The labour party has a new leader. Whatever your politics a strong opposition is essential to a democracy, Margaret Thatcher once lectured Frances Pym for saying he wanted to see a strong opposition but he was right. Democracy needs checks and balances.
Now I suspect that Ed Milliband isn't really red Ed but I think he ought to be a bit wary at some of the plaudits being thrown at him by his own party.
A union delegate lent over to Neil Kinnock and said "We've got our party back" and Kinnock said "I thought that was so accurate as an instantaneous response to the leader's speech".
Now may I'm sure that at least one labour councillor who reads this blog occasionally (Hi Corinna!) will agree with that but let me ask a question. What did Kinnock achieve? Did he make much difference to our lives? Uh no! Oh its oft stated he made Labour Electable but in 1992 he blew it and let Norman Lamont and John Major cock up the economy (no blaming any one but ourselves for that).
Blair may not be to everyone's cup of tea but he can at least point to increased spending on health, education and the minimum wage. Kinnock can point to his appearance on Have I got News for you.
As Roy Hattersley once said its easy to appeal to your core vote and get xx% of the vote and be in perpetual opposition. As Blair, Cameron and Clegg know without power you can't achieve anything. A lesson that Ed Milliband had better learn damn quick. The British people are conservative with a small c and they don't like extremes.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Michael Foot 1913 - 2010
I can't say I was ever a fan of Michael Foot's politics, a left wing (OI LEAZ A PROPER SOCIALIST !! He made Barrack Obama look like Sarah Palin LOL ) unilateralist who believed in state control but his death today aged 96 shouldn't go unmarked by this blog.
He was a committed anti-fascist and a truly marvellous orator of the old school. I heard a clip today of him addressing a CND meeting and you had to marvel at the power of his oratory. Foot was anti the European Union and a Republican (although it is reported that he got on well with the Royal Family at a personal level).
What made Foot so admired in Westminster was his decency as a person and his conviction. Foot was a politician who went into politics to change things not for what he got out of it. He was a politician you could imagine in a big hall debating with Gladstone and Disraeli not for him the smart suits and media consultants of Blair and Cameron.
He was derided for the coat he wore at the cenotaph in 1981 (although the Queen Mother admired it - apparently she had more sense than the red top media). He led his party to its worst election performance since the war but Foot was a politician of principal and perhaps his view that banks should be state owned is not so wrong headed in 2010 as it once was.
Not only though was Foot a politician (with 42 years in the commons ), he was a journalist (editor of the Standard) and highly regarded writer.
I do like the comments of Ed West in the Telegraph.
This speech was from 1942 in Defence of the Daily Mirror which had criticised the conduct of the war by the Churchill Government.
He was a committed anti-fascist and a truly marvellous orator of the old school. I heard a clip today of him addressing a CND meeting and you had to marvel at the power of his oratory. Foot was anti the European Union and a Republican (although it is reported that he got on well with the Royal Family at a personal level).
What made Foot so admired in Westminster was his decency as a person and his conviction. Foot was a politician who went into politics to change things not for what he got out of it. He was a politician you could imagine in a big hall debating with Gladstone and Disraeli not for him the smart suits and media consultants of Blair and Cameron.
He was derided for the coat he wore at the cenotaph in 1981 (although the Queen Mother admired it - apparently she had more sense than the red top media). He led his party to its worst election performance since the war but Foot was a politician of principal and perhaps his view that banks should be state owned is not so wrong headed in 2010 as it once was.
Not only though was Foot a politician (with 42 years in the commons ), he was a journalist (editor of the Standard) and highly regarded writer.
I do like the comments of Ed West in the Telegraph.
and though most of us here will not have agreed with his politics, ........ he was a good man who loved his country and wanted to make it even better
This speech was from 1942 in Defence of the Daily Mirror which had criticised the conduct of the war by the Churchill Government.
Monday, August 03, 2009
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLEURGH
Harriet Harperson deputy leader of the Labour Party (I never voted for her) has said that in future one of Labours top two posts must be reserved for Woman.
According to an interview in the Sunday Times:
She does
because men
You can read more of her drivel here.
Now here's the rub I think she is going to achieve the exact opposite of what she wants. Her argument is one she used when she got the deputy leadership but to me it is patronising, vote for me because? well I'm a girl. She also wanted employers to discriminate and choose the best woman. GIVE ME STRENGTH.
A big thing was made in 1997 about the numbers of women entering parliament as Blairs Babes and you know what? How many of them were any good? (That's not to say the men are any better ....).
I wonder what someone like Barbara Castle would have said to Harriet's views? I bet the firebrand Castle would have been grossly insulted. Another Labour Woman like Shirley Williams needed, or wanted, such favour. But then Castle and Williams are of a calibre that Blair's babes can't match.
I am not averse to Woman MP's, Minister's or Prime Minister's. BUT I want the best of each regardless of religion, colour, creed or sexuality.
I've said this before we get the politician's we deserve. And does that not tell you something about our society? When Brown is criticised it is often for his inane smile and lack of people skills.
So? I don't give a stuff about the fact he is uncool. I care about the fact that he screwed up the 10p tax rate and overcomplicates policy. I don't think he is a leader but I want politican's who make the tought decisions and not media savvy buffoons (Messers Cameron and Osborne).
Ming Campbell was criticised because he was too old. GIVE ME STRENGTH. He'd have made a better Foreign Secretary than any of the muppets who've had the job.
Give me a Ken Clarke or a Vince Cable any day of the week over the likes of Blair and Cameron.
But as I say we get the politicians we deserve and that surely tells you something. We have professional politico's. Party loyalty. BLAH.
Oh and another thing WE DO NOT ELECT THE PRIME MINISTER. We never have done (and I'm disappointed that Ian Hislop keeps missing this point of HIGNFY - is it me or is he becoming unbearably smug lately?).
We vote for MP's, we need to get back to where MP's were more independent of the party and that voting against your party or a matter of principal is not seen as disloyalty. As it is one of the better labour MP's Frank Field is in the wilderness despite having fresh ideas. No doubt the ideas were unpopular with focus groups.
