Gertsamtkunstwerk

What a Charlie...

I can't pretend to have been following the story in great detail, but I initially heard that it was about 'a senior royal' and a royal servant, the latter being down on his knees in an act of homage to the Crown Jewels. I assumed it was Edward and thought 'so what'; I read somewhere in the blogosphere that it was Andrew and was surprised, thinking - Randy Andy chases fillies, surely. But talking to a friend on Thursday, and he had heard at dinner on Wednesday it was Andrew, and in response to my expression of surprise, suggested that Andrew has experience. I was really really quite surprised that it is now being said it is being said that it is Charlie. Jimmy reckons that the Charlie denials are a smokescreen - distracting from the actual real rumour.

I'm a great believer that whatever consenting adults do in private is of no public concern. I also know what sells newspapers. I'm tempted to castigate the Royal Family for hypocrisy, but I reckon - without having really studied the matter- they are generally reasonably tolerant of homosexuality.

However, if there is any truth in the rumours, which is doubtful, it would be very awkward when Charlie becomes head of the publicly homophobic Church of England.

Shameless steal from The Drudge Report which doesn't seem to like deep linking.

Democracy in Action

So, assuming that they dump IDS, basically, Michael Howard will assume the title without an election according to the Evening Standard - quite a throwback to the days when a Tory leader simply emerged. Ted Heath introduced voting by MPs; William Hague introduced voting by ordinary members of the Party. Now, they've realised they can't trust their own members, so will be selecting the leader by carve-up.

If they have that low an opinion of their members, imagine what they think of the electorate as a whole...?

Save IDS

Lets hope Ian Duncan Smith narrowly survives the vote of no confidence, with his leadership intact, but his credibility destroyed.

Portillo as single mum

I've just been watching When Michael Portillo became a single mum.

It was a bit of a disappointment really, leaving me at the end saying, "So what...". I'm not quite sure what the point of it was. Was it to illustrate that there are poor people and they struggle to make ends meet? Was it to see whether a reasonably intelligent man, with a sharp awareness of his public image could get by for a week? I don't think it proved very much. The family selected were solidly respectable - clean, lively, bright children, with a mother who has two jobs, and, one felt from the sub-text, the result of a relationship breakdown rather than of random sprogging. The mother was nothing like the cow on last week's Wife Swap.

I'm sure my younger self would have ranted on at great length about the inequalities in society, and I am still concerned about inequality. But this family is not living in dire poverty, and, ultimately, there has to be a certain amount of inequality, to ensure that there are incentives and rewards for learning to do skilled work. And children are expensive. If people choose to have four children - as three separate friends of mine have - have to understand, as these friends do, that money will be tight. But there's no great moral to be drawn from this programme.

I could be cynical and say that in portraying Portillo as quite personable, and prepared to be shown up, it probably hasn't done his image any harm.

Should I have thumped him?

Walking through Victoria Station this evening I saw the vile despicable Nigel Lawson. I shot him a sideways glower.

He's looking very thin, gaunt and decrepit.

The ethics of business

‘The development on my doorstep’ is an encapsulation of modern contradictions and dilemmas. The desire – greed – of landowner, developers, and architect for profits. The opposition of the community – which could, unfairly, be described as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) - to a scheme that is unsuitable for the designated site.

On the one hand there is the stated need for more housing, especially in the South East of England, and especially on brown-field sites. This is stated in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing (1) (click on 'carry on reading' for footnotes.)

On the other hand is a desire to improve the quality of buildings, especially in deprived and urban areas, both aesthetically and environmentally (2)

I asked our developers if they had considered any use other than retail 'buy buy consume consume' - eg, had they consulted with the Health Service. They hadn’t. They smugly announced that they will be funding a bus lane and enforcement camera outside the development. – it sounds good, but is of little benefit in that particular location. To talk as if they are doing it out of charity is disingenuous. They are doing so because they are obliged to, under Section 106 of Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

There can be more to business merely than maximising profit and exploiting ‘the people’. Corporate responsibility has been set up to promote an alternative approach to business. (3)

Indeed, it is an issue which has been previously alluded to on this site. Note Jon’s reply. Jon responded this way because he believes in acting ethically. His business acts ethically not because they have seen the benefit to the bottom line of so doing, but as a natural extension of a personal belief.

Corporate responsibility is, in theory, a laudable concept. Unfortunately, it is also one that is incredibly difficult to persuade onto a company. Many businesses have noticed that acting with corporate social responsibility acts as good public relations. All too often, it translates only into throwing a sum of money (usually tax deductible) at a good cause, or freeing staff time to help out with the ‘under-privileged’ (also a useful way for staff to develop new skills). Business in the Community promotes such activities. And, indeed, their principles go much deeper in attempting to explain why it is good business practice to consider the needs of the community in their normal business practice. Not surprisingly, our local developers are not members.

