that I would emulate it. On the other hand, she has never personally caused me any great difficulties, although some of her descriptions of me have been a mite brusque. I tend, generally, to be more cautious in my views (I'm a bureaucrat, remember?) and I don't, as a rule, like to condemn people out of hand. Susanne believes that she should be able to 'tell it as it is', a habit which does not fit comfortably within the confines of a political party and, since the revocation of her membership, I have, from time to time, talked to her about errors of fact or judgement. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. As a private individual, she is entitled to her views, frustrating though they may be to others. The party is likewise entitled to take the view that her behaviour was likely to bring it into disrepute, and that, unfortunately, is the price you pay for wanting to belong to a membership-based organisation.
And as for questions of confidentiality, I have openly noted my preference towards openness and transparency. However, it must be openness and transparency with consent and sensitivity. If I believe that information is appropriate to a more public domain, I seek authority from the responsible Officer before release and agree the substance of that release prior to proceeding with publication. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, yet it would seem that some of my colleagues find it easier to act as judge, jury and (failed) executioner first.
So, I will focus my energies over the remainder of the year on making my Regional Party run more effectively and then, if someone wants the position after that, I hope that they have the courtesy to tell me why, rather than make semi-libellous allegations in their manifesto.
I've got rhythm, I've got music, I'm a bureaucrat, who could ask for anything more?
Alright, it doesn't quite scan, but at 3.30 a.m. it seemed like a pretty good line...
A work colleague and friend celebrated his 60th birthday with a party for family and friends in Southall last night, and what an evening it turned out to be. Admittedly, Errol is probably one of the very few people who could persuade me to venture into darkest west London (it always worries me that if I miss my stop, I'll end up in Wales or, far worse, West Drayton!) and after an incredibly easy journey, I found myself outside the Southall Community Centre where enough food to feed an army and enough alcohol to refloat the Titanic were being set out.
I had dressed for the occasion in my best Bolivian shirt and waistcoat, and was unusually in the mood to party. As crowds go, the mixture of Errol's family, predominantly from Grenada, his network of Punjabi friends from Southall, our mutual Indian work colleagues and a scattering of Latin Americans from his salsa class (and don't start me about his teacher, although it's fair to say that I could watch her for hours... or Ramon, her teaching partner, who Errol could watch for hours...), plus the huddled group of English colleagues in a corner, made for the sort of experience that would bring a tear to the eye of those who are so passionate about a multi-cultural society. From my perspective, it just indicates that if everyone is having a good time, they're less likely to worry about things in general.
I did have one task to perform though, in that Errol had asked me to introduce him at some point in the evening. He had very kindly provided me with some biographical notes and, fortified with enough beer to negate my usual inhibitions, I was able to make a brief speech, including the odd double entendre, and indicating why Errol is uniquely special, before handing over to the man himself.
And then the dancing really began, a mixture of Caribbean tunes, salsa and some bhangra for the Punjabi crowd. With music loud enough to make the lungs vibrate, enough darkness for those with the natural rhythm of a postbox to be tempted onto the floor and the fact that it was a Saturday night so who cares about tomorrow anyway, it was an evening that I won't forget in a hurry. So what if I didn't get home until 4.30 a.m....
A work colleague and friend celebrated his 60th birthday with a party for family and friends in Southall last night, and what an evening it turned out to be. Admittedly, Errol is probably one of the very few people who could persuade me to venture into darkest west London (it always worries me that if I miss my stop, I'll end up in Wales or, far worse, West Drayton!) and after an incredibly easy journey, I found myself outside the Southall Community Centre where enough food to feed an army and enough alcohol to refloat the Titanic were being set out.
I had dressed for the occasion in my best Bolivian shirt and waistcoat, and was unusually in the mood to party. As crowds go, the mixture of Errol's family, predominantly from Grenada, his network of Punjabi friends from Southall, our mutual Indian work colleagues and a scattering of Latin Americans from his salsa class (and don't start me about his teacher, although it's fair to say that I could watch her for hours... or Ramon, her teaching partner, who Errol could watch for hours...), plus the huddled group of English colleagues in a corner, made for the sort of experience that would bring a tear to the eye of those who are so passionate about a multi-cultural society. From my perspective, it just indicates that if everyone is having a good time, they're less likely to worry about things in general.
I did have one task to perform though, in that Errol had asked me to introduce him at some point in the evening. He had very kindly provided me with some biographical notes and, fortified with enough beer to negate my usual inhibitions, I was able to make a brief speech, including the odd double entendre, and indicating why Errol is uniquely special, before handing over to the man himself.
And then the dancing really began, a mixture of Caribbean tunes, salsa and some bhangra for the Punjabi crowd. With music loud enough to make the lungs vibrate, enough darkness for those with the natural rhythm of a postbox to be tempted onto the floor and the fact that it was a Saturday night so who cares about tomorrow anyway, it was an evening that I won't forget in a hurry. So what if I didn't get home until 4.30 a.m....
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Seeing it from another perspective
Curiously, although I've worked with a great many Parliamentary and European Parliamentary selection committees over the years, I've never actually sat on one, and so I found myself in central London this morning, attending a training session for prospective selection committee members.
In target seats, we insist that all members of the selection committee are trained, but relax that requirement in seats with lesser prospects. Given the importance of choosing the best possible candidate, it is important that those making key decisions on behalf of the wider membership understand what their role is, what the potential pitfalls are, and how their actions can impact on potential applicants.
I found myself sitting amongst the group from Hounslow Borough, most of whom I had met before, and it was interesting to see how they handled the various exercises, as well as the thought processes applied. Their position is an interesting one, in that they have councillors in three different wards, yet only have four councillors in total (Hounslow wards all have three councillors like many London councils do). So, obviously, their priority is to ensure that they defend those seats and gain the balance of the seats in those three wards in 2010. However, they also form part of a potentially interesting London Assembly seat, London South West, which also includes the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and Kingston, both of which have Liberal Democrat administrations.
What they need from their prospective Parliamentary candidates (Brentford and Isleworth and Feltham and Heston) are people who will work within the framework of that agenda, so their process must necessarily be designed to obtain two such candidates, and I wish them luck in their efforts to achieve that.
Our gallant trainer, Brian Orrell, had dragged himself from his sick bed to lead the group, and did an excellent job in guiding us through the session, answering our questions and encouraging participation from all of those present.
I'll certainly make use of the ideas discussed in my future work as a Returning Officer and would recommend the training to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of how our selection process works.
In target seats, we insist that all members of the selection committee are trained, but relax that requirement in seats with lesser prospects. Given the importance of choosing the best possible candidate, it is important that those making key decisions on behalf of the wider membership understand what their role is, what the potential pitfalls are, and how their actions can impact on potential applicants.
I found myself sitting amongst the group from Hounslow Borough, most of whom I had met before, and it was interesting to see how they handled the various exercises, as well as the thought processes applied. Their position is an interesting one, in that they have councillors in three different wards, yet only have four councillors in total (Hounslow wards all have three councillors like many London councils do). So, obviously, their priority is to ensure that they defend those seats and gain the balance of the seats in those three wards in 2010. However, they also form part of a potentially interesting London Assembly seat, London South West, which also includes the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames and Kingston, both of which have Liberal Democrat administrations.
What they need from their prospective Parliamentary candidates (Brentford and Isleworth and Feltham and Heston) are people who will work within the framework of that agenda, so their process must necessarily be designed to obtain two such candidates, and I wish them luck in their efforts to achieve that.
Our gallant trainer, Brian Orrell, had dragged himself from his sick bed to lead the group, and did an excellent job in guiding us through the session, answering our questions and encouraging participation from all of those present.
I'll certainly make use of the ideas discussed in my future work as a Returning Officer and would recommend the training to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of how our selection process works.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
And so shall the enemies of Valladares perish!
In Amaranth, it is said that the weather is psychotropic, in that when vengeance is wreaked, the heavens are convulsed with violent electrical storms. And so, this week, to the accompaniment of our castle's seventeenth century organ (Johann Sebastian Bach performed here once), the air has been redolent with schadenfreude as bolts of lightning strike the outermost turrets of our castle...
Cue hysterical laughter...
Cue hysterical laughter...
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Another step towards the client state that Labour have always wanted
It isn't necessarily that often that I find myself in agreement with Lord Greaves of Pendle, coming as we do from rather different strands of liberalism. However, I was moved by his letter in this morning's Guardian, attacking a recent proposal by Ruth Kelly (and I do accept that attacking anything that comes from Ruth Kelly is like shooting drugged fish in a small bucket).
Her latest idea is to suggest that local councillors be given a budget, say £10,000, to be spent in the community they serve. The headline sounds quite good but, as usual when the latest New Labour concept taxis to the end of the runway, the devil is in the detail. She seriously proposes that said local councillor can spend the money as he/she so pleases, without any evident control.
Now, given that Labour politicians are having a few problems with, if not actual corruption, than at least the perception of it, you might think that before proposing to give such chunks of money to local politicians, she might actually think through the possible drawbacks.
In most corrupt societies, one of the most obvious signs is where individual politicians can channel spending towards particular groups or places without effective audit. Such patronage encourages those electors who benefit (or perhaps more importantly, might benefit) to remain loyal to an individual whose performance as a whole might not be in the interests of the wider society. Indeed, those who don't benefit, or who see themselves as being unlikely to benefit, will perceive corruption with the cancerous effect that is thus caused to the body politic.
Worse still is the incentive is gives to less then entirely honest individuals to influence the behaviour of an individual who suddenly has largesse to distribute. Not all local councillors have the morals and ethics of a boy scout and putting temptation in the way of some of them is unlikely to be rewarded.
In Southwark, the various Community Councils have funds available to them for use in their area. Accountability is built into the process and regular meetings take place where ordinary residents can come along, put their case, and get support or not according to the merit of their argument and the available funds.
Once again, a Labour politician demonstrates that where localism emerges from the usual desire for control for a moment, it generally falters for lack of an understanding that accountability matters too. Trusting the people only when they agree with you is no way to build a freer, more democratic society...
Her latest idea is to suggest that local councillors be given a budget, say £10,000, to be spent in the community they serve. The headline sounds quite good but, as usual when the latest New Labour concept taxis to the end of the runway, the devil is in the detail. She seriously proposes that said local councillor can spend the money as he/she so pleases, without any evident control.
Now, given that Labour politicians are having a few problems with, if not actual corruption, than at least the perception of it, you might think that before proposing to give such chunks of money to local politicians, she might actually think through the possible drawbacks.
In most corrupt societies, one of the most obvious signs is where individual politicians can channel spending towards particular groups or places without effective audit. Such patronage encourages those electors who benefit (or perhaps more importantly, might benefit) to remain loyal to an individual whose performance as a whole might not be in the interests of the wider society. Indeed, those who don't benefit, or who see themselves as being unlikely to benefit, will perceive corruption with the cancerous effect that is thus caused to the body politic.