According to an interview in the Sunday Times:
She does
not agree with all-male leaderships
because men
cannot be left to run things on their own.
You can read more of her drivel here.
Now here's the rub I think she is going to achieve the exact opposite of what she wants. Her argument is one she used when she got the deputy leadership but to me it is patronising, vote for me because? well I'm a girl. She also wanted employers to discriminate and choose the best woman. GIVE ME STRENGTH.
A big thing was made in 1997 about the numbers of women entering parliament as Blairs Babes and you know what? How many of them were any good? (That's not to say the men are any better ....).
I wonder what someone like Barbara Castle would have said to Harriet's views? I bet the firebrand Castle would have been grossly insulted. Another Labour Woman like Shirley Williams needed, or wanted, such favour. But then Castle and Williams are of a calibre that Blair's babes can't match.
I am not averse to Woman MP's, Minister's or Prime Minister's. BUT I want the best of each regardless of religion, colour, creed or sexuality.
I've said this before we get the politician's we deserve. And does that not tell you something about our society? When Brown is criticised it is often for his inane smile and lack of people skills.
So? I don't give a stuff about the fact he is uncool. I care about the fact that he screwed up the 10p tax rate and overcomplicates policy. I don't think he is a leader but I want politican's who make the tought decisions and not media savvy buffoons (Messers Cameron and Osborne).
Ming Campbell was criticised because he was too old. GIVE ME STRENGTH. He'd have made a better Foreign Secretary than any of the muppets who've had the job.
Give me a Ken Clarke or a Vince Cable any day of the week over the likes of Blair and Cameron.
But as I say we get the politicians we deserve and that surely tells you something. We have professional politico's. Party loyalty. BLAH.
Oh and another thing WE DO NOT ELECT THE PRIME MINISTER. We never have done (and I'm disappointed that Ian Hislop keeps missing this point of HIGNFY - is it me or is he becoming unbearably smug lately?).
We vote for MP's, we need to get back to where MP's were more independent of the party and that voting against your party or a matter of principal is not seen as disloyalty. As it is one of the better labour MP's Frank Field is in the wilderness despite having fresh ideas. No doubt the ideas were unpopular with focus groups.
Monday, March 23, 2009
It's the Law
I think this works better in B&W than it did in colour (see Saturday)?
I think it looks quite poignant with Dad walking away and the shape of the path with the Rotunda in the background.
Anyway the UK government has introduced the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act section 76 thereof makes it an offence to to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services—or a photograph which 'may be of use for terrorism.
This is rather vague don't you think? Does this mean we can no longer take a photo of Buckingham Palace because there'll be a soldier in it? A photo of the Horseguards? Well they are soldiers!
Yes I'm sure that isn't the intention but there is a point here.
Vernon Coaker, the minister for policing, crime and security, told the NUJ last year that photography could be limited
Val Swain, a member of Fitwatch, a collective which photographs police intelligence teams taking pictures of protesters, said:
Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the NUJ, said:
I've no idea what that all this means but I expect that the Police will use it as they see fit.
As much as we have to protect ourselves from terrorists I don't believe that curbing our civil liberties still further is the way to do it.
If you object to this law and are a British Citizen then this petition may interest you.
For my part I've emailed my MP and told him that alas I won't be voting for him next year. 1) he's a government minister and 2) he has a 92 majority.
I regret this because I think he is a decent consitituency MP but I think I've had enough of being "protected" by New Labour.
I think it looks quite poignant with Dad walking away and the shape of the path with the Rotunda in the background.
Anyway the UK government has introduced the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act section 76 thereof makes it an offence to to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services—or a photograph which 'may be of use for terrorism.
This is rather vague don't you think? Does this mean we can no longer take a photo of Buckingham Palace because there'll be a soldier in it? A photo of the Horseguards? Well they are soldiers!
Yes I'm sure that isn't the intention but there is a point here.
Vernon Coaker, the minister for policing, crime and security, told the NUJ last year that photography could be limited
on the grounds of national securityin
situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or inflame an already tense situation or raise security considerations, or
to prevent a breach of the peace
Val Swain, a member of Fitwatch, a collective which photographs police intelligence teams taking pictures of protesters, said:
I took a picture of an officer on my camera phone and he walked over and said, 'you are going to delete that'. We're in a public place, he's in a public role and he knew that. They've been gearing up for it but so far they've stopped short of arresting people. Now they will have the power to do it.
Jeremy Dear, general secretary of the NUJ, said:
Police officers ... believe they have the power to delete images or to take editorial decisions about what can and can't be photographed. The right to take photos in a public place is a precious freedom. It is what enables the press to show the wider world what is going on.
I've no idea what that all this means but I expect that the Police will use it as they see fit.
As much as we have to protect ourselves from terrorists I don't believe that curbing our civil liberties still further is the way to do it.
If you object to this law and are a British Citizen then this petition may interest you.
For my part I've emailed my MP and told him that alas I won't be voting for him next year. 1) he's a government minister and 2) he has a 92 majority.
I regret this because I think he is a decent consitituency MP but I think I've had enough of being "protected" by New Labour.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Code of the Wooster's
When Gordon Brown reappointed Lord Mandelson to government he could little have imagined that within a week he would have embroiled the shadow chancellor in a scandel.
George Osborne attended the yacht of a Russian Billionaire along with his friend Nathaniel Rothschild, also present was another friend of Rothschild the then Euro Commssion Peter, now Lord, Mandelson. Apparently Mandelson made some indiscreet comments about Prime Minister Gordon Brown and when Mandelson came back into government Osborne dished the dirt.
Now Rothschild took umbrage to this and has alleged that Osborne was trying to get a political donation for the Conservative party, which as the Billionaire is a foreign national is illegal. Osborne denies this.
Now why did Rothschild do this? Rothschild was educated at Eton College and Wadham College, Oxford. Rothschild was a member of the Bullingdon Club as an undergraduate, at the same time as oddly enough George Osborne the Conservative Party shadow chancellor. Other Bullingdon Club members at the same time were London Mayor Boris Johnson and the leader of the conservative party David Cameron.