This post on Tom’s site has commenters leaving coded messages that they suggest that The Body Shop’s ethical policy is not quite what it seems.

In a parallel universe, there would be a development company with a true commitment to social responsibility involved in my local development. Not because it would improve their chances of getting their planning permission, nor just to improve their bottom line. But because it was, instinctively, the right thing to do.

The process would have started by consulting with the local community, using an open meeting, but also meeting with official channels – for example, the local councillors, and the local New Deal for Communities Board. Before any plans were even drafted, there would be constructive discussion about potential uses for the site. My personal vision would be for a modern, comprehensive Primary Healthcare Centre, perhaps combined with affordable exercise space. There could still be mixed use of the site – low rise residential properties, set around courtyards, perhaps.

A further step would be to understand what local concerns are. It is arrogant to try and persuade us, who know the area, and have read reports from Transport for London, that this is not an area of extreme parking stress, where walks-to-school for at least four primary schools criss cross at this junction.

They should also consider the quality of building. As far as they are concerned, it is merely a piece of land to be exploited for cheaply constructed, almost prefabricated units, with pokey living quarters. For us, it is bordering on an architecturally interesting area.

I want sympathetically built residences, in keeping with the local area, or alternatively, an architecturally innovative design, like Bedzed, that is

a truly sustainable scheme in construction…(and an) attempt … to help residents achieve a near ‘carbon-neutral’ lifestyle.

This is radically different from the approach that seeks to maximise profits in seemingly the simplest way – shops and flats, system built, confident in the knowledge that Planning is just a tiresome procedure that puts unnecessary obstacles in the path of development; that local residents, ultimately, have little power; of playing the game of meeting the community, (who are all stupid in their little old houses and council flats) who, really, don’t matter.

I find it difficult to explain to a neighbour, who works in the voluntary sector, why it is justifiable for a business to seek to make profits. I think she somehow believes it is dirty, or perhaps sinful, to seek profit. It is even more difficult to explain to an undiluted capitalist why there is a moral case to consider factors other than profits. They do not have to live with the consequences of their actions, but the residents of the community on which they wish to impose their gargantuan monstrosity do.

Gender equality?

Child prostitution is a subject most of us can ignore, unless it happens in our neighbourhood.

It seems good that a conference is being organised, if that means an impetus to positive action. Also good that the Beeb is covering it. I have to take issue with appalling wording and dubious content of the report. Specifically:

Wendy Shepherd, team leader of the charity's Secos project, said there was an increasing number of boys being abused.

She said: "I think the majority of people don't want to think about boys being involved and being abused.

The implication is that prostitution of boys is a much graver problem, even though evidence available elsewhere suggests that far more girls are involved. A further implication is that girls are fair game, that it's almost normal to use a girl child for sex, whereas the use of a boy child is uniquely abhorrent. The deeper implication in that is that women/girls exist for the sexual gratification of men. This is why I am a feminist.

If I were a gay man, I think I would also find the tone and implications of this piece to be offensive. However, I am struggling to articulate why, so would be grateful for the opinions of gay men, in particular.

Utterly ridiculous who does he think he is

By indirect means, I ended up on Conservative Commentary. I'm not setting out to engage in the actual issues within the post, or the comments, but more my initial reaction to it. This post was intended to be a rant, philosophising or waffle rebutting this comment

The key point here is that the only webloggers that really matter are the ones who do engage with their opponents, which in practice includes linking to them and posting comments on their blogs. Navel-gazers of all political persuasions are irrelevant because they are refusing to engage in any political debate at all.

by Andrew Zalotocky

I initially read it to say, "Blogs that are not political are navel-gazing and therefore irrelevant."

My second reading of it is - in the context of the post and previous comments - is "If you have a political blog, it is pointless unless you engage in debate."

Which could lead to an interesting (or, maybe boring) meander on whether political blogging has any merit in itself and is it of greater value than other blogging, which could end up in a discussion about the meaning of life.

I am creating a post and destroying it as I write. I want to know what political blogging is, indeed what politics is.

The BBC News front page currently has on it two quasi-political stories: Pauline Prescott's Reunion Delight and Cherie braced for pop hit. I'm not going to go into a rant about celebrities. I'm not even going to go into a rant about how the wives of senior politicians are treated merely as adjuncts to their husbands.

I have never quite worked out what politics is. If you believe the mainstream media, it's about how a small bunch of elite score points off one another. Ask Oxford gives four definitions, which seem all encompassing.

Stung by the comment above - or, at least, how I originally read it - I prepared my rebuttal. My post below, about Architecture was never designed as evidence for the rebuttal. But it set me thinking - if I were to restrict this blog to issues such as Architecture, Celebrity Worship, Trains Going Slow, even if I didn't mention party politics , could I call myself a political blogger?