Worse still is the incentive is gives to less then entirely honest individuals to influence the behaviour of an individual who suddenly has largesse to distribute. Not all local councillors have the morals and ethics of a boy scout and putting temptation in the way of some of them is unlikely to be rewarded.
In Southwark, the various Community Councils have funds available to them for use in their area. Accountability is built into the process and regular meetings take place where ordinary residents can come along, put their case, and get support or not according to the merit of their argument and the available funds.
Once again, a Labour politician demonstrates that where localism emerges from the usual desire for control for a moment, it generally falters for lack of an understanding that accountability matters too. Trusting the people only when they agree with you is no way to build a freer, more democratic society...
Monday, February 12, 2007
It's not the drug-taking, it's the hypocrisy, stupid...
I have watched the reports of David Cameron's very minor drug-taking with some interest. Frankly, I really don't care whether or not he smoked cannabis at Eton or, for that matter, whether he dabbled in something stronger at university or some workplace social event.
My view on drugs has tended to be that the actual drug taking itself is a rather minor problem, it is the crimes committed by addicts that are the major social concern. Call it social liberalism if you wish, but I see it as part of the right of individuals to pursue their own interests without let or hindrance up to the point where, in doing so, the freedoms of others are compromised.
My friends in blue have been taking this opportunity to display their new found tolerance and liberalism, although what other stance they could have taken in support of their bright, shiny leader is beyond me. And yet, and yet, perhaps we should be asking ourselves just how committed they are to freedom of the individual and in their opposition to the 'nanny state' that all liberals abhor.
On homosexuality, for example, where by merely scratching the surface, you discover that tolerance is limited to 'activities which I personally approve of'. Sorry guys (and funnily enough, it's generally men who come out with the various 'family values' lines), you're going to have to accept that the right to participate in acts that might make some uncomfortable in a private and consensual manner is something that should be defended. Besides, what is depraved and debauched to some is perfectly natural and pleasurable to others.
On the family, why should the state lecture people as to the ideal of family? Indeed, why should the state offer bribes to encourage people to order their relationships in a 'preferred manner'? Whose right is it to restrict the rights of individuals to adopt, regardless of the nature of their relationship when all that is important is the happiness and well-being of the child?
I'm sure that any Conservative reading this will, with some justification, note that the activities of certain prominent Liberal Democrats have fallen short of the highest moral and ethical standards, and it would be foolish of me to deny that. However, I would counter by pointing out that very few Liberal Democrats have been caught partaking in activities that they have publicly condemned or campaigned against. And that's my point.
Conservatives have generally been quick to condemn those who fail to match up to the highest moral standards (or happen to be poor, but that's a whole different argument) and yet we only need to cast our minds back to the last Conservative administration, whose campaign for family values was somewhat undermined by the fact that a significant number of them were so keen on families that they had more than one.
Most people in this country are willing to forgive individuals for their transgressions, if the individual holds his/her hands up, admits that they were foolish, if foolish they were, and carries on with life. It's those who cover up, lie, or whose behaviour contradicts their carefully constructed public persona, who get, and to be blunt, deserve the pelting with tabloid refuse that generally follows.
I'm confident that the press will be looking for Cameron quotes that condemn drug-taking, and will probably be willing to take down any Shadow Cabinet stragglers who have a past that they now prefer to airbrush out of the records. In many ways, that would be a pity, as the one thing that Cameron has proved is that recreational drug use is not now a bar to holding high public office. Perhaps the debate over how to deal with drug abuse will move on to a more reasoned level now, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it...
My view on drugs has tended to be that the actual drug taking itself is a rather minor problem, it is the crimes committed by addicts that are the major social concern. Call it social liberalism if you wish, but I see it as part of the right of individuals to pursue their own interests without let or hindrance up to the point where, in doing so, the freedoms of others are compromised.
My friends in blue have been taking this opportunity to display their new found tolerance and liberalism, although what other stance they could have taken in support of their bright, shiny leader is beyond me. And yet, and yet, perhaps we should be asking ourselves just how committed they are to freedom of the individual and in their opposition to the 'nanny state' that all liberals abhor.
On homosexuality, for example, where by merely scratching the surface, you discover that tolerance is limited to 'activities which I personally approve of'. Sorry guys (and funnily enough, it's generally men who come out with the various 'family values' lines), you're going to have to accept that the right to participate in acts that might make some uncomfortable in a private and consensual manner is something that should be defended. Besides, what is depraved and debauched to some is perfectly natural and pleasurable to others.
On the family, why should the state lecture people as to the ideal of family? Indeed, why should the state offer bribes to encourage people to order their relationships in a 'preferred manner'? Whose right is it to restrict the rights of individuals to adopt, regardless of the nature of their relationship when all that is important is the happiness and well-being of the child?
I'm sure that any Conservative reading this will, with some justification, note that the activities of certain prominent Liberal Democrats have fallen short of the highest moral and ethical standards, and it would be foolish of me to deny that. However, I would counter by pointing out that very few Liberal Democrats have been caught partaking in activities that they have publicly condemned or campaigned against. And that's my point.
Conservatives have generally been quick to condemn those who fail to match up to the highest moral standards (or happen to be poor, but that's a whole different argument) and yet we only need to cast our minds back to the last Conservative administration, whose campaign for family values was somewhat undermined by the fact that a significant number of them were so keen on families that they had more than one.
Most people in this country are willing to forgive individuals for their transgressions, if the individual holds his/her hands up, admits that they were foolish, if foolish they were, and carries on with life. It's those who cover up, lie, or whose behaviour contradicts their carefully constructed public persona, who get, and to be blunt, deserve the pelting with tabloid refuse that generally follows.
I'm confident that the press will be looking for Cameron quotes that condemn drug-taking, and will probably be willing to take down any Shadow Cabinet stragglers who have a past that they now prefer to airbrush out of the records. In many ways, that would be a pity, as the one thing that Cameron has proved is that recreational drug use is not now a bar to holding high public office. Perhaps the debate over how to deal with drug abuse will move on to a more reasoned level now, but I wouldn't bet my mortgage on it...
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
I zorb, therefore I am...
One of my more unusual pastimes is zorbing... and no, this first picture isn't of me... more a way of giving you an idea of how it works (describing it to people is quite difficult).
I discovered zorbing nearly three years ago after Rachelle and I separated, and it was a key part in my recovery from the trauma that preceded it, an exploration of things that weren't wholly 'safe'.
I discovered zorbing nearly three years ago after Rachelle and I separated, and it was a key part in my recovery from the trauma that preceded it, an exploration of things that weren't wholly 'safe'.
The first place in the world where you could zorb was in Rotorua, New Zealand, famous for its hot springs, volcanic mud and Maori culture, although you can now take part in this sport in a number of other places, including Swanage.
Zorbing in Rotorua comes in a number of varieties, the first two being 'wet' and 'dry'. In 'dry' zorbing, you're strapped into the zorb by means of a harness, and they push you done the hill on the left. I've never done it myself, but for those who've done it, it's apparently quite interesting.
In 'wet' zorbing, you aren't harnessed in. Instead, they pump in about two buckets of water (cold in summer, warm in winter) to avoid friction burns, and then push you down the hill.
Apparently, the idea is to try to run down the hill in your zorb, staying on your feet throughout. Last I heard, only nine people had managed to do so. It sounds like awfully hard work.
Apparently, the idea is to try to run down the hill in your zorb, staying on your feet throughout. Last I heard, only nine people had managed to do so. It sounds like awfully hard work.Instead, if you're interested in something a little more exciting, there is the slalom course, the option which I prefer. The experience is very much like being in a washing machine and it's certainly a wild ride. That's actually me in the third picture (can't you tell by the way I roll?).
And now that plans are afoot for a return to the Bay of Plenty Region, I can do it all over again, and spend the afternoon relaxing in the thermal pools as part of a really good day out.
Maybe Jessica will come along for the ride...
Coalition with the Tories - unthinkable or merely unlikely?
I've spent the last twenty-four hours debating with a few Tories, following the debate within Conservative ranks about a possible coalition with the Liberal Democrats. It is an intriguing thought, and one that few might have thought likely that long ago.
When I first got involved in politics in the mid-eighties, Margaret Thatcher was in her pomp, Labour were busily writing the longest suicide note in history, and the Alliance were beginning to show signs of stress. Opposing the Conservatives was easy really, as the romanticism of youth came into counterpoint with some of the more pointless brutalities of the second term.
Ironically, I tended to sympathise with much that the Conservatives were doing. Unions had become too powerful, the economy too flabby and overmanned, taxes too high and incentive dimmed. The problem was that they simply didn't seem to care about the casualties, and there were plenty of those. They also made some remarkable stupid decisions in search of short term gain. I've touched on the reduction of the civil service retirement age elsewhere, so I won't bang on about that one.
Having made most of the radical changes, the third term saw a loss of momentum. Kicking the trade unions lost its savour, especially as they had become vehicles of customer service, affinity deals, insurance and social awareness rather than leaders of a socialist rebellion. The country saw no threat in the Labour Party, and became wary of the notion of 'permanent revolution'. And as for family values, failing to check that your MPs are playing at home first was a red rag to media who had little else to shoot at. And at a time of ever more rapid social change, the seemingly extreme views of leading Conservatives and apparent lack of empathy for the less fortunate just turned off moderate voters.
Labour just seemed more dynamic in 1997. Independence for the Bank of England, devolution of power in Scotland and Wales, a Human Rights Act, all of these things pushed the right buttons for liberals. People remembered the 1992-1997 Government with contempt. Thatcher might not have been liked, but she was respected (or feared, which in some quarters passes for the same thing). By 1997, Conservatives weren't liked, nor were they respected and the obligatory kicking was duly administered.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Labour, once so radical, have become more and more authoritarian. Unable to win the arguments, they have resorted to ever more debased scare tactics to keep 'their' voters loyal. Increasingly, they pass legislation first and think later, only to create more problems which require even more draconian, anti-libertarian solutions. They can't even do competence these days, it seems.
As a liberal, I believe in giving people the opportunity to take control over their own lives. I don't believe that the Government, any government for that matter, should interfere with the rights of individuals, so long as the freedoms of others are not restricted. That makes me a social liberal. I also believe that government is generally pretty bad at things which require initiative - civil servants struggle with the profit motive (not unreasonably, I suppose) but often lack the independence of thought required to make meaningful change in the way that services are delivered.
Frankly, I don't really care who delivers services, as long as the people delivering them are treated properly and that there is real, meaningful democratic accountability. I also believe that people should have to deal with the consequences of their own actions and that they should be rewarded on merit, not because they fall into a certain category. That means that taxes should only be levied where they can be justified as being in the public interest - sorry, I'm yet to be convinced that individual ownership of major pieces of military hardware is in the public interest - and I guess that this makes me an economic liberal...