You would expect Rothschild would stick with his long time chum Osborne wouldn't you? but Osborne committed a cardinal crime in public school circles, he blabbed on a private conversation. What Mandelson said in private should have remained private Osborne broke the unwritten rule.
Rothschild was incensed, Mandelson's remarks were private and Osborne should have known and respected this, hence Rothschild's revenge.
Now I don't know if Osborne has done anything illegal but what he has done is prove that his nickname in the Bullingdon was well earned, he is an oik.
George Osborne attended the yacht of a Russian Billionaire along with his friend Nathaniel Rothschild, also present was another friend of Rothschild the then Euro Commssion Peter, now Lord, Mandelson. Apparently Mandelson made some indiscreet comments about Prime Minister Gordon Brown and when Mandelson came back into government Osborne dished the dirt.
Now Rothschild took umbrage to this and has alleged that Osborne was trying to get a political donation for the Conservative party, which as the Billionaire is a foreign national is illegal. Osborne denies this.
Now why did Rothschild do this? Rothschild was educated at Eton College and Wadham College, Oxford. Rothschild was a member of the Bullingdon Club as an undergraduate, at the same time as oddly enough George Osborne the Conservative Party shadow chancellor. Other Bullingdon Club members at the same time were London Mayor Boris Johnson and the leader of the conservative party David Cameron.
You would expect Rothschild would stick with his long time chum Osborne wouldn't you? but Osborne committed a cardinal crime in public school circles, he blabbed on a private conversation. What Mandelson said in private should have remained private Osborne broke the unwritten rule.
Rothschild was incensed, Mandelson's remarks were private and Osborne should have known and respected this, hence Rothschild's revenge.
Now I don't know if Osborne has done anything illegal but what he has done is prove that his nickname in the Bullingdon was well earned, he is an oik.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Bye Bye Gordon
It must be hard being Gordon Brown at the mo. He desperately wanted to lead his party for almost two decades but was persuaded that someone he regarded as a lightweight was more "electable" so took a backseat as no 2 for years. Finally he got the chance and guess what? It all when belly up.
But you know I have no sympathy for him. Yes people are plotting against him but then his mates have been doing that for years. He always seemed to go missing when something important came up. Iraq? I'm off to see the Dentist Tony.
Brown likes to complicate, he loves to announce the same initiative 402 times and then wonders why he is not trusted. And he is indecisive. You could imagine him last year pulling petals off a flower to decide wwhether to call the election last year.
"election, no election, election, no elction.... aw no election"
So Gordon some advice. Don't go for gimmicky headlines. Cutting basic rate tax to 20p and then finding that the abolition of the 10p rate means the poorest are worse off is not just daft its criminal. Surely you modelled this. Be straight, don't say this will be for all pensioners when its not.
Maybe you can't be held responsible for the global credit crunch but the above issues make you seem incompetent.
Brown has no legitimacy, contrary to popular opinion he didn't need to be elected by the "great" British public we only vote for parties folks he's not a president, but he did need to be elected leader of his party. True he would have won but it would have given him some legitimacy. Brown, alas, is not a leader. I'm not sure who is the next leader but Labour have been suckered into believing they had a successor to Blair when they didn't.
My advice would be heed the saying "Keep it simple stupid".
As it is I find Nick Clegg and Vince Cable a more credible pairing than Brown et al. And Cameron is just Blair Mk2. Brown is doomed but who the hell wants that job this side of an election.
I'll be lighter tomorrow :D
But you know I have no sympathy for him. Yes people are plotting against him but then his mates have been doing that for years. He always seemed to go missing when something important came up. Iraq? I'm off to see the Dentist Tony.
Brown likes to complicate, he loves to announce the same initiative 402 times and then wonders why he is not trusted. And he is indecisive. You could imagine him last year pulling petals off a flower to decide wwhether to call the election last year.
"election, no election, election, no elction.... aw no election"
So Gordon some advice. Don't go for gimmicky headlines. Cutting basic rate tax to 20p and then finding that the abolition of the 10p rate means the poorest are worse off is not just daft its criminal. Surely you modelled this. Be straight, don't say this will be for all pensioners when its not.
Maybe you can't be held responsible for the global credit crunch but the above issues make you seem incompetent.
Brown has no legitimacy, contrary to popular opinion he didn't need to be elected by the "great" British public we only vote for parties folks he's not a president, but he did need to be elected leader of his party. True he would have won but it would have given him some legitimacy. Brown, alas, is not a leader. I'm not sure who is the next leader but Labour have been suckered into believing they had a successor to Blair when they didn't.
My advice would be heed the saying "Keep it simple stupid".
As it is I find Nick Clegg and Vince Cable a more credible pairing than Brown et al. And Cameron is just Blair Mk2. Brown is doomed but who the hell wants that job this side of an election.
I'll be lighter tomorrow :D
Monday, May 19, 2008
10p Tax
I don't normally talk politics but....
Before finally getting his dream job our "beloved" PM reduced income tax from 22p to 20p and removed the 10p rate. I remember at the time thinking this was a bit odd but assumed he had fiddled with something else to offset the low paid. How wrong can I be.
Now as you are all aware this has come back to bite Gordon on the backside. Last week Alistair Darling announced how they were going to rectify this by increasing personal allowances and reduce the amount at where you start paying higher rate tax.
Darling (and I'm sorry but I now think of Brown and Darling as General Melchett and Captain Darling from Blackadder goes Fourth) has been accused of bribing voters ahead of the Crewe bi-election. I kind of feel sorry for him if he tries to correct his bosses mistake he is accused of bribery if he bides his time he's a ditherer.
Brown though doesn't get it. When Nick Clegg challenged him that even with this fix a million people will be worse off he waffles on about how this government has done more blah de blah to reduce poverty. Gordon you cocked up admit it mate. You've made a million low paid people worse off and that is not what a Labour Government should do. I've heard of redistriubtion but its meant to be from Rich to Poor.
One of his "babes" got very upset at the opposition and went on about Tax Credits. Now look love (ooh how patronising) we'd rather have it in our pay packets than have to fill in some effing form.
