ThunderDragon Blog

Today the Labour Party is humiliated. The Henley by-election was an even worse result than Crewe and Nantwich. The results are as follows:

1. John Howell:  Conservatives, 19,796 (56.95%, +3.46%)
2. Stephen Kearney: Lib Dems, 9,680 (27.85%, +1.84%)
3. Mark Stevenson: Green, 1,321 (3.80%, +0.54%)
4. Timothy Rait: BNP, 1,243 (3.58%, -)
5. Richard McKenzie: Labour, 1,066 (3.07%, -11.68%)
6. Chris Adams: UKIP, 843 (2.43%, -0.07%)

There’s really only been one story in the news this week.

However, there’s more than enough bad news going round, so let’s look at something good instead. Parachuting Archbishops.

Not a phrase you’re likely to ever hear again, it must be said, but - as was well documented - The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, completed his parachute jump with the Red Devils (how did he cope with that analogy?) at the end of last week.

His target - raising at least £50,000 through sponsorship for the Afghanistan Trust that supports injured soldiers from Arghanistan.

A worthy cause, and I hope that he proves successful.

However, I heard a comment about the story asking quite an interesting question. Why did the Archbishop feel that he needed to jump out of a plan at 12,500ft to fundraise in this way?

Have you ever heard a conversation along the lines of:
“Would you like to donate to [charity]?”
“Sorry, no”
“How about if I jump out of plane? Sit in a bath-tub full of baked beans perhaps? What about if I run several miles?”
“Oh, of course I will - I didn’t think they were a worthy cause originally, but if you’re going to sit in a bath of baked beans, of course I’ll donate!”

We are quite a giving nation in the UK. We all like to give to charity where we can. This sometimes gets problematic - you can’t give to every charity that has a box in a shop, sends you a letter, or appeals on TV. Otherwise, you’d need to launch your own appeal as you’re starving and homeless. Different people can give different amounts - some that can’t give monetarily are prepared to give their time instead. See the recent volunteers week.

But, it’s so much easier to say “no” to a letter or an advert than it is to a fellow human being. Which is the flaw in sponsorship - if a friend wanders up to you with a sponsorship form asking you if you’ll donate to their sponsored walk, you almost feel obliged to give something - even if you can’t afford it.

I understand that in some offices things are getting too stupid. An “All Staff” e-mail is sent from Beryl in accounts. Beryl is taking part in a “wear a silly hat” day for the Tooting Bec Performing Farts Foundation [sic]. You’ve never met Beryl, as you work in sales, and have never heard of a Performing Farts Foundation. However, Beryl is asking if people will sponsor her, and a sponsorship form is available in the kitchen. You don’t really want to give - but what will other people think if your name isn’t on the list? Tight arse. Best give something then…

And then there’s the cost of putting some of these events on. In some cases, the costs come out of sponsorship fund - in other cases, they come out of the organisers own pocket. The latter case is preferable, of course, but how many more [whatevers] could have been saved if that money went directly to the charity?

I might be sounding like a mean old miser now, but I’m not against sponsorship. These occasional ideas do work well in promoting a charity and getting much needed publicity in many cases. The costs of running a sponsored whatever are often overwhelmed by the extra monies that come in as a result. Obviously, I do give to charity. But it’s a case of what I can, when I can.

I just get the feeling that sometimes these things are getting to overkill. So, don’t be offended if I ignore your e-mail asking me to go to a justgiving page. It’s just I’m being selective.

~ Asp

 

“Blah”

Well, the so-called Scottish “Government” does, anyway.

Not exactly a well-though-out and articulate response to a query about drug finds in prison. Or indeed to anything.

Nevertheless, it does bear quite some resemblence to most press releases from this Labour governemnt, though they do kinda go on a bit. Maybe “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…” instead?

And what can be the response to such an answer?

“D’oh”

Indeed.

So claims a Canadian writer, saying that English men are “repressed homosexuals, drunkards or woman haters” after her experiences. And so is making a television drama out of it.

Well, maybe, Leah McLaren, it is you that’s the problem. Either:

(a) you have terrible taste in men, or

(b) the good men just don’t like you.