So, if freedom of the individual is uppermost, there is scope for linkage between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and certainly, there are more obvious points of contact between the underlying philosophies of liberalism and conservatism than there are between liberalism and socialism (not that the latter is currently on offer...).
From a personal perspective, I'm yet to be convinced either way. The lack of clear policy from the Conservatives leads one to be sceptical - we've been fooled by the reds, we're not so keen to be fooled by the blues... but where policy is being released, the parallels are intriguing. So I'll watch and wait, and see what develops. And, having already voted to go into coalition with the Conservatives in Southwark in my capacity as an Officer of the Liberal Democrat Group here, it wouldn't be as outlandish as once it might have been...
When I first got involved in politics in the mid-eighties, Margaret Thatcher was in her pomp, Labour were busily writing the longest suicide note in history, and the Alliance were beginning to show signs of stress. Opposing the Conservatives was easy really, as the romanticism of youth came into counterpoint with some of the more pointless brutalities of the second term.
Ironically, I tended to sympathise with much that the Conservatives were doing. Unions had become too powerful, the economy too flabby and overmanned, taxes too high and incentive dimmed. The problem was that they simply didn't seem to care about the casualties, and there were plenty of those. They also made some remarkable stupid decisions in search of short term gain. I've touched on the reduction of the civil service retirement age elsewhere, so I won't bang on about that one.
Having made most of the radical changes, the third term saw a loss of momentum. Kicking the trade unions lost its savour, especially as they had become vehicles of customer service, affinity deals, insurance and social awareness rather than leaders of a socialist rebellion. The country saw no threat in the Labour Party, and became wary of the notion of 'permanent revolution'. And as for family values, failing to check that your MPs are playing at home first was a red rag to media who had little else to shoot at. And at a time of ever more rapid social change, the seemingly extreme views of leading Conservatives and apparent lack of empathy for the less fortunate just turned off moderate voters.
Labour just seemed more dynamic in 1997. Independence for the Bank of England, devolution of power in Scotland and Wales, a Human Rights Act, all of these things pushed the right buttons for liberals. People remembered the 1992-1997 Government with contempt. Thatcher might not have been liked, but she was respected (or feared, which in some quarters passes for the same thing). By 1997, Conservatives weren't liked, nor were they respected and the obligatory kicking was duly administered.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Labour, once so radical, have become more and more authoritarian. Unable to win the arguments, they have resorted to ever more debased scare tactics to keep 'their' voters loyal. Increasingly, they pass legislation first and think later, only to create more problems which require even more draconian, anti-libertarian solutions. They can't even do competence these days, it seems.
As a liberal, I believe in giving people the opportunity to take control over their own lives. I don't believe that the Government, any government for that matter, should interfere with the rights of individuals, so long as the freedoms of others are not restricted. That makes me a social liberal. I also believe that government is generally pretty bad at things which require initiative - civil servants struggle with the profit motive (not unreasonably, I suppose) but often lack the independence of thought required to make meaningful change in the way that services are delivered.
Frankly, I don't really care who delivers services, as long as the people delivering them are treated properly and that there is real, meaningful democratic accountability. I also believe that people should have to deal with the consequences of their own actions and that they should be rewarded on merit, not because they fall into a certain category. That means that taxes should only be levied where they can be justified as being in the public interest - sorry, I'm yet to be convinced that individual ownership of major pieces of military hardware is in the public interest - and I guess that this makes me an economic liberal...
So, if freedom of the individual is uppermost, there is scope for linkage between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, and certainly, there are more obvious points of contact between the underlying philosophies of liberalism and conservatism than there are between liberalism and socialism (not that the latter is currently on offer...).
From a personal perspective, I'm yet to be convinced either way. The lack of clear policy from the Conservatives leads one to be sceptical - we've been fooled by the reds, we're not so keen to be fooled by the blues... but where policy is being released, the parallels are intriguing. So I'll watch and wait, and see what develops. And, having already voted to go into coalition with the Conservatives in Southwark in my capacity as an Officer of the Liberal Democrat Group here, it wouldn't be as outlandish as once it might have been...
Sunday, February 04, 2007
When cats attack!
This morning was spent in health-related activity. I haven't had a proper eye test for far too long, and after a few disconcerting moments in Albuquerque and Dallas when I began to distrust my own eyes, I was moved to do something about it.
Armed with a voucher entitling me to a free eye test (and no, I don't qualify for one through my age, you cheeky monkeys!), I turned up and was shown into one of those seemingly standard rooms you encounter at opticians, with slightly shabby walls and furniture that might stand to be replaced in the near future. I was gently led through a set of tests, which exposed the fact that I have the eyesight of a hawk. Not bad for a forty-two year old!
My next errand was to take Victoria to the vet. She's been suffering from a persistent ear infection since I returned from India and I finally had the opportunity to do something about it. She's the smallest of my five cats but undoubtedly the most feisty (I can't imagine where she gets it from), so I was quite pleasantly surprised when the vet managed to give her an injection without much complaint. Unfortunately, this meant that she was alerted to what was to follow, i.e. a second injection. A blur of black and white fur later, there was rather a lot of blood around, mine as it turned out. Victoria had quite successfully bitten my hand, and I was bleeding like a stuck pig from a very neat puncture wound.
A little disinfectant and some running water and the bleeding stopped - eventually - allowing me to take her home. The good news is that not only do I still have a left hand, but Victoria appears to have forgiven me for impaling her teeth in my hand. I can't wait for the follow-up appointment next week...
Armed with a voucher entitling me to a free eye test (and no, I don't qualify for one through my age, you cheeky monkeys!), I turned up and was shown into one of those seemingly standard rooms you encounter at opticians, with slightly shabby walls and furniture that might stand to be replaced in the near future. I was gently led through a set of tests, which exposed the fact that I have the eyesight of a hawk. Not bad for a forty-two year old!
My next errand was to take Victoria to the vet. She's been suffering from a persistent ear infection since I returned from India and I finally had the opportunity to do something about it. She's the smallest of my five cats but undoubtedly the most feisty (I can't imagine where she gets it from), so I was quite pleasantly surprised when the vet managed to give her an injection without much complaint. Unfortunately, this meant that she was alerted to what was to follow, i.e. a second injection. A blur of black and white fur later, there was rather a lot of blood around, mine as it turned out. Victoria had quite successfully bitten my hand, and I was bleeding like a stuck pig from a very neat puncture wound.
A little disinfectant and some running water and the bleeding stopped - eventually - allowing me to take her home. The good news is that not only do I still have a left hand, but Victoria appears to have forgiven me for impaling her teeth in my hand. I can't wait for the follow-up appointment next week...
When resolutions and reality collide
You may remember that one of my resolutions was that I would try to be 'generally better' in 2007, and, in fairness, I have made some small changes that will help me to achieve that. However, I have two big weaknesses that prevent me from being as effective as I could be.
I'm not very good at saying 'no' to people. In part, I suppose that this is a reaction to my divorce, in that we all want to be loved to some extent, and making others happy is more likely to achieve such an end. I'm also incredibly bad at delegating, on the grounds that I can probably do it better myself, assuming of course, that I actually get around to completing the task. I can probably get away with one of these traits, but to sustain both is not only foolish but well nigh impossible.
My narrow re-election as Regional Secretary has a sense of augury about it, and combined with an impending house move, hopefully in the late Spring, I feel obliged to withdraw from some areas of activity and scale back other projects. I'm starting with my role as Returning Officer for one of the London Assembly seats, as it hasn't really got underway yet, and there are plenty of other people who could do it as well, if not better, than I could. I look at it as being an indirect delegation of responsibility.
So, what is left to do?
I'm not very good at saying 'no' to people. In part, I suppose that this is a reaction to my divorce, in that we all want to be loved to some extent, and making others happy is more likely to achieve such an end. I'm also incredibly bad at delegating, on the grounds that I can probably do it better myself, assuming of course, that I actually get around to completing the task. I can probably get away with one of these traits, but to sustain both is not only foolish but well nigh impossible.
My narrow re-election as Regional Secretary has a sense of augury about it, and combined with an impending house move, hopefully in the late Spring, I feel obliged to withdraw from some areas of activity and scale back other projects. I'm starting with my role as Returning Officer for one of the London Assembly seats, as it hasn't really got underway yet, and there are plenty of other people who could do it as well, if not better, than I could. I look at it as being an indirect delegation of responsibility.
So, what is left to do?
- Deliver Prospective Parliamentary Candidates for four seats in the Home Counties (I would have dropped them as well but I owe a debt of gratitude to the Regional Candidates Chair for South Central Region and am rather fond of his opposite number in South East Region).
- Set up the systems required to administer membership servicing in Dulwich & West Norwood.
- Catch up with the backlog of Secretary tasks for the Regional Party, and review the Regional Constitution for changes (I promised Jeremy Ambache that I would do this, and a promise is a promise).
- Carry out the pre-preparation for the European Selection for South East England.
If there's anything else outstanding, it probably isn't that important and won't get done. Otherwise, I have every confidence in the other Regional Officers to deal with it... it is meant to be a team, after all
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Return of the bureaucrat
As you might have guessed from the sidebar, I have been re-elected as Regional Secretary - just... Given that all but three of the twenty-three potential electors cast their vote, a margin of 11 to 9 is slightly discomforting. However, the agony of waiting is over, and my work resumes apace.
The job of Regional Secretary is, if the Regional Constitution is to be believed, a very simple one.
8. The Secretary of the Regional Executive shall be responsible for arranging the meetings of the Regional Executive and keeping minutes and for the Region's communications with Local Parties and other bodies within the Party.
However, the latter part of the job description can be as much or as little as the incumbent wishes it to be, and in the past, has tended towards the minimalist end, through no fault of my predecessors, lest it be taken as criticism.
Technology allows a Regional Secretary to reach his/her 'audience' more easily, more quickly and perhaps most importantly of all, more cheaply than ever before. This should be a good thing, as it affords the Regional Party access to the ear of its constituent Local Parties, especially when something important is happening. On the other hand, it presents the problem of "How much information is enough?". Indeed, how much information is too much?
Politicians are always uncomfortable when control over information is ceded to a wider circle, and in an age when information can be used and abused more readily than ever before, and some of our opponents are less encumbered by moral scruples about doing so, any attempt to broaden the knowledge base has to be tempered with a degree of caution and, done with the support of those whose reservations are strongly, and genuinely, held.
To some of you, this may very well sound like a 'rowing back' from my previous statements and perhaps it is. However, sometimes you have to prove the validity of a case by small, successful pilot projects rather than by 'big bang' reform lest the long-term goal be derailed by opponents of progress...
The job of Regional Secretary is, if the Regional Constitution is to be believed, a very simple one.
8. The Secretary of the Regional Executive shall be responsible for arranging the meetings of the Regional Executive and keeping minutes and for the Region's communications with Local Parties and other bodies within the Party.
However, the latter part of the job description can be as much or as little as the incumbent wishes it to be, and in the past, has tended towards the minimalist end, through no fault of my predecessors, lest it be taken as criticism.