Annoyingly I live in a Labour/Tory marginal because I want to vote Lib Dem. I think Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are quite impressive. I'd never vote for the tory because the bloke seems to want it too much and I think Labour needs someone other than Brown. The bloke doesn't do anything simply.
Before finally getting his dream job our "beloved" PM reduced income tax from 22p to 20p and removed the 10p rate. I remember at the time thinking this was a bit odd but assumed he had fiddled with something else to offset the low paid. How wrong can I be.
Now as you are all aware this has come back to bite Gordon on the backside. Last week Alistair Darling announced how they were going to rectify this by increasing personal allowances and reduce the amount at where you start paying higher rate tax.
Darling (and I'm sorry but I now think of Brown and Darling as General Melchett and Captain Darling from Blackadder goes Fourth) has been accused of bribing voters ahead of the Crewe bi-election. I kind of feel sorry for him if he tries to correct his bosses mistake he is accused of bribery if he bides his time he's a ditherer.
Brown though doesn't get it. When Nick Clegg challenged him that even with this fix a million people will be worse off he waffles on about how this government has done more blah de blah to reduce poverty. Gordon you cocked up admit it mate. You've made a million low paid people worse off and that is not what a Labour Government should do. I've heard of redistriubtion but its meant to be from Rich to Poor.
One of his "babes" got very upset at the opposition and went on about Tax Credits. Now look love (ooh how patronising) we'd rather have it in our pay packets than have to fill in some effing form.
Annoyingly I live in a Labour/Tory marginal because I want to vote Lib Dem. I think Nick Clegg and Vince Cable are quite impressive. I'd never vote for the tory because the bloke seems to want it too much and I think Labour needs someone other than Brown. The bloke doesn't do anything simply.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Sooper Dooper Toosday
Our cousins across the pond are having an election next November. It is therefore a bit puzzling to us Brits that for the past month or so all we've heard about is the US elections. Of course our cousins have to spend flipping ages deciding WHO to put on the ballot before having the ballot.
Anyone thinking that the sums we spend on an election are obscene should look at what is spent over there. Frightening I'll say!!
That said before any American readers think I'm having a go there are some advantages to the American system. It now looks like John McCain will take the Republican nomination, from what I can gather McCain is not wholly loved by the Republicans. Apparently one conservative pundit went as far to say that she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than John McCain. McCain looks like a bloke you could sit in a pub and have a beer with. Now the last UK Conservative politician you could say that was Ken Clarke and his party desperately tried to stop him being leader.
I don't much about the other Republican candidates. Romney? seems to have LOADS of money to spend and Huckabee is a guitar playing former baptist preacher who quotes the bible. Huckabee is the type of conservative politician that frightens me one that uses religion to focus much of his politics. Now I have no problem with religious belief but I am not convinced that it has any basis in politics. I regard certain issues of morality as personal. The growing political influence of religion is something that really scares me.
That said I bet we Brits no more about the Democrats or at least heard more of them. It's Hilary v Barack. I guess its that for the first time ever there will be someone other tan a white man or the ballot. In some respects Barack Obama's rise is impressive, the idea of a black politician running for PM here seems unthinkable. Not I might add because of their colour but I can't think of any senior politicans. Then again the Americans may be able to site this as an example of the superiority of their system. Then again when Barack opens his mouth I fall asleep. He seems like a clone of Blair, Cameron et al. Change Fairness blah.
On the other hand Hilary though seems to lack Charisma. She lacks the human touch. She seems like Gordon Brown to hubby Bill's Tony Blair.
I appreciate that politics don't translate easily across the pond but I would guess I am a natural Democrat. So why is it that the American politician who I identify with is the slightly rebellious Republican old guy who seems the type you could have a beer with?
Only 9 months to go.
Anyone thinking that the sums we spend on an election are obscene should look at what is spent over there. Frightening I'll say!!
That said before any American readers think I'm having a go there are some advantages to the American system. It now looks like John McCain will take the Republican nomination, from what I can gather McCain is not wholly loved by the Republicans. Apparently one conservative pundit went as far to say that she would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than John McCain. McCain looks like a bloke you could sit in a pub and have a beer with. Now the last UK Conservative politician you could say that was Ken Clarke and his party desperately tried to stop him being leader.
I don't much about the other Republican candidates. Romney? seems to have LOADS of money to spend and Huckabee is a guitar playing former baptist preacher who quotes the bible. Huckabee is the type of conservative politician that frightens me one that uses religion to focus much of his politics. Now I have no problem with religious belief but I am not convinced that it has any basis in politics. I regard certain issues of morality as personal. The growing political influence of religion is something that really scares me.
That said I bet we Brits no more about the Democrats or at least heard more of them. It's Hilary v Barack. I guess its that for the first time ever there will be someone other tan a white man or the ballot. In some respects Barack Obama's rise is impressive, the idea of a black politician running for PM here seems unthinkable. Not I might add because of their colour but I can't think of any senior politicans. Then again the Americans may be able to site this as an example of the superiority of their system. Then again when Barack opens his mouth I fall asleep. He seems like a clone of Blair, Cameron et al. Change Fairness blah.
On the other hand Hilary though seems to lack Charisma. She lacks the human touch. She seems like Gordon Brown to hubby Bill's Tony Blair.
I appreciate that politics don't translate easily across the pond but I would guess I am a natural Democrat. So why is it that the American politician who I identify with is the slightly rebellious Republican old guy who seems the type you could have a beer with?
Only 9 months to go.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Politicians
There are few TV programs that I regard as must see but Have I Got News For You (HIGNFY) is one of them. Every week the panellists cock a snoop at the news.
Of course if you are the regular presenter getting caught by a newspaper visiting prostitutes and taking drugs does mean your humiliation can be rather public.
For the benefit of Non Brits here are two of our more "serious" politicians.
Firstly John Prescott former Deputy PM has a debate whilst out canvassing.
And former Conservative Shadow Front bencher, editor of the Spector and current MP Boris Johnson on law and order
And the boys on the President of the United States
Of course if you are the regular presenter getting caught by a newspaper visiting prostitutes and taking drugs does mean your humiliation can be rather public.