If I included posts about office summer attire and the plethora of titles available at John Lewis, would I still be a political blogger?

Could I post about clay kitty shooting and feel obliged to include a view on why I feel that the shooting of real kittens is generally a bad thing (I was the person who condemned a friend for his typical right wing Tory cruel disregard for life, when he went clay pigeon shooting. Look, I'm a townie...).

This post has been one drift towards nothingness. To conclude: I thought Politics was about ideas and about how one set of ideologies collides with another set. I am now unconvinced - they are just the side-show to the decisions and actions being taken every day. To return to architecture as a an analogy - it is a deeply political subject. Opinions can clash, and run deep - the traditional versus the new, eyesore vs cutting edge, not in my back yard. But how buildings are designed for people, and how the state must act as arbiter, regulator, enabler, and, often, provider, is far more an important a subject for the political bloggers than many other subjects that are teased to death. I am far more interested in how the state and other powers interface with people than in fisking a newspaper article or imagining myself to have an influence over foreign policy. Because, in my humble opinion, that is where life, and, therefore, blogging, is interesting.

Child unfriendly

Which, of course, says nothing about the actual anti-child thread of our society.

The built environment is totally unsuitable for children. How many public buildings and public transport systems are difficult to access for a buggy? Also for people with disabilities or luggage?

Children are viewed as an excellent target for marketers - 'the Nag factor'. Many children are made to feel inadequate because they don't own the latest material goods. Don't even start me on McDonalds.

A friend of mine with two children objects to the crap that gets served as 'children's food'. All finger food full of chemicals and mechanically recovered meat. Her two were eating grown up food from an early age. The older with a knife and fork. the younger has cerebella palsy related Learning Difficulties.

Very many workplaces, despite claims to family friendly policies, actually don't give a toss. Women are treated as second class citizens as they try to balance work and expensive childcare. Men have children who are comparative strangers because of the long hours culture (I generalise, of course).

The Education system is not child centred. Every expert, every parent, and everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the six week break in the summer (we had eight at Secondary School) is not for the benefit of children. Most of what they learn in the last half term has to be revised in the first half term of next year. Children are shunted between playscheme and grandparents, with little choice in what they do. The children who get to stay at home get bored after a week or two. And sometimes quite lonely. The summer holidays see some children commit crimes and far more the victims of crimes.

And even outside the school holidays we read again and again of children being killed because some adult has physical strength, and power. We do not read about the ones that are just injured, or neglected, or psychologically abused.

Children suffer the consequences of adult actions, whether it's breathing from exhausts conveniently placed at child height on the nearside of cars, or being bombed as a result of willy waving in a foreign land.

Remind me again about how we live in a child-obsessed society.

Responsibility of Knowledge

Vaughan asks "Why? And if not, why not?"

Which I think is a very good question. One that we should ask ourselves each time we embark on a significant action. By significant I don't mean brushing my teeth, but I do mean anything that may impact upon my life. We do it quickly and instinctively, without articulation, before crossing the road.

Even as I sat down to write this, I wondered whether I should. The answer to 'why' is because I want to. The answer to why not is because there are dishes waiting to be washed.

Even so, the dilemma of 'to blog' or 'to dishwash' is trivia beside the great moral issues. Very few moral decisions are clear-cut, so every action we take - or don't take - should be supported by a questioning of "Why? And if not, why not?"

I will confess to a little naiveté abut the 'rules' regarding whether Civil Servants should talk to the Press. The written rules are clear - no, not unless you are from Press Office or otherwise authorised.

A few months back an article appeared in the Times regarding the culling of Senior Civil Service from my Department. A dozen or so cullees had, in their disgruntlement, leaked to the Press. Only reading commentary recently has it become clear to me that it is routine for Senior Civil Servants to talk unattributably, or 'off the record' to journos. If I did it I would be ritually slaughtered.

I have often wondered what would happen if I came across something in my work that was going wrong, yet people senior to me were determined to carry on regardless. Going to the Press is a very last resort. In retrospect, there were times, over BSE and Flood Defence, where I thought "Funny, that makes no sense". My inexperience made me think that it was just me that hadn't got it. Years later, I was proved right not to have 'got it'. I should have raised the alert with my immediate management. Unfortunately, I think their incapacity to think laterally would have led them to shoo me away - a trainee questioning fundamental issues is inconvenient to a smooth audit.

I should then have escalated it to Senior Management. That is easier nowadays with the introduction of formal whistleblowing policies. I have never used those whistleblowing channels - it's easier to shrug, moan about incompetence and hope we'll muddle through. At every turn the question is "Where's your evidence?"