Technology allows a Regional Secretary to reach his/her 'audience' more easily, more quickly and perhaps most importantly of all, more cheaply than ever before. This should be a good thing, as it affords the Regional Party access to the ear of its constituent Local Parties, especially when something important is happening. On the other hand, it presents the problem of "How much information is enough?". Indeed, how much information is too much?
Politicians are always uncomfortable when control over information is ceded to a wider circle, and in an age when information can be used and abused more readily than ever before, and some of our opponents are less encumbered by moral scruples about doing so, any attempt to broaden the knowledge base has to be tempered with a degree of caution and, done with the support of those whose reservations are strongly, and genuinely, held.
To some of you, this may very well sound like a 'rowing back' from my previous statements and perhaps it is. However, sometimes you have to prove the validity of a case by small, successful pilot projects rather than by 'big bang' reform lest the long-term goal be derailed by opponents of progress...
Monday, January 29, 2007
A bad time to come out of the closet?
It's been nagging away at the back of my mind for some time, a sense that I am being less than true to myself. I'd given it some thought over the past three years, and have even joked about it on occasion. But it was only over the New Year, spent with my family, that I concluded that, deep in my soul, I am at heart a Catholic.
I could have picked a better time, given the furore over the Catholic Church's attempts to seek an exemption from anti-discrimination legislation pertaining to adoption, to consider beginning the process to seek confirmation as a Catholic. It must be admitted that the leadership of the Catholic Church have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that religious leaders are, for the most part, resistant to change to the nth degree. After all, enlightenment does not tend to sit easily with the absolutism that most religions require as the basis of their support.
And yet, the response from the shapers of opinion has, for the most part, been an attempt to ridicule both the Church and, to some extent, the concept of faith in a set of moral codes laid out in the form of religious text. Perhaps that's where my concerns are triggered.
I'm not going to defend the Church, nor suggest that it has a case for seeking the proposed, and now rejected, exemption from permitting gay men and lesbians from adopting children via Catholic adoption agencies. However, the Church does have the right to seek such an exemption if they believe that it is consistent with their principles. It is for the rest of society to argue, in a cogent manner, to the contrary, and for our wider society to conclude as to who is right.
It is ironic that I've been generally suspicious of 'organised religion', feeling that it tends to produce the type of faith only really experienced by bureaucrats, with a civil service to ensure consistency of message and generally reduce the message of faith to the dullest common denominator. And yet, the concept of belief is, in itself, a quite remarkable thing.
Whilst I was still married, I attended services at North Kensington Reform Synagogue fairly frequently for a while, and discovered that religion could be entertaining, meaningful and thought-provoking, thanks in part to the efforts of Rabbi Sheila Shulman but also due to its incredibly diverse and inclusive membership. The opportunity to debate the liturgy and the unexpected comfort of repetition and song was something of an eye-opener.
Since then, a curious and hitherto unsuspected sense of Catholic guilt has emerged. I don't feel guilty about anything in particular, simply a sense that I need to be true to a moral code of some kind. Given my background, and my sense of familial loyalty, that means catholicism.
As a gut-reaction liberal, this might seem like something of a contradiction. Yet I have always had a deeply conservative set of personal values, married, rather fortunately to my mind, to a deeply liberal set of societal values. It allows me to take a 'live and let live' approach to the society I inhabit, whilst imposing a fairly rigid moral code upon my own actions. I do not accept that any religious grouping can impose its own view of the world upon a wider society.
At the same time, society has no right to impose its morals and ethics upon the internal dynamics of a religious community. Thus, on the subject of Catholic adoption agencies, the argument would be better put if they placed restrictions on non-Catholics, rather than on gay men and lesbians. Better still, we might remove religions from the adoption business altogether. And given the Catholic Church's record on child abuse in recent years, that might not be a bad thing...
I could have picked a better time, given the furore over the Catholic Church's attempts to seek an exemption from anti-discrimination legislation pertaining to adoption, to consider beginning the process to seek confirmation as a Catholic. It must be admitted that the leadership of the Catholic Church have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that religious leaders are, for the most part, resistant to change to the nth degree. After all, enlightenment does not tend to sit easily with the absolutism that most religions require as the basis of their support.
And yet, the response from the shapers of opinion has, for the most part, been an attempt to ridicule both the Church and, to some extent, the concept of faith in a set of moral codes laid out in the form of religious text. Perhaps that's where my concerns are triggered.
I'm not going to defend the Church, nor suggest that it has a case for seeking the proposed, and now rejected, exemption from permitting gay men and lesbians from adopting children via Catholic adoption agencies. However, the Church does have the right to seek such an exemption if they believe that it is consistent with their principles. It is for the rest of society to argue, in a cogent manner, to the contrary, and for our wider society to conclude as to who is right.
It is ironic that I've been generally suspicious of 'organised religion', feeling that it tends to produce the type of faith only really experienced by bureaucrats, with a civil service to ensure consistency of message and generally reduce the message of faith to the dullest common denominator. And yet, the concept of belief is, in itself, a quite remarkable thing.
Whilst I was still married, I attended services at North Kensington Reform Synagogue fairly frequently for a while, and discovered that religion could be entertaining, meaningful and thought-provoking, thanks in part to the efforts of Rabbi Sheila Shulman but also due to its incredibly diverse and inclusive membership. The opportunity to debate the liturgy and the unexpected comfort of repetition and song was something of an eye-opener.
Since then, a curious and hitherto unsuspected sense of Catholic guilt has emerged. I don't feel guilty about anything in particular, simply a sense that I need to be true to a moral code of some kind. Given my background, and my sense of familial loyalty, that means catholicism.
As a gut-reaction liberal, this might seem like something of a contradiction. Yet I have always had a deeply conservative set of personal values, married, rather fortunately to my mind, to a deeply liberal set of societal values. It allows me to take a 'live and let live' approach to the society I inhabit, whilst imposing a fairly rigid moral code upon my own actions. I do not accept that any religious grouping can impose its own view of the world upon a wider society.
At the same time, society has no right to impose its morals and ethics upon the internal dynamics of a religious community. Thus, on the subject of Catholic adoption agencies, the argument would be better put if they placed restrictions on non-Catholics, rather than on gay men and lesbians. Better still, we might remove religions from the adoption business altogether. And given the Catholic Church's record on child abuse in recent years, that might not be a bad thing...
Saturday, January 27, 2007
The morning was dark and, above all, early
A very early start this morning, for the journey to Royston in Hertfordshire, where I was the guest assessor on an East of England candidate development day. Of course, living in South London (bring your passport, we promise not to tease your accent...), this meant a 5.45 a.m. alarm, and a dash for the 7.52 a.m. train from Kings Cross in order to make the 9.15 start. Far too early for this night owl but I made it anyway.
Under the 'baton' of Christine Billingham, our facilitator, the four primary assessors, Geoff Williams, Catherin Brown and Judith Bailey and myself, plus policy assessor Paul Burral, reviewed the application forms for those points worthy of further questioning before the day itself began.
Development days come in a never ending supply of varieties, dependant on the combination of assessors, the candidates and the dynamics of the group as a whole. That isn't to say that the results are capricious in any way, nor that the process itself produces random outcomes, merely that days can be hard work or a cruise for the assessors depending on a range of factors.
I've been an assessor for twelve years now, having become one of the youngest ones in the Party at that time. Worryingly, I'm still one of the youngest ones, I suppose because most of those who might be good at it are busy being candidates themselves. At first, I tended to feel rather self-conscious on the grounds that I perhaps wasn't truly qualified to tell people that they weren't quite good enough. Ironically, that sense has only receded in the past year or so, linked, I believe, to my own enhanced sense of self-worth post-divorce.
That isn't to say that I've become inured to the stresses upon the applicants, far from it. As an assessor, I have a dual responsibility, in the first instance to the applicant, ensuring that he/she has every opportunity to display their ability to best advantage, but also to the Party, to protect it and its members from potential candidates who might fail to live up the standards we aspire to achieve, with the impact that such failure would have on future campaigning.
Telling an applicant that he or she isn't up to the mark is one of the hardest things I ever do, and I hope that, when I have to deliver such news, a sense of compassion is apparent. Applicants put their egos on the line, and have often been encouraged by others to come forward and so, when they are 'rejected', it comes all the harder.
For all that, I never fail to be impressed by the consistency of assessor scoring. We all mark independently of one another, come from different backgrounds with different experiences, and yet when scores are tallied, variations are slight if they exist at all. Occasionally, one assessor will vary from the rest on one aspect, and we'll discuss that to see if there has been a difference of interpretation, especially if it impacts on a final grading, but we always respect each other's judgements.
Curiously, I seem to be mellowing with the years. I had a reputation for being on the harsh side of fair, yet I now often find myself assigning scores which are close to the group mean. Whether or not that means I'm getting better is a judgement that can only be left to those on the receiving end of my decisions, but I'd like to think that experience brings its own rewards...
As for the development day itself? I actually thought that it got better as it went along, and working with Christine, Paul, Judith, Geoff and Catherine was a real pleasure - I've worked with most of them quite often - aided by the efforts of Mark Chapman, whose efforts in feeding us, and helping us find our way around the school buildings we were using, were invaluable.
Ironically, he was one of the applicants the last time I came to Royston, and we passed him then...
Under the 'baton' of Christine Billingham, our facilitator, the four primary assessors, Geoff Williams, Catherin Brown and Judith Bailey and myself, plus policy assessor Paul Burral, reviewed the application forms for those points worthy of further questioning before the day itself began.
Development days come in a never ending supply of varieties, dependant on the combination of assessors, the candidates and the dynamics of the group as a whole. That isn't to say that the results are capricious in any way, nor that the process itself produces random outcomes, merely that days can be hard work or a cruise for the assessors depending on a range of factors.
I've been an assessor for twelve years now, having become one of the youngest ones in the Party at that time. Worryingly, I'm still one of the youngest ones, I suppose because most of those who might be good at it are busy being candidates themselves. At first, I tended to feel rather self-conscious on the grounds that I perhaps wasn't truly qualified to tell people that they weren't quite good enough. Ironically, that sense has only receded in the past year or so, linked, I believe, to my own enhanced sense of self-worth post-divorce.
That isn't to say that I've become inured to the stresses upon the applicants, far from it. As an assessor, I have a dual responsibility, in the first instance to the applicant, ensuring that he/she has every opportunity to display their ability to best advantage, but also to the Party, to protect it and its members from potential candidates who might fail to live up the standards we aspire to achieve, with the impact that such failure would have on future campaigning.
Telling an applicant that he or she isn't up to the mark is one of the hardest things I ever do, and I hope that, when I have to deliver such news, a sense of compassion is apparent. Applicants put their egos on the line, and have often been encouraged by others to come forward and so, when they are 'rejected', it comes all the harder.