For the benefit of Non Brits here are two of our more "serious" politicians.
Firstly John Prescott former Deputy PM has a debate whilst out canvassing.
And former Conservative Shadow Front bencher, editor of the Spector and current MP Boris Johnson on law and order
And the boys on the President of the United States
Friday, June 15, 2007
Exercising the democratic perogative
Well as reported earlier I'm away for a few days. I'm not sure how much use my new camera is going to get since the weather looks awful!! I reckon I'll be using my little Canon to take snaps!
My ballot paper for the Labour Deputy Leadership election was on the mat last night. Decisions decisions. You have to rank them from 1-6 my union (look don't ask) is recommending Peter Hain and my branch Jon Crudas.
Well ever the independant I've gone 1. Hilary Benn 2. Hazel Blears 3. Alan Johnson 4. Peter Hain 5. Jon Crudas 6. Harriet Harman.
My ballot paper for the Labour Deputy Leadership election was on the mat last night. Decisions decisions. You have to rank them from 1-6 my union (look don't ask) is recommending Peter Hain and my branch Jon Crudas.
Well ever the independant I've gone 1. Hilary Benn 2. Hazel Blears 3. Alan Johnson 4. Peter Hain 5. Jon Crudas 6. Harriet Harman.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Well I have a vote!!
I opened a letter on my return to discover I have a vote in the Labour Deputy Leadership contest!! No I am not a member but I am a member of Trades Union (yes i am a bit surprised as well!!).
So any preferences? We have Hilary Benn, Hazel Blears, Harriet Harman, Jon Crudas, Peter Hain and Alan Johnson. My branch is backing Crudas.
So any preferences? We have Hilary Benn, Hazel Blears, Harriet Harman, Jon Crudas, Peter Hain and Alan Johnson. My branch is backing Crudas.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Rewriting the Past
As you will no doubt have read or heard on TV/Radio the Defence Secretary Des Browne intends to seek pardons for more than 300 men shot for military offences during World War I.
The family of one soldier shot have been campaigning for years. They argue that there relative was suffering from shell shock.
Mr Browne said that, after 90 years, "the evidence just doesn't exist inside the cases individually".
"I don't want to be in a position of second guessing the commanders in the field who were making decisions," he added.
But injustices "were clearly done".
"We can't be in a situation morally where we cannot redress injustices because we don't have paperwork in relation to an individual case.
"But we can in other cases where we have some paperwork."
Now this puzzles me why only world war I and not other wars? I believe that one of the reasons given was that there are relatives alive today who knew the soldiers shot.
Why stop at "injustices" in World War 1 ? What about the Boer War, Zulu Wars, Crimea ad infinitum.
Mr Browne's actions may appear laudable, because some soldiers shot were undoubtedly suffering from shell shock and related conditions, but he admits that he doesn't have the evidence.
What concerns me is that we are trying to judge the past. Actions need to be judged in the context of the times not by applying the standards of today. If you start doing that where do you stop? I imagine many historical figures would be judged harshly by todays standards.
If you think of the jury system we have today it refers to "peers". Peers must have the same reference point as those being prosecuted.
Mr Browne may have the best of intentions, the families of soldiers shot may feel aggrieved, but I think he is mistaken.
The family of one soldier shot have been campaigning for years. They argue that there relative was suffering from shell shock.
Mr Browne said that, after 90 years, "the evidence just doesn't exist inside the cases individually".
"I don't want to be in a position of second guessing the commanders in the field who were making decisions," he added.
But injustices "were clearly done".
"We can't be in a situation morally where we cannot redress injustices because we don't have paperwork in relation to an individual case.
"But we can in other cases where we have some paperwork."
Now this puzzles me why only world war I and not other wars? I believe that one of the reasons given was that there are relatives alive today who knew the soldiers shot.
Why stop at "injustices" in World War 1 ? What about the Boer War, Zulu Wars, Crimea ad infinitum.
Mr Browne's actions may appear laudable, because some soldiers shot were undoubtedly suffering from shell shock and related conditions, but he admits that he doesn't have the evidence.
What concerns me is that we are trying to judge the past. Actions need to be judged in the context of the times not by applying the standards of today. If you start doing that where do you stop? I imagine many historical figures would be judged harshly by todays standards.
If you think of the jury system we have today it refers to "peers". Peers must have the same reference point as those being prosecuted.
Mr Browne may have the best of intentions, the families of soldiers shot may feel aggrieved, but I think he is mistaken.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Today = Yesterday
If you want to be elected today you have to be a young photogenic forward thinking individual. Its not about the past, you've got to look to the future. Now personally I think this is rubbish.
I've often been told that its ok to make mistakes as long as you learn from them. Now this is all very well but if you don't know your past...... I suspect the Government think that the past has nothing to do with them because today's world and its challenges are "new" and "different".
There is a phrase there's nothing new under the sun which if you read the story of Dr Lopez you'll soon realise is oh so true.
I'm sure after reading it you will note some resonances with the situation 500 years later. I wonder if our leaders would?
I've often been told that its ok to make mistakes as long as you learn from them. Now this is all very well but if you don't know your past...... I suspect the Government think that the past has nothing to do with them because today's world and its challenges are "new" and "different".
There is a phrase there's nothing new under the sun which if you read the story of Dr Lopez you'll soon realise is oh so true.
I'm sure after reading it you will note some resonances with the situation 500 years later. I wonder if our leaders would?
Friday, June 30, 2006
Musing
I got thinking after yesterday's post that two of my most memorable comedy moments are inspired by WWI.
The first, naturally, is the brilliant closing scene from Blackadder Goes Forth where Edmund and the boys go over the top and the scene morphs into a Flanders poppy field. Incredibly poignant.
The other is from Dad's Army. Private Godfrey has been exposed as a concientious objecter during the first war and he is ostracized by the other men. Capt Mainwaring won't spare Godfrey from anything and insists he goes through a smoke filled chamber as part of a training exercise. Godfrey is second last out and seeing that his Captain is not out he goes back to rescue him.