Or both.

XKCD

Well, I was definitely wrong. This Crewe and Nantwich by-election does matter. Even though the Conservative vote share wasn’t 50% as Nick Robinson was suggesting, it was damn close at 49.5% - a majority [well, plurality] of 7,860 for Edward Timpson MP.

This is a result nearly twice that of what was needed for a “really good result“. A swing of 17.6% from Labour to the Conservatives. And this is the first by-election victory for the Conservatives in my lifetime.

But that’s enough triumphalism. Justin McKeating is right that:

Any Tory who thinks they are winning rather than Labour losing needs to stop jumping around and take a bit of breather…

This isn’t some massive ideological swing behind the ideas of the Tory party. It’s the political equivalent of the electorate switching to a new washing powder.

We must ensure that we do not get caught up in overt celebrations and act as if the next general election is in the bag. It isn’t, and won’t be. No matter what the polls say. Until the general election has been called, held, and every single vote has been counted and verified, we do not know what the result will be. Even if Mike Smithson of Political Betting is now calling a Conservative majority at the next general election.

If we start developing a smug satisfaction and act like we expect the get elected, the public will rightly tell us where to get off. We should allow ourselves a short and understated celebration - after all “for any Tory under the age of 45, success on such a scale is a sheer novelty” - but then get right back to work proving ourselves ready and able to take over and lead Britain back to greatness.

XKCD - A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.

Yet another database is wanted. As the always excellent Mr Eugenides says:

Really, what are we to make of this?

• A national ID database
• A national DNA database
• A national children’s database (complete with extra-secure VIP area for Romeo and Brooklyn)
• A national vehicle journey database (linked in to numberplate recognition technology to provide a total record of every car journey in the country)
• And now a national phone, email and text message database, detailing every private communication you have made over the last 12 months.

No doubt I’ve forgotten a few, too. Wouldn’t it just be simpler and swifter to combine all these into one big super-database? Why not? I trust them. Don’t you?

Can we move back to the principles of civil liberties, freedoms like speech and movement, and personal privacy now please? Please? Pretty please with a cherry on top?

You really would have thought that a gardening show would be a “green” occasion. But, really, when you think about it - that much work for just five days?! Especially when all stone for “garden” like this has been imported from Italy! The RHS is about as green as a coal power station.

Also, with water being a major feature at this year’s show, you just have to ask - how much energy is it wasting for an event as pointless as this one is? Its “carbon footprint” must be absolutely humongous, and for what? For a few gardens to be built and then destroyed.

We should all be careful of our energy usage, and this sort of thing just fritters away energy. Yet because it is all about gardens, none of the greenies dare say a word.*

We can has common sense pls?

* I haven’t heard them say anything, anyway.

Adam Boulton has an interesting post on his blog on how MPs communicate with constituents:

Conversation really perked up when one of [the MPs] said he replies to emails from constituents with a “proper” posted letter in an envelope. It turns out that others all did the same…

The MPs felt that constituents felt that their issue was being treated more seriously if they got a typed reply on crested and headed paper…

Of course free postage for MPs may also help to keep the letter alive.

If I send an email, I expect to receive an email in return. If I send a letter, I expect to receive a letter in return. If I make a phone call, I expect to receive a phone call in return if I cannot speak to whoever I am calling there and then.

It’s pretty simple - the mode of communication you use tends to be the one you prefer.

So why are MPs wasting our money on sending letters to us when all we want in reply is a - compeltely free - email? And why are they wasting paper by sending totally unnecessary letters? According to Adam Boulton, because MPs think that constituents see something written on headed parliamentary paper is “treated more seriously” than an email reply.

What a load of bollocks. To start with, we are not little children who are impressed by a pretty picture on heavy paper. And, secondly, in the modern age, emails can be modified just as much to make them look “official”, with crests and everything too!

This is the 21st century. News is 24/7. No longer is a letter a fast, or even nowadays necessarily a secure or reliable service. Email, however, is all of the above and, indeed, allow instant communication between constituent and elected representative. They say they want to listen… well, if they reply by letter to emails, they really don’t seem to want to do so all that much!