For all that, I never fail to be impressed by the consistency of assessor scoring. We all mark independently of one another, come from different backgrounds with different experiences, and yet when scores are tallied, variations are slight if they exist at all. Occasionally, one assessor will vary from the rest on one aspect, and we'll discuss that to see if there has been a difference of interpretation, especially if it impacts on a final grading, but we always respect each other's judgements.
Curiously, I seem to be mellowing with the years. I had a reputation for being on the harsh side of fair, yet I now often find myself assigning scores which are close to the group mean. Whether or not that means I'm getting better is a judgement that can only be left to those on the receiving end of my decisions, but I'd like to think that experience brings its own rewards...
As for the development day itself? I actually thought that it got better as it went along, and working with Christine, Paul, Judith, Geoff and Catherine was a real pleasure - I've worked with most of them quite often - aided by the efforts of Mark Chapman, whose efforts in feeding us, and helping us find our way around the school buildings we were using, were invaluable.
Ironically, he was one of the applicants the last time I came to Royston, and we passed him then...
Friday, January 26, 2007
“More harm was done in the 20th century by faceless bureaucrats than tyrant dictators.”
Apparently this is true. It is also apparently true that "London Region needs a secretary it can rely on to be discreet and to maintain the confidentiality of its internal communications".
Sometimes, I wonder how Mark manages to remain so equitable. My younger brother, Rupert, the family sociopath, would probably have run through the author of those words with his sword without a second thought. Having said that, he thinks that John Reid is a wet liberal, so perhaps his reaction can be regarded as unnecessarily brutal.
You'll doubtless be pleased to hear that, just as I promised last month, Ludwig and I have taken Mark in hand in an attempt to drag him out of the nineteenth century where he's been quite happy, in a rather chaotic, disorganised sort of way. It just isn't good enough for the fast-paced world that Mark has to deal with. We also think that he needs an image retune, so we're working on that too. Meanwhile, Jaime is working on broadening his philosophy - although I'm yet to be convinced that Machiavelli's "The Prince" is necessarily the best place to start - and Rupert is in charge of instilling a little assertiveness.
I've left Mikhaila, Rupert's wife, in charge of culture, and she'll be making sure that he's more of a lyric bureaucrat than he has been in the past. You'll know if it's working if he takes to humming fragments of chamber music (Schubert is a particularly good sign). The diet has helped, he's lost 1.4 kg already, and the end of the legal unpleasantries helps too.
So, all in all, 2007 is shaping up to be an interesting year in the life of Amaranth's very own faceless bureaucrat. Do let us know if you notice a difference or, if there is something you feel we could work on, don't hesitate to say so...
Sometimes, I wonder how Mark manages to remain so equitable. My younger brother, Rupert, the family sociopath, would probably have run through the author of those words with his sword without a second thought. Having said that, he thinks that John Reid is a wet liberal, so perhaps his reaction can be regarded as unnecessarily brutal.
You'll doubtless be pleased to hear that, just as I promised last month, Ludwig and I have taken Mark in hand in an attempt to drag him out of the nineteenth century where he's been quite happy, in a rather chaotic, disorganised sort of way. It just isn't good enough for the fast-paced world that Mark has to deal with. We also think that he needs an image retune, so we're working on that too. Meanwhile, Jaime is working on broadening his philosophy - although I'm yet to be convinced that Machiavelli's "The Prince" is necessarily the best place to start - and Rupert is in charge of instilling a little assertiveness.
I've left Mikhaila, Rupert's wife, in charge of culture, and she'll be making sure that he's more of a lyric bureaucrat than he has been in the past. You'll know if it's working if he takes to humming fragments of chamber music (Schubert is a particularly good sign). The diet has helped, he's lost 1.4 kg already, and the end of the legal unpleasantries helps too.
So, all in all, 2007 is shaping up to be an interesting year in the life of Amaranth's very own faceless bureaucrat. Do let us know if you notice a difference or, if there is something you feel we could work on, don't hesitate to say so...
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The vacuum cleaner engineer cometh...
I'm at home this morning, having booked a visit by an engineer to repair my ailing vacuum cleaner (a vital piece of equipment in a house with five cats, let me tell you). I was told that he would come between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m., so I booked the morning off and waited patiently for him to arrive, knowing in my heart that he probably wouldn't come until the last possible minute. You can therefore imagine my surprise when he arrived at 9.50 a.m., diagnosed a dead motor, replaced it and is now gone! I was so pleased that I actually vacuumed a small corner of my living room in celebration...
The other advantage is that I've found time to tidy up a bit, catch up on some personal business, and some Lib Dem things too. A nuisance turned positive, for a change.
Day 5 of diet - current weight loss: 1.0kg (one step backwards...) - net change in Body Mass Index (BMI): -0.33...
The other advantage is that I've found time to tidy up a bit, catch up on some personal business, and some Lib Dem things too. A nuisance turned positive, for a change.
Day 5 of diet - current weight loss: 1.0kg (one step backwards...) - net change in Body Mass Index (BMI): -0.33...
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Civil servants vs the Government
A colleague has just very kindly informed me that I have an unexpected day off next Wednesday, courtesy of my fellow union members. Indeed, the result of our strike ballot was pretty conclusive, with 61% voting for strike action, and 78% voting for action short of a strike. The date of the strike? 31 January, yes, you guessed it, deadline day for self assessment Tax Returns (you've seen the adverts, haven't you?)!
I used to be a Customer Service Manager in my Maida Vale days, and believe me, the queue of taxpayers attempting to file at the last minute was a sight to see. So the prospect of a skeleton staff and a picket line on the busiest day of the year does raise an ironic smile. If you were planning to drop in at your local tax office next Wednesday though, you might think about doing so a day earlier...
Naturally, I am a member of PCS (Public & Commercial Services Union), as one should join up in support of the right to bargain collectively, although I tend to be a more critical member than most. That said, my ballot paper was lost in the sea of paper that I call my living room, so I didn't cast my usual 'no' vote. However, it's only a democracy if you accept that you are bound by a collective decision, so I'll not be crossing the picket line and spend the day catching up with my paperwork instead (quite useful, really).
I used to be a Customer Service Manager in my Maida Vale days, and believe me, the queue of taxpayers attempting to file at the last minute was a sight to see. So the prospect of a skeleton staff and a picket line on the busiest day of the year does raise an ironic smile. If you were planning to drop in at your local tax office next Wednesday though, you might think about doing so a day earlier...
Naturally, I am a member of PCS (Public & Commercial Services Union), as one should join up in support of the right to bargain collectively, although I tend to be a more critical member than most. That said, my ballot paper was lost in the sea of paper that I call my living room, so I didn't cast my usual 'no' vote. However, it's only a democracy if you accept that you are bound by a collective decision, so I'll not be crossing the picket line and spend the day catching up with my paperwork instead (quite useful, really).
It has come to a pretty pass when civil service unions are striking against a Labour government...
Day 4 of diet - current weight loss: 1.4kg (hoorah...) - net change in Body Mass Index (BMI): -0.46...
Monday, January 22, 2007
By the way, some Americans are STILL campaigning against the war
Iraq: ADA Board Resolution
Adopted by the ADA Board on January 21, 2007 in Washington, DC.
Last November, the American public sent the Bush Administration and their Congressional colleagues a clear message: It is long past time for the United States to end its unjustified and unjustifiable war in Iraq. That message was echoed by the Iraq Study Group which, in its December 6 report, characterized the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating." The report went on to call for "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts" which will "enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." The ISG noted that their recommendations needed to be taken as a whole and that the Administration should resist the temptation to cherry pick from amongst them.
The Administration's response, instead, has been to ignore both the American electorate and the advice of an experienced, thoughtful, bi-partisan commission and to place more than 21,000 additional American forces in harm's way with no discernible exit strategy. More alarmingly, they have systematically removed from the decision-making process any who dared to question their strategy and have begun ratcheting up the rhetoric and action against Iran.
Fortunately, the Administration's escalation has been countered by proposals for withdrawal in the newly-minted 110th Congress many of whose members were elected in direct response to the Administration's intransigence.
Senators Biden, Levin, Hagel and Snowe are co-sponsoring a resolution stating, "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military presence in Iraq." We believe it is an important first step in the process and ask Senators from both parties to join in adopting it.
It is imperative that both the Senate and the House immediately demonstrate their determination to rein in an Administration which is clearly out of control and out of touch with reality. Ultimately, that resolve can only be brought to bear by exercising the power of the purse and forcing the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Their continued presence is only serving to destabilize the region further, provides a rhetorical and real target for extremist elements around the world and helps to fuel the sectarian violence which is ravaging Iraq.
ADA encourages all legislative efforts to speed up withdrawal of U. S. troops from Iraq, to prevent escalation of the war and to use the power of the purse to limit further damage. For example, Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have introduced H.R. 508 the "Bring our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007" to establish a 6-month timeframe for withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Iraq, help stabilize Iraq and fully fund the VA health care system.
All proposals for withdrawal forward the discussion. The time for waiting is long past and the Administration clearly will continue on its misguided, dangerous adventurism at the cost of countless American, Iraqi and allied forces unless it is forced to confront reality. ADA urges the U.S. Congress to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Adopted by the ADA Board on January 21, 2007 in Washington, DC.
Last November, the American public sent the Bush Administration and their Congressional colleagues a clear message: It is long past time for the United States to end its unjustified and unjustifiable war in Iraq. That message was echoed by the Iraq Study Group which, in its December 6 report, characterized the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating." The report went on to call for "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts" which will "enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly." The ISG noted that their recommendations needed to be taken as a whole and that the Administration should resist the temptation to cherry pick from amongst them.
The Administration's response, instead, has been to ignore both the American electorate and the advice of an experienced, thoughtful, bi-partisan commission and to place more than 21,000 additional American forces in harm's way with no discernible exit strategy. More alarmingly, they have systematically removed from the decision-making process any who dared to question their strategy and have begun ratcheting up the rhetoric and action against Iran.
Fortunately, the Administration's escalation has been countered by proposals for withdrawal in the newly-minted 110th Congress many of whose members were elected in direct response to the Administration's intransigence.
Senators Biden, Levin, Hagel and Snowe are co-sponsoring a resolution stating, "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military presence in Iraq." We believe it is an important first step in the process and ask Senators from both parties to join in adopting it.
It is imperative that both the Senate and the House immediately demonstrate their determination to rein in an Administration which is clearly out of control and out of touch with reality. Ultimately, that resolve can only be brought to bear by exercising the power of the purse and forcing the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Their continued presence is only serving to destabilize the region further, provides a rhetorical and real target for extremist elements around the world and helps to fuel the sectarian violence which is ravaging Iraq.
ADA encourages all legislative efforts to speed up withdrawal of U. S. troops from Iraq, to prevent escalation of the war and to use the power of the purse to limit further damage. For example, Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have introduced H.R. 508 the "Bring our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007" to establish a 6-month timeframe for withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Iraq, help stabilize Iraq and fully fund the VA health care system.