The platoon visit him in his house where he is in bed recovering from mild smoke inhalation. There is a picture of the young Godfrey in military uniform wearing the Military Medal and the platoon discover that though he refused to fight he enlisted in the Medical Corps as a stretcher bearer, and was responsible for a tremendous act of heroism in rescuing several wounded soldiers from No Man's Land under heavy fire.
Funny? No but very moving TV showing the comedy can sometimes get issues across much better than supposedly more serious pieces.
I got thinking further on this after reading Ally on Ducking for Apples link to an article in the Independent. The supposed "War on Terror" has led to the government introducing legislation to curb our rights. All on the pretext that we don't want 9/11 happening here. But that is totally missing the point. The young Men & Women who fought two World War's didn't go over the top just to protect us they did it to preserve away of life. It means innocent until guilty (and not until some tabloid hack says so), it means trial by jury "12 good men strong and true". It means freedom of speech.
Yes politicians have a duty to protect the country BUT if by defending the country they change irrevocably what it means to be British then frankly I wish they wouldn't bother.
The first, naturally, is the brilliant closing scene from Blackadder Goes Forth where Edmund and the boys go over the top and the scene morphs into a Flanders poppy field. Incredibly poignant.
The other is from Dad's Army. Private Godfrey has been exposed as a concientious objecter during the first war and he is ostracized by the other men. Capt Mainwaring won't spare Godfrey from anything and insists he goes through a smoke filled chamber as part of a training exercise. Godfrey is second last out and seeing that his Captain is not out he goes back to rescue him.
The platoon visit him in his house where he is in bed recovering from mild smoke inhalation. There is a picture of the young Godfrey in military uniform wearing the Military Medal and the platoon discover that though he refused to fight he enlisted in the Medical Corps as a stretcher bearer, and was responsible for a tremendous act of heroism in rescuing several wounded soldiers from No Man's Land under heavy fire.
Funny? No but very moving TV showing the comedy can sometimes get issues across much better than supposedly more serious pieces.
I got thinking further on this after reading Ally on Ducking for Apples link to an article in the Independent. The supposed "War on Terror" has led to the government introducing legislation to curb our rights. All on the pretext that we don't want 9/11 happening here. But that is totally missing the point. The young Men & Women who fought two World War's didn't go over the top just to protect us they did it to preserve away of life. It means innocent until guilty (and not until some tabloid hack says so), it means trial by jury "12 good men strong and true". It means freedom of speech.
Yes politicians have a duty to protect the country BUT if by defending the country they change irrevocably what it means to be British then frankly I wish they wouldn't bother.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Lest we forget
Um I am lacking inspiration here. Why is it that some people can be totally uninspired say they are uninspired and don't have anything to say and I'm still impressed by how they sat it?
Turns to the Radio Times.
It is 90 years since the Battle of the Somme, the battle started on July 1st 1916. Lets be honest we all "know" more about WWII because there is lots of archive footage for Telly programs and there have been loads of films about it.
WWI isn't on film and no one makes Films about it. So hence we know less of it. OK OK there are the occasional classics but you know what I mean.
I'm aware that there were battles in WWI but they are names Somme, Paschendale etc the scale of the slaughter is really unimaginable. How many soldiers have died in Iraq? 1000? 2000? How many people died in 9/11 3000? Yes a wretched waste of life but.... now think about this.
20,000 Tommies died in 24 Hours. Think about that 20,000!! that's 14 people a second!!
in 4 months the total casualties (dead and wounded) were over 1.1 million. And what did that achieve? We advanced 7.5 miles. FFS what a waste.
The first world war was not glamorous. A whole generatiom of young men was wiped out. I suppose as a Brit WWI had less impact because the war took place on a foreign field. WWII involved the whole country, the blitz and all that. I think that's why Americans don't understand the French or the Russian's both had there countries ripped apart by Foreign invaders. The dread of war is ingrained in the pysche - see the film "The Best Years of Our Lives" 1946 - so for many Americans the wars means much less than it does to the British and French.
Anyway I digress, go into any Churchyard and the memorial cross you will find lists of whole families of young men gone the dates eerily similar. Friends who signed on for King and Country erased. It brings home to you the pointlessness of the whole thing.
Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Turns to the Radio Times.
It is 90 years since the Battle of the Somme, the battle started on July 1st 1916. Lets be honest we all "know" more about WWII because there is lots of archive footage for Telly programs and there have been loads of films about it.
WWI isn't on film and no one makes Films about it. So hence we know less of it. OK OK there are the occasional classics but you know what I mean.
I'm aware that there were battles in WWI but they are names Somme, Paschendale etc the scale of the slaughter is really unimaginable. How many soldiers have died in Iraq? 1000? 2000? How many people died in 9/11 3000? Yes a wretched waste of life but.... now think about this.
20,000 Tommies died in 24 Hours. Think about that 20,000!! that's 14 people a second!!
in 4 months the total casualties (dead and wounded) were over 1.1 million. And what did that achieve? We advanced 7.5 miles. FFS what a waste.
The first world war was not glamorous. A whole generatiom of young men was wiped out. I suppose as a Brit WWI had less impact because the war took place on a foreign field. WWII involved the whole country, the blitz and all that. I think that's why Americans don't understand the French or the Russian's both had there countries ripped apart by Foreign invaders. The dread of war is ingrained in the pysche - see the film "The Best Years of Our Lives" 1946 - so for many Americans the wars means much less than it does to the British and French.
Anyway I digress, go into any Churchyard and the memorial cross you will find lists of whole families of young men gone the dates eerily similar. Friends who signed on for King and Country erased. It brings home to you the pointlessness of the whole thing.
Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Musings
In the "good" old days you went into a shop and an assistant went and collected your order for you. Things moved on and the supermarket came along where you went into a shop picked your own items and then took them to a counter to be priced.
Well as many of you know we have gone a step further and now I am expected to scan the items myself. I mention this as my local Tesco has introduced this practice and yesterday morning at 6:15 the only checkouts open were the self service.
The supermarkets love 'em because it means less staff and hence higher profits and they say we should love 'em becuase it keeps prices down. Now this is all very well but what do the checkout staff do? I'm sure the big supermarkets won't redeploy them.