All proposals for withdrawal forward the discussion. The time for waiting is long past and the Administration clearly will continue on its misguided, dangerous adventurism at the cost of countless American, Iraqi and allied forces unless it is forced to confront reality. ADA urges the U.S. Congress to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
They're both as bad as each other...
Day 3 of diet - have taken up walking to the station in the morning (just over a mile) and resumed my exercise routine (fifteen minutes on the step machine, twenty on the cross trainer) - current weight loss: 0.9kg (gosh...) - net improvement in Body Mass Index (BMI): -0.30...
Before Christmas, I commented on Labour's difficulties with ethics and waited for the opposition parties to stuff the resulting open goal. I was pleased to see my team put up a fine display of principled outrage, but somewhat puzzled by the silence from the Conservative benches. I really shouldn't have been, should I...
It would appear that the Conservatives are recipients of largesse from one Wafic Said, which, if true, might explain the rather embarrassing silence. To suggest that the Conservative Party is above 'financial engineering' (legal, strictly, but hardly morally upstanding) is admittedly like suggesting the ocean is above the sky, but if you admit by omission that your own finances might not withstand close scrutiny, one wonders how they can claim the moral high ground, even over our beloved, straight-shooting, honest as the day is long (around December 22), Government.
At a time when the debate about the funding of political parties is as public as it has ever been, one might almost presume that our opponents in the Labour and Conservative Parties are determined to discredit our current politics so badly as to discourage the public from supporting state funding. Or am I just being paranoid?
Before Christmas, I commented on Labour's difficulties with ethics and waited for the opposition parties to stuff the resulting open goal. I was pleased to see my team put up a fine display of principled outrage, but somewhat puzzled by the silence from the Conservative benches. I really shouldn't have been, should I...
It would appear that the Conservatives are recipients of largesse from one Wafic Said, which, if true, might explain the rather embarrassing silence. To suggest that the Conservative Party is above 'financial engineering' (legal, strictly, but hardly morally upstanding) is admittedly like suggesting the ocean is above the sky, but if you admit by omission that your own finances might not withstand close scrutiny, one wonders how they can claim the moral high ground, even over our beloved, straight-shooting, honest as the day is long (around December 22), Government.
At a time when the debate about the funding of political parties is as public as it has ever been, one might almost presume that our opponents in the Labour and Conservative Parties are determined to discredit our current politics so badly as to discourage the public from supporting state funding. Or am I just being paranoid?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Another Valladares blogs...
Day 2 of diet - swapped from cheese to ham at breakfast to remove 180 calories a day from my diet, gave up processed food and filled the refridgerator with lean meat - current weight loss: 0.5kg (better...) - net improvement in Body Mass Index (BMI): -0.17...
It was vaguely unlikely when I started blogging some fifteen months ago but now an even less likely event has happened, in that my father has started blogging too. Admittedly, his is not political, or family based, or even social, and you'll learn very little about him. Instead, he is transferring his regular 'business newsletter' to the blogosphere, and if you're interested, check out the link on the right hand column...
Meanwhile, my cousin Kim has posted on the family blog, reporting on the wedding of the year, so there is life elsewhere on Planet Valladares. I wonder who will be next?
It was vaguely unlikely when I started blogging some fifteen months ago but now an even less likely event has happened, in that my father has started blogging too. Admittedly, his is not political, or family based, or even social, and you'll learn very little about him. Instead, he is transferring his regular 'business newsletter' to the blogosphere, and if you're interested, check out the link on the right hand column...
Meanwhile, my cousin Kim has posted on the family blog, reporting on the wedding of the year, so there is life elsewhere on Planet Valladares. I wonder who will be next?
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Reconnected to the outside world
Day 1 of diet - changed desserts to remove 120 calories a day from my diet (must start somewhere) - current weight loss: -0.1kg (that's not good...)
I'm not the most technically-minded person, and had found it impossible to reconnect my now repaired PC to the internet - until now. I was looking for something completely unconnected to my computer when I ran across the installation CD for AOL Broadband. A few connections later, and here I am, back online, thanks heavens.
Other than that, I'm still waiting to discover my fate as potential Regional Secretary, although I am comforted by the notion that my opponent won't slaughter me, even if I don't win... more news on that to come, I hope...
I'm not the most technically-minded person, and had found it impossible to reconnect my now repaired PC to the internet - until now. I was looking for something completely unconnected to my computer when I ran across the installation CD for AOL Broadband. A few connections later, and here I am, back online, thanks heavens.
Other than that, I'm still waiting to discover my fate as potential Regional Secretary, although I am comforted by the notion that my opponent won't slaughter me, even if I don't win... more news on that to come, I hope...
Friday, January 19, 2007
A leaner, fitter, Southwark (Group)
The gauntlet has been laid down, and I have accepted the challenge.
One of my gallant colleagues within the Southwark Liberal Democrat family has announced that he is going to make a serious push to shed some weight over the next six weeks leading up to Federal Conference in Harrogate, and challenged allcomers to join him, a prize to be awarded to the contestant who loses most weight over the period. How could I resist, especially given some of my previous comments? I wasn't the only one though, and it looks like there will be a number of us playing (I'm not naming them to protect their privacy).
The referee for this contest is Caroline Pidgeon, a woman described by one competitor as 'annoyingly thin'. Jealousy is a terrible thing, isn't it? Paul Baichoo, one of our rather more svelte colleagues, has offered to lead a public workout session in one of Southwark's parks, and this may well take place, albeit without my participation (if I thought I was a fit sight for impressionable children, I wouldn't need to lose the weight...).
As far as I can tell, the quickest way to shed some useless bulk would be to persuade one of Peckham Rye's Labour councillors to resign, but as it would be difficult to get one of them onto a set of weighing scales, I'm just going to have to rely on a proven formula, diet, exercise and stress.
I am going to take the risk of doing this publicly though, so that you can watch my progress and hassle me for my failings (you know that you want to). I'm not going to tell you my starting weight (even a bureaucrat has his pride, after all), but I'll provide regular updates on weight lost (in kilogrammes) and the impact on my Body Mass Index (BMI). I may even indicate how I'm getting on relative to my 'opposition', depending on how things are going.
My family will no doubt be taking a close interest too, especially my father, who has been attempting, in a good-natured way, to prod me into action to do something about my figure (or lack thereof).
So let the contest begin, and let the (low fat) chips fall where they may!
One of my gallant colleagues within the Southwark Liberal Democrat family has announced that he is going to make a serious push to shed some weight over the next six weeks leading up to Federal Conference in Harrogate, and challenged allcomers to join him, a prize to be awarded to the contestant who loses most weight over the period. How could I resist, especially given some of my previous comments? I wasn't the only one though, and it looks like there will be a number of us playing (I'm not naming them to protect their privacy).
The referee for this contest is Caroline Pidgeon, a woman described by one competitor as 'annoyingly thin'. Jealousy is a terrible thing, isn't it? Paul Baichoo, one of our rather more svelte colleagues, has offered to lead a public workout session in one of Southwark's parks, and this may well take place, albeit without my participation (if I thought I was a fit sight for impressionable children, I wouldn't need to lose the weight...).
As far as I can tell, the quickest way to shed some useless bulk would be to persuade one of Peckham Rye's Labour councillors to resign, but as it would be difficult to get one of them onto a set of weighing scales, I'm just going to have to rely on a proven formula, diet, exercise and stress.
I am going to take the risk of doing this publicly though, so that you can watch my progress and hassle me for my failings (you know that you want to). I'm not going to tell you my starting weight (even a bureaucrat has his pride, after all), but I'll provide regular updates on weight lost (in kilogrammes) and the impact on my Body Mass Index (BMI). I may even indicate how I'm getting on relative to my 'opposition', depending on how things are going.
My family will no doubt be taking a close interest too, especially my father, who has been attempting, in a good-natured way, to prod me into action to do something about my figure (or lack thereof).
So let the contest begin, and let the (low fat) chips fall where they may!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
A gentleman of leisure
To the National Liberal Club yesterday for lunch with a former work colleague. I seldom get to the Club, despite paying my, in retrospect, quite reasonable annual subscription. In fact, there have been years when I've spent more time in reciprocal clubs overseas than in my own, but it is one of my very few indulgences (other than travel, of course!).
So it was a pleasure to have a guest for lunch. A calvados to get the digestive juices flowing was a fine lead into the pork and goose rillette with pickled vegetables. The main course, for me the sirloin steak, for my guest the ragout of hare, was accompanied by a very pleasant bottle of shiraz, and with the cheeseboard, port and coffee to follow, we finally finished our meal at 4.15, having spent a leisurely three and a quarter hours over it.
Obviously, it made perfect sense to retire to the bar for brandy and more pleasant conversation before I escorted her to Charing Cross to catch her train at 7.22 p.m.
All in all, a thoroughly sybaritic experience and one that I really must repeat at some point in the future...
So it was a pleasure to have a guest for lunch. A calvados to get the digestive juices flowing was a fine lead into the pork and goose rillette with pickled vegetables. The main course, for me the sirloin steak, for my guest the ragout of hare, was accompanied by a very pleasant bottle of shiraz, and with the cheeseboard, port and coffee to follow, we finally finished our meal at 4.15, having spent a leisurely three and a quarter hours over it.
Obviously, it made perfect sense to retire to the bar for brandy and more pleasant conversation before I escorted her to Charing Cross to catch her train at 7.22 p.m.
All in all, a thoroughly sybaritic experience and one that I really must repeat at some point in the future...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Life in the Stone Age
At least, that's how it feels to me. I got home on Friday evening, turned on the computer and watched it crash. Not good. Ring friendly computer guy and arrange to deliver the hard drive to my father's office so that he can pick it up. Arrive to find office full of Polish guys laying carpet tiles. Ah, that lovely new carpet smell...
Ring Al (the computer guy) on Sunday. Arrange to collect base unit, complete with brand new hard drive which means... all of my documents are lost, pending retrieval (hopefully) from old hard drive. No Microsoft Office (do I have the original CD-ROM or was it pre-loaded?), need to reload AOL (and how do I do that?). Other than that, no problem...
Collect base unit, share a drink or two with Al, carpet layers still there, carpet looks nice though... bring it home, turn it on, alright so far. Load AOL. Can I connect up the modem? No. At least it plays music again...
And so I am anchored to my work computer temporarily. Normal service will be resumed... eventually...
Ring Al (the computer guy) on Sunday. Arrange to collect base unit, complete with brand new hard drive which means... all of my documents are lost, pending retrieval (hopefully) from old hard drive. No Microsoft Office (do I have the original CD-ROM or was it pre-loaded?), need to reload AOL (and how do I do that?). Other than that, no problem...
Collect base unit, share a drink or two with Al, carpet layers still there, carpet looks nice though... bring it home, turn it on, alright so far. Load AOL. Can I connect up the modem? No. At least it plays music again...
And so I am anchored to my work computer temporarily. Normal service will be resumed... eventually...
Monday, January 15, 2007
Liberal bureaucracy and the free market
I've been Regional Secretary for two years now, and was beginning to assume that it was a job that nobody else wanted. On Wednesday, my assumption was somewhat unexpectedly shaken when, in seeking nominations, I found that I am opposed for the post this year. Havard Hughes, our now former Chair of the Regional Policy Committee, indicated that he wanted the job and my initial response was to let him have it. I'm not particularly desperate to prevent someone else from doing something they want to do, and it would potentially free up my time... However, I was talked out of withdrawing my nomination and we have a contest.
Bureaucracy and competition are not the most obvious words to associate, but if you're a free market liberal as I am, then it seems only fair that even bureaucrats should face the chill wind of competition. I'm allowed 100 words for my manifesto and, I freely admit, it hasn't come easily. Do I defend my record, or should I make promises? If the latter, why didn't I do such things in my previous terms? Is my record that good?
Oh well, I suppose that I ought to get on with it. In the meantime, here is an alternative manifesto, courtesy of Joni Mitchell...
Bureaucracy and competition are not the most obvious words to associate, but if you're a free market liberal as I am, then it seems only fair that even bureaucrats should face the chill wind of competition. I'm allowed 100 words for my manifesto and, I freely admit, it hasn't come easily. Do I defend my record, or should I make promises? If the latter, why didn't I do such things in my previous terms? Is my record that good?
Oh well, I suppose that I ought to get on with it. In the meantime, here is an alternative manifesto, courtesy of Joni Mitchell...
"The way I see it," he said,
"You just can't win it
Everybody's in it for their own gain
You can't please 'em all
There's always somebody calling you down"
I do my best
And I do good business
There's a lot of people asking
for my time
They're trying to get ahead
They're trying to be a good
friend of mine
I was a free man in Paris
I felt unfettered and alive
There was nobody calling me
up fo favours
And no one's future to decide
You know I'd go back there tomorrow
But for the work I've taken on
Stoking the star maker machinery
Behind the popular song
Unfortunately, it exceeds my hundred-word limit...
Monday, January 08, 2007
Escape to, and from, Fort Aguada
Welcome to Fort Aguada, started by the Portuguese in 1612, and never actually taken despite the various attacks on the place by all and sundry in the period that followed. Today, it holds a rather nice five-star resort, and you can still view large amounts of the original fortifications.
In the bay overlooked by the fort is a rather large oil tanker, the River Princess, which ran aground just 500 metres off shore some years ago, and is still awaiting a claimant. Whilst it isn't the most intrinsically pretty thing, it just add a touch of gritty realism to the warnings of dangerous riptides and the like which greet those foolhardy enough to venture too far from the golden sands that line the shore.
The wedding went very well by the way, and my cousin Clyne and his new bride, Nisha, will be on their way back to Mumbai today, before heading on to Kerala for their honeymoon. I hadn't met Nisha before, and was pleasantly surprised to find her as pleasant as she undoubtedly is. Clyne clearly is adhering to the theory that Valladares males marry to improve the family...
I did get to play an unexpected role in proceedings, arriving at the church forty minutes in advance of the ceremony to be greeted with a request to read the 'Prayer for the Faithful'. I'm beginning to suspect a conspiracy but, with the aid of a microphone, I managed to get through in satisfactory manner.
But now, it is time to turn for home, back to Mumbai before my flight to London via Vienna. It's been a good trip, with time to see my family, catch up on affairs and generally rest in anticipation of a hectic 2007. Next on the agenda, a Regional Executive Committee meeting on Wednesday evening. Hmm...
In the bay overlooked by the fort is a rather large oil tanker, the River Princess, which ran aground just 500 metres off shore some years ago, and is still awaiting a claimant. Whilst it isn't the most intrinsically pretty thing, it just add a touch of gritty realism to the warnings of dangerous riptides and the like which greet those foolhardy enough to venture too far from the golden sands that line the shore.
The wedding went very well by the way, and my cousin Clyne and his new bride, Nisha, will be on their way back to Mumbai today, before heading on to Kerala for their honeymoon. I hadn't met Nisha before, and was pleasantly surprised to find her as pleasant as she undoubtedly is. Clyne clearly is adhering to the theory that Valladares males marry to improve the family...
I did get to play an unexpected role in proceedings, arriving at the church forty minutes in advance of the ceremony to be greeted with a request to read the 'Prayer for the Faithful'. I'm beginning to suspect a conspiracy but, with the aid of a microphone, I managed to get through in satisfactory manner.
But now, it is time to turn for home, back to Mumbai before my flight to London via Vienna. It's been a good trip, with time to see my family, catch up on affairs and generally rest in anticipation of a hectic 2007. Next on the agenda, a Regional Executive Committee meeting on Wednesday evening. Hmm...
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Because life should be in colour...
I've been quite busy over the past few days, in a 'not actually doing very much' kind of way. I've been commuting backwards and forwards between my hotel and the family home in Mahim, and haven't had much time for the rest of my life otherwise.
Enough apologising though, and on with the action. Last year, I made a bunch of resolutions that I never kept. So far, so boring. This year, I intend to be a little different and will publish my resolutions so that you can hold me to them if you choose.
In 2007, I intend to do two things:
- Be generally better - vague, I know, but this is a composite resolution
- Live life in colour - even vaguer, but I aim to have some fun this year, and you should see the collection of shirts that I have to spring on an unsuspecting world...
I have concluded that life is too short to be a grey bureaucrat, and intend to become a touch more dashing. It could be fun to watch, but I'm hoping that it will be even more fun to be.
So, a Happy New Year to you all (a bit belated, I know) and good luck to you all in your endeavours...
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Health and safety - an Indian alternative
I was brought up to believe that you should bear the consequences of your own actions, and so have generally been less than friendly to some of the more surreal examples of health and safety policy. Admittedly, we haven't gone quite as mad as Americans have, but as we tend to follow the American trend (law suits, fast food, obesity and mindless reality television being just four which the British aim to do just as well as our transatlantic cousins), I usually expect the worst.
Mumbai, on the other hand, would if the average health and safety inspector waking nightmares. Here, we're quite find of buses with open platforms. We're not so convinced that buses actually need to stop to let people get on or off, and it seems perfectly sensible to ensure on-time running by setting off with a dozen people hanging on to the bus without actually being in it. As for limitations on the number of people standing... yes, I know that the sign says 20 standees only but 67 is fairly close, isn't it, and you get a much better view if you're standing upstairs, don't you? And if you can't get on the bus, you can just stand in front of it, or chase it down the street and throw yourself at the entrance as it comes past.
And as for the trains, well, having doors that close is very nice, but it's warm and dry (most of the year), you lose time opening and closing the doors, and why wouldn't you want to hang out of a moving train anyway? So the doors are jammed open, and four or five people are hanging out of the door, maintaining a tight grip on the bar that runs down the middle of the opening, or the rim where the doors would be if they were shut, or whatever they can find to hold onto.
I think that it's wonderful, and all this excitement comes at the very reasonable price of Rs.8 for a 14-mile train ride all the way from Andheri to Victoria Terminus, or Rs.9 for the hour-long bus ride to Mahim (yes, buses are more expensive than trains, go figure...). And me, I can lean out of train doors with the best of them, hang on to buses like grim death, and generally confuse the locals, who can't quite get a grasp on the fact that I actually enjoy this. At Rs.87 to the pound, I can even do it all day if I choose.
My father lectures me about pickpockets (me, the only Valladares to have visited Bogota and Buenos Aires and escaped both completely unscathed), and I think he occasionally forgets how much travelling I have done in less than classically mainstream tourism destinations.
Ah well, time to get some sleep, I think. I've got choir practice in the morning, and I really need to leave here at about 8.45 to make sure that I get there on time. Don't worry, I'm not singing, I've just got a sense of humour, that's all...
Mumbai, on the other hand, would if the average health and safety inspector waking nightmares. Here, we're quite find of buses with open platforms. We're not so convinced that buses actually need to stop to let people get on or off, and it seems perfectly sensible to ensure on-time running by setting off with a dozen people hanging on to the bus without actually being in it. As for limitations on the number of people standing... yes, I know that the sign says 20 standees only but 67 is fairly close, isn't it, and you get a much better view if you're standing upstairs, don't you? And if you can't get on the bus, you can just stand in front of it, or chase it down the street and throw yourself at the entrance as it comes past.
And as for the trains, well, having doors that close is very nice, but it's warm and dry (most of the year), you lose time opening and closing the doors, and why wouldn't you want to hang out of a moving train anyway? So the doors are jammed open, and four or five people are hanging out of the door, maintaining a tight grip on the bar that runs down the middle of the opening, or the rim where the doors would be if they were shut, or whatever they can find to hold onto.
I think that it's wonderful, and all this excitement comes at the very reasonable price of Rs.8 for a 14-mile train ride all the way from Andheri to Victoria Terminus, or Rs.9 for the hour-long bus ride to Mahim (yes, buses are more expensive than trains, go figure...). And me, I can lean out of train doors with the best of them, hang on to buses like grim death, and generally confuse the locals, who can't quite get a grasp on the fact that I actually enjoy this. At Rs.87 to the pound, I can even do it all day if I choose.
My father lectures me about pickpockets (me, the only Valladares to have visited Bogota and Buenos Aires and escaped both completely unscathed), and I think he occasionally forgets how much travelling I have done in less than classically mainstream tourism destinations.
Ah well, time to get some sleep, I think. I've got choir practice in the morning, and I really need to leave here at about 8.45 to make sure that I get there on time. Don't worry, I'm not singing, I've just got a sense of humour, that's all...
Opposition to the hanging of Saddam Hussein - liberalism or paternalism in action?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I'm on the hanging and flogging wing of the Party, although I do have some good friends who might well enjoy that sort of thing. It's just that I wonder what right we have to fuss about the decisions made by a sovereign nation in pursuit of justice and/or retribution.
I have become increasingly bored over the years by listening to politicians telling me that such and such a country is corrupt or undemocratic or simply backward because it fails to adhere to our ever-so-perfect template for a modern society. We talk about encouraging condom use in the developing world, or about democratic shortfalls, or about the failure to provide education, or healthcare, or 101 other things that we western Europeans take for granted, and never ask the obvious question, which is, "What can we do to help these nations to help themselves?"
Hanging is a particularly cruel way to judicially murder an individual, and judicial murder is exactly what it is. At the same time, there are a variety of ways of doing the job, most of which are unpleasant or brutal. However, it comes down to selecting a method which is the least unhumane and consistent with the cultural values of the state. There are also the questions related to deterrence, although in our 'modern' society, I am increasingly convinced that it has very little.
Saddam Hussein had to die, lest he act as a focal point for further insurgency. Whilst I personally believe that the sorts of people leading the insurgency actually care little for him, he acts as an excuse. Indeed, although displaying photographs of Saddam pre- and post-execution is fairly ghastly, there should be little doubt that he is dead, conspiracy theorists not withstanding. Those who mourn his passing are no friends of a peaceful civil society in any event, and I have little or no sympathy for their fate.