Now you might argue why do I care? Well I do have a social conscience and anyway a bit like call centres moving overseas I wonder what everyone is going to do. Yes the big companies will make more money but Joe Public won't have a job. Apparently we should be concentrating on high skill jobs but lets me honest many of us do have a limit to what we can do.
The government want us do work longer. Doing what?
I will keep saving so that I can get out of the rat race as soon as possible.
Well as many of you know we have gone a step further and now I am expected to scan the items myself. I mention this as my local Tesco has introduced this practice and yesterday morning at 6:15 the only checkouts open were the self service.
The supermarkets love 'em because it means less staff and hence higher profits and they say we should love 'em becuase it keeps prices down. Now this is all very well but what do the checkout staff do? I'm sure the big supermarkets won't redeploy them.
Now you might argue why do I care? Well I do have a social conscience and anyway a bit like call centres moving overseas I wonder what everyone is going to do. Yes the big companies will make more money but Joe Public won't have a job. Apparently we should be concentrating on high skill jobs but lets me honest many of us do have a limit to what we can do.
The government want us do work longer. Doing what?
I will keep saving so that I can get out of the rat race as soon as possible.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Irritating
I've long held that Piers Morgan is one of the more irritating people in public life. Perhaps it's being called Piers, perhaps it's his association with The Queen of Hearts and her butler I don't know. Or perhaps it's because I regard journalist, as worse than politicians, estate agents and solicitors/lawyers (I am dead now eh Cherrypie!!).
That said Mr Morgan pales into insignificance to Mr J Clarkson. Anything vaguely environmental and he waffles on and on and on. I'm sorry but the man is tosser of the highest order. Any chance we can get him to Bempton trip? Push! What is sad is that he can be quite funny but has this annoying habit of talking out of his arse on anything about the natural world.
I mention Solicitors/Lawyers not to wind Cherrypie up (although I admit this would be a good reason normally) but because I was listening to a law program on Radio 4 on the way home from work. This Lawyer was telling how he had got a woman off of a drink driving charge who was over the limit. Apparently she was so bad police didn't/couldn't caution her so he was able to get her off on a technicality. He was happy that she was guilty and was VERY proud about getting her off and said it was due to bad parliamentary law. I think he makes a habit of this sort of case, I came in late to the program and he was going on about how many drink drive cases he had won on this basis.
Now perhaps it is a technicality but I think the lawyer needn't bother asking WHY the general public have little faith in the whole legal process. It's a sad day methinks when justice makes way for lawyers looking for technicalities to get people who they know to be guilty off. I wonder if any of the drink drivers go and knock down someone in the future if he feels so proud.
I have a personal anecdote I might share about the law and justice one day.
I don't like modern society. It is often said we get the governments we deserve. The current regime is getting a lot of stick, some of it warranted, but one of the things that irritates me is the criticism of the Nanny State nature of the government.
Now don't get me wrong it irritates me but is the government wholly to blame or should we look in the mirror?
An example when I was school I was stabbed. Nothing serious it was an accident the guy was playing with a pen knife and I got a cut hand and have a miniscule 1/2 inch scar. Nowadays parents would sue the school (it was on a school trip) and probably get £250,000, in those dim and distant days the chaps mother came to contritely apologise and it was over.
It irritates me that accidents don't happen anymore. Trip up? who can you sue. Some lawyer will appear on telly telling you to contact them. Whatever happens someone is to blame. I'm sorry but human errors make mistakes and we have to accept that. Compensation maybe necessary in certain cases but I think this blame culture is what fuels the nanny state look in the mirror Britain and you will see Nanny.
That said Mr Morgan pales into insignificance to Mr J Clarkson. Anything vaguely environmental and he waffles on and on and on. I'm sorry but the man is tosser of the highest order. Any chance we can get him to Bempton trip? Push! What is sad is that he can be quite funny but has this annoying habit of talking out of his arse on anything about the natural world.
I mention Solicitors/Lawyers not to wind Cherrypie up (although I admit this would be a good reason normally) but because I was listening to a law program on Radio 4 on the way home from work. This Lawyer was telling how he had got a woman off of a drink driving charge who was over the limit. Apparently she was so bad police didn't/couldn't caution her so he was able to get her off on a technicality. He was happy that she was guilty and was VERY proud about getting her off and said it was due to bad parliamentary law. I think he makes a habit of this sort of case, I came in late to the program and he was going on about how many drink drive cases he had won on this basis.
Now perhaps it is a technicality but I think the lawyer needn't bother asking WHY the general public have little faith in the whole legal process. It's a sad day methinks when justice makes way for lawyers looking for technicalities to get people who they know to be guilty off. I wonder if any of the drink drivers go and knock down someone in the future if he feels so proud.
I have a personal anecdote I might share about the law and justice one day.
I don't like modern society. It is often said we get the governments we deserve. The current regime is getting a lot of stick, some of it warranted, but one of the things that irritates me is the criticism of the Nanny State nature of the government.
Now don't get me wrong it irritates me but is the government wholly to blame or should we look in the mirror?
An example when I was school I was stabbed. Nothing serious it was an accident the guy was playing with a pen knife and I got a cut hand and have a miniscule 1/2 inch scar. Nowadays parents would sue the school (it was on a school trip) and probably get £250,000, in those dim and distant days the chaps mother came to contritely apologise and it was over.
It irritates me that accidents don't happen anymore. Trip up? who can you sue. Some lawyer will appear on telly telling you to contact them. Whatever happens someone is to blame. I'm sorry but human errors make mistakes and we have to accept that. Compensation maybe necessary in certain cases but I think this blame culture is what fuels the nanny state look in the mirror Britain and you will see Nanny.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Well I am back
My friend Min phoned last night (I know how much she likes to be mentioned - LOL) and reckoned within 2 hours I'd be stressed. O Ye of little faith. Took about 60 minutes. To be fair its not been that bad.
I decided against watching the end of the snooker last night - thank god. It was a bit like watching paint dry. God knows what would have time they would have finished if it had gone the full 35 frames.