When a corrupt, vicious regime falls, the most successful transitions are those where an internal solution is found, from South Africa at one end, where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission acted to lance the boil of those crimes committed under apartheid, through Chile's move to provide a degree of protection to the junta in return for a commitment to respect democracy, to the more drastic acts in Romania. These were solutions which took into accounts the needs of the reborn nations, and they worked. Did we approve? Not always.
We need to be more willing to support nations in designing their solutions, provide them with the means to build the civic structures that will sustain a better, more open, freer society, and if Tony Blair fancies having a real legacy, he might want to think about how we could fulfil that role more effectively...
I have become increasingly bored over the years by listening to politicians telling me that such and such a country is corrupt or undemocratic or simply backward because it fails to adhere to our ever-so-perfect template for a modern society. We talk about encouraging condom use in the developing world, or about democratic shortfalls, or about the failure to provide education, or healthcare, or 101 other things that we western Europeans take for granted, and never ask the obvious question, which is, "What can we do to help these nations to help themselves?"
Hanging is a particularly cruel way to judicially murder an individual, and judicial murder is exactly what it is. At the same time, there are a variety of ways of doing the job, most of which are unpleasant or brutal. However, it comes down to selecting a method which is the least unhumane and consistent with the cultural values of the state. There are also the questions related to deterrence, although in our 'modern' society, I am increasingly convinced that it has very little.
Saddam Hussein had to die, lest he act as a focal point for further insurgency. Whilst I personally believe that the sorts of people leading the insurgency actually care little for him, he acts as an excuse. Indeed, although displaying photographs of Saddam pre- and post-execution is fairly ghastly, there should be little doubt that he is dead, conspiracy theorists not withstanding. Those who mourn his passing are no friends of a peaceful civil society in any event, and I have little or no sympathy for their fate.
When a corrupt, vicious regime falls, the most successful transitions are those where an internal solution is found, from South Africa at one end, where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission acted to lance the boil of those crimes committed under apartheid, through Chile's move to provide a degree of protection to the junta in return for a commitment to respect democracy, to the more drastic acts in Romania. These were solutions which took into accounts the needs of the reborn nations, and they worked. Did we approve? Not always.
We need to be more willing to support nations in designing their solutions, provide them with the means to build the civic structures that will sustain a better, more open, freer society, and if Tony Blair fancies having a real legacy, he might want to think about how we could fulfil that role more effectively...
Friday, December 29, 2006
A change of pace: ox carts and elephants
One of the advantages of being the eldest of a family generation scattered to the four corners of the Earth is that there are lots of weddings to attend, and children to look at and say "Isn't he/she/it adorable? Looks the spitting image of (insert name of relative)..."
And so you might guess that I'm doing that at the moment and I welcome you to Mumbai accordingly. My cousin Clyne is getting married next week to the mysterious Nisha - only mysterious because Clyne isn't terribly communicative, I admit - and I'm in town easing back into the routine of commuting around Mumbai, spending time sitting in the front room in Mahim chatting with relatives, passing friends of the family and, in fact, anyone who just fancies dropping in.
The other advantage is that the temperature is in the low nineties here, the beer is cold and my aging bones are beginning to respond to the low-stress environment. I've worked out how to get around from my hotel near the airport, and despite the occasional need to shoehorn myself into a space smaller than I would necessarily choose simply to get onto a bus (standing room for 21? Try 210...), all is well.
I'll be reporting from the wedding next week, and keeping an eye on events here in the big city, so watch this space...
And so you might guess that I'm doing that at the moment and I welcome you to Mumbai accordingly. My cousin Clyne is getting married next week to the mysterious Nisha - only mysterious because Clyne isn't terribly communicative, I admit - and I'm in town easing back into the routine of commuting around Mumbai, spending time sitting in the front room in Mahim chatting with relatives, passing friends of the family and, in fact, anyone who just fancies dropping in.
The other advantage is that the temperature is in the low nineties here, the beer is cold and my aging bones are beginning to respond to the low-stress environment. I've worked out how to get around from my hotel near the airport, and despite the occasional need to shoehorn myself into a space smaller than I would necessarily choose simply to get onto a bus (standing room for 21? Try 210...), all is well.
I'll be reporting from the wedding next week, and keeping an eye on events here in the big city, so watch this space...
Sunday, December 24, 2006
2006: a year in review (part 3) - if I see another lawyer again, I'll scream
As you might guess from the title, the last third of 2006 was full of rules, lawyers and constitutions.
In my private life, the death throes of my divorce were scheduled for October, but I was back into Party mode in a bad way. The whole question of diversity and ethnicity came to a head and, whilst I frankly wasn't convinced at the time, and I'm still uneasy about the methodology, I cannot deny that the leadership are trying to do something. Now all we have to do is teach them to understand how things are done and why. The Liberator collective have already mentioned the meeting between Dawn Davidson and the Leader's office (Liberator 315), so I tell no tales when I note how incredibly unimpressed I was to hear of it. Look guys, which part of the phrase 'liberal principles' don't you get?
I also committed myself to trying to open up the way the party is run. I got involved in a debate about local party boundaries in Bromley but the big issue was our candidate selection process...
Appointments as Returning Officer streamed in, first Wokingham, then Wantage, then Maidstone and The Weald, South East England (European), Wycombe and finally London South West (London Assembly). In the background, although not for long, there was an increasing clamour about our Selection Rules. In Birmingham, the debate became public. Ironically, there was simultaneously a move on the part of the English Candidates Committee to be more responsive, and I was permitted to launch something of a counter-attack, first on this blog, then via Liberal Democrat Voice and finally, this very week, in Liberator (I've been published - I'm so proud...). It now looks like there will be an ongoing debate, and I'm keen to play a part in that.
Finally, I se
emed to spend a lot of time acting on behalf of St Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes. I tried to broker a peace deal between the Darbyshires and, it seemed, the majority of the Lib Dem blogosphere, and, whilst it wasn't without its difficult moments, peace seems to have broken out.
My harder problem though was the campaign to 'save' Susanne Lamido for the nation, sorry, Party. It would be fair to say that Susanne has made herself a fair number of enemies, and things culminated in an attempt to revoke her membership, a fact which seemed to be of remarkable interest beyond the Party. Having originally volunteered to be her supporter on the basis that everyone deserves a fair trial, I found myself in the role of chief defence attorney, something I had not expected. In the end, it came down to an interpretation of the agreed facts, when Susanne's absence probably told against her.
The year ended in scandal, with Labour's increasing problems with integrity and, more entertainingly, if somewhat less than ideal, Lembit Opik's problems with his relationships.
And on that note, may I wish you all a very Cheeky Christmas, and a happy New Year... I'll probably post again before 2007 comes in, but I'll be occupied elsewhere, so don't wait up...
In my private life, the death throes of my divorce were scheduled for October, but I was back into Party mode in a bad way. The whole question of diversity and ethnicity came to a head and, whilst I frankly wasn't convinced at the time, and I'm still uneasy about the methodology, I cannot deny that the leadership are trying to do something. Now all we have to do is teach them to understand how things are done and why. The Liberator collective have already mentioned the meeting between Dawn Davidson and the Leader's office (Liberator 315), so I tell no tales when I note how incredibly unimpressed I was to hear of it. Look guys, which part of the phrase 'liberal principles' don't you get?
I also committed myself to trying to open up the way the party is run. I got involved in a debate about local party boundaries in Bromley but the big issue was our candidate selection process...
Appointments as Returning Officer streamed in, first Wokingham, then Wantage, then Maidstone and The Weald, South East England (European), Wycombe and finally London South West (London Assembly). In the background, although not for long, there was an increasing clamour about our Selection Rules. In Birmingham, the debate became public. Ironically, there was simultaneously a move on the part of the English Candidates Committee to be more responsive, and I was permitted to launch something of a counter-attack, first on this blog, then via Liberal Democrat Voice and finally, this very week, in Liberator (I've been published - I'm so proud...). It now looks like there will be an ongoing debate, and I'm keen to play a part in that.
Finally, I se
emed to spend a lot of time acting on behalf of St Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes. I tried to broker a peace deal between the Darbyshires and, it seemed, the majority of the Lib Dem blogosphere, and, whilst it wasn't without its difficult moments, peace seems to have broken out.My harder problem though was the campaign to 'save' Susanne Lamido for the nation, sorry, Party. It would be fair to say that Susanne has made herself a fair number of enemies, and things culminated in an attempt to revoke her membership, a fact which seemed to be of remarkable interest beyond the Party. Having originally volunteered to be her supporter on the basis that everyone deserves a fair trial, I found myself in the role of chief defence attorney, something I had not expected. In the end, it came down to an interpretation of the agreed facts, when Susanne's absence probably told against her.
The year ended in scandal, with Labour's increasing problems with integrity and, more entertainingly, if somewhat less than ideal, Lembit Opik's problems with his relationships.
And on that note, may I wish you all a very Cheeky Christmas, and a happy New Year... I'll probably post again before 2007 comes in, but I'll be occupied elsewhere, so don't wait up...
Saturday, December 23, 2006
2006: a year in review (part 2)
If the first part of the year was dedicated almost entirely to the Party, the mid-section of dedicated to me. It was time to travel at last, and boy, did I travel.I set off around the world, visiting the Valladares manse (see picture, surprisingly people free - it's never like this normally), meeting the communists, making new friends, trying a new career or experiencing a sense of angst. The trip ended in Washington DC, where I was reintroduced to the world of American liberalism. There was an unexpected surprise subsequently, when I was invited to co-chair the Foreign and Military Policy Commission of Americans for Democratic Action. Next year sees the sixtieth Annual Convention of this august organisation, and I am hugely honoured to have been given the opportunity to serve.
I have to admit that the normal, fun-loving bureaucrat was missing in action for some of the summer. I began to show some rather unbureaucratic tendancies and began to show signs that I didn't really want to do politics quite as badly as before. Indeed, I eventually did give up being Local Party Chair and made the very wise decision to focus on the things that I'm a) fairly good at, and b) enjoy. So, 2007 will see more candidate related activity and bureaucracy, and less overt leadership...
To get over my ennui, I was dragged off to Mauritius (most unwillingly, let me assure you...), and things gradually got better. Lengthy exposure to my family, whose interest in politics is limited almost entirely to what I get up to, allowed me to put things into better perspective. So, I'd like to hand the award for family of the year to my very own family.
I would also like to make an award for the best David Cameron act-alike to the orangutan I met in Seoul. Of course, you do see the similarity, looks harmless, and perhaps vaguely attractive to those of a kindly, trusting disposition, says nothing offensive (nothing much at all, if truth be told).
And that's it for the summer. Tomorrow, I'll wrap up to 2006 with a journey from Brighton to Dallas via Putney...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)