Also on a sporting theme the world has ended Wayne Rooney has broken his metatarsal and a nation weeps. Well allegedly. I have to admit I find our national mood swings amazing. One moment we have the best crop of players we've had since boudicea gave the Romans a bloody nose the next we are a bunch of also rans. We won't win the world cup and we wouldn't if the "Roonster" was playing.
I'm not a big footy fan. Honest. I will of course be hoping West Ham concentrate on the cup final and allow Spurs to beat them in the league and I will praying that Ronaldhino plays like Pele and Maradona combined and sticks loads past Arsenal BUT who do I cheer on in the cup final?
My natural inclination is to support anyone but West Ham. My Dad supports the Happy Hammers as does Jan and half the office BUT they are playing the Blonde Ones beloved Liverpool and I'm seeing her the next day. Oh decisions decisions. To be honest I gave up on the FA cup after Hilsborough when people suggested handing "the 'pool" the cup by default.
You have to feel for councillors up for election this week. Core supporters are miffed over Iraq and the drift to the right and just to make things easiers Patrica Hewitt, Charles Clarke and John Prescott (I burst out laughing at that) did their bit.
I decided against watching the end of the snooker last night - thank god. It was a bit like watching paint dry. God knows what would have time they would have finished if it had gone the full 35 frames.
Also on a sporting theme the world has ended Wayne Rooney has broken his metatarsal and a nation weeps. Well allegedly. I have to admit I find our national mood swings amazing. One moment we have the best crop of players we've had since boudicea gave the Romans a bloody nose the next we are a bunch of also rans. We won't win the world cup and we wouldn't if the "Roonster" was playing.
I'm not a big footy fan. Honest. I will of course be hoping West Ham concentrate on the cup final and allow Spurs to beat them in the league and I will praying that Ronaldhino plays like Pele and Maradona combined and sticks loads past Arsenal BUT who do I cheer on in the cup final?
My natural inclination is to support anyone but West Ham. My Dad supports the Happy Hammers as does Jan and half the office BUT they are playing the Blonde Ones beloved Liverpool and I'm seeing her the next day. Oh decisions decisions. To be honest I gave up on the FA cup after Hilsborough when people suggested handing "the 'pool" the cup by default.
You have to feel for councillors up for election this week. Core supporters are miffed over Iraq and the drift to the right and just to make things easiers Patrica Hewitt, Charles Clarke and John Prescott (I burst out laughing at that) did their bit.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Take me to your leader
Well so there we have it the Lib Dems will be led by Ming the Merciless.
To be fair I actually like Ming he has a certain gravitas. Some say he is too old and would be out of touch with the "yoof". Now I am a little puzzled by this because over the past five years only one event has mobilised the "yoof" and that seems to be opposition to the war in Iraq and which party leader has been consistent in his opposition? The "geriatric" Mr Campbell.
On the subject of "leaders" who will we get to lead "our" footy team? Given that Beckham has peed him off I'm leaning towards Allardyce. What are the chances that Sven will realise that Beckham has done nothing for England since Greece in 2002? Probably not high, Becks was a liability in Japan (not fit) and did nothing in Portugal. Of course the manager doesn't seem to understand that the best team and best players are not the same thing.
My starting 11 for the world cup, presuming everyone nice and fit.
Robinson, Cole (A), Terry, King or Carrager or Woodgate, Neville (G), Cole (J), Carrick, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and Owen
Not sure who should be captain ... Fat Frank I guess, seems a decent lad.
The cricket took a slight downward turn but we have a lead of 71 with India having a wicket in hand. If we can snaffle that for a lead of 60 and then bat the day..... still given where we were yesterday morning this is a stunning position and well done the lads for the comeback. Any result is possible
As I suggested there have been a few positive despite all the inuries but perhaps the biggest is not Collingwood and Cook but Monty Panesar. We may have a halfway decent spinner! The problem with that is our preferred pace attack of Jones, Harmy, Hoggy plus Monty would mean a VERY long tail. So unless they go back to Giles short term we may have to play Plunkett and drop one of the quicks. Still we have options and we need a spinner. Monty has also worked hard on his batting by all accounts he may never be any great shakes but I hope he takes a leaf out of Hoggards book and becomes an obdurate git who the batsman can trust. Ok he isn't the finished article but injuries have meant that we have the making of a stronger squad .
To be fair I actually like Ming he has a certain gravitas. Some say he is too old and would be out of touch with the "yoof". Now I am a little puzzled by this because over the past five years only one event has mobilised the "yoof" and that seems to be opposition to the war in Iraq and which party leader has been consistent in his opposition? The "geriatric" Mr Campbell.
On the subject of "leaders" who will we get to lead "our" footy team? Given that Beckham has peed him off I'm leaning towards Allardyce. What are the chances that Sven will realise that Beckham has done nothing for England since Greece in 2002? Probably not high, Becks was a liability in Japan (not fit) and did nothing in Portugal. Of course the manager doesn't seem to understand that the best team and best players are not the same thing.
My starting 11 for the world cup, presuming everyone nice and fit.
Robinson, Cole (A), Terry, King or Carrager or Woodgate, Neville (G), Cole (J), Carrick, Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney and Owen
Not sure who should be captain ... Fat Frank I guess, seems a decent lad.
The cricket took a slight downward turn but we have a lead of 71 with India having a wicket in hand. If we can snaffle that for a lead of 60 and then bat the day..... still given where we were yesterday morning this is a stunning position and well done the lads for the comeback. Any result is possible
As I suggested there have been a few positive despite all the inuries but perhaps the biggest is not Collingwood and Cook but Monty Panesar. We may have a halfway decent spinner! The problem with that is our preferred pace attack of Jones, Harmy, Hoggy plus Monty would mean a VERY long tail. So unless they go back to Giles short term we may have to play Plunkett and drop one of the quicks. Still we have options and we need a spinner. Monty has also worked hard on his batting by all accounts he may never be any great shakes but I hope he takes a leaf out of Hoggards book and becomes an obdurate git who the batsman can trust. Ok he isn't the finished article but injuries have meant that we have the making of a stronger squad .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)