Another outlet is one's Constituency MP, or the chair, or a member of the Select Committee for the policy area. If you approach them, you are absolved of responsibility and you have taken it to an appropriate source. They may decide to talk to the Press. Not my problem, not my responsibility.

But if they choose to ignore it, what then? If your immediate management, their management, the organisation's senior management, your constituency MP, the Chair of the Select Committee, all dismiss your concerns, what are you supposed to think? Are they all involved in a conspiracy to cover up? Or have they all used their judgement, borne out of more experience than you, that it really is a big fuss about nothing. Perhaps I would get paranoid. At the very least I would question my own judgement. Maybe I'm the obsessive with green ink. Maybe I'm missing the point that this is normal. But if it's normal, is it acceptable? Suppose I am actually the expert on that subject, that my job is to provide quality advice to ministers on that subject. I provide the advice, but they ignore me.

Surely I then have a moral duty to speak to the Press. Even though, if found out, I'm sacked.

Green Government

It's achingly fashionable to attack the Government, list ways it has 'sold out', question its commitment to radical policies and say that Labour is no different from the Tories. The BBC covers the announcement of 'Massive' wind farm plans. The Environmental Pressure Groups, not known for praise, are sounding very positive and upbeat.

I'm sure the devil will be in the detail, and I'm sure there are probably grounds for the criticism that it is not enough and not soon enough. There may also be localised criticisms that such windmills may have a detrimental effect on the local ecosystem.

However, all right thinking people can be pleased that this is not an announcement of plans to build six nuclear power stations.

When I was still at school I read numerous articles about the scandalous neglect of the renewable energy market, the tiny amount of public money invested in research compared to the fortunes invested in nuclear, gas, coal etc generators, and the devastating damage to the environment of using fossil fuels. I'm now approaching middle-aged and it's good to have a reminder that there is a difference between the old discredited policies of the Tories and the progressive policies of Labour.

What is a Comptroller?

Lyle, don't feel ignorant. Gordon, how cruel you are to mock...!

The C&AG is the head of the National Audit Office, an officer of Parliament, and sackble only by a majority vote of both Houses and with the Queen's assent. The Auditor General bit covers most of the NAO's work.

The Comptroller bit is tiny but, arguably, more important. Every Government department etc that wants to get its hands on its money 'draw down' has to ask permission from the C&AG to do so. So, the Comptroller has to authorise the release of money to Departments. The French equivalent of the NAO is the Cours des Comptes.

More info is available here.

Billions for roads

There are days when not a single news story grabs my attention. I currently have 24 BBC News tabs open.

£7bn scheme to tackle congestion. I am pleased that new and re-opened rail schemes are 'being considered' and that there is some investment in buses...in the West Midlands. I also think it is positive that schemes that are specifically environmentally damaging - as opposed to just generally - are not going ahead. I am singularly under-impressed by the Tory Tim Collins describing the road-building as 'belated'.

Overall, I am not impressed. There is strong evidence that traffic expands to fill the available road space. I also watched a TV programme a few years back that suggested that the M25 was like Guinness - if everybody travelled at 50mph and kept a sensible distance people would actually travel more quickly than trying to drive at 70-80 mph and constantly stopping and starting.

It would also impress me more if I could see more evidence of investment to ensure that it doesn't take the hour and three quarters to travel the 60 miles from London Victoria to Whitstable that we experienced on Sunday.

With Alastair Darling planning to pave much of the country with motorways and John Prescott planning to build ten millions home on the Green Belt, I suspect that most of lowland England, at least will become one shapeless urban sprawl. I am already of the belief, evidenced by own eyes, that there is just one field that separates Greater Greater Manchester and Greater Merseyside. It is extremely difficult to go anywhere in lowland England without seeing urbanisation.

The Environment Groups also comment. The Green Party, as usual, get it entirely wrong, by saying the pedestrianisation of towns is a great success, whereas there is a school of thought which believes that pedestrianised towns encourage attacks on the person.

I think the congestion charge in London is a splendid thing, and would advocate its extension to other congested cities. I would not wish to see tolls on motorways and by-passes, because this would just encourage people to drive through towns. I was deeply influenced by a series of TV series called Six English Towns, which showed the dreadful churn of vehicles grinding bumper-to-bumper through historically and aesthetically interesting towns.

The limits of the comments box

There is always a danger in leaving a comment on someone's site that they, or someone else, may see it as an attack on the siteowner, or on another commenter. Sometimes that fear censors me. Sometimes I want to express something, but am fearful it will come out as an attack. when it's not meant to be. Sometimes I disagree with what's been said. Or what I think is being thought. Today I decided to say it.

The trouble with someone else's comments box, perhaps a structural problem, is that at the same time as allowing some level of free speech, it also constrains it.

However, from time to time I will leave a comment about the way I think. The expression of it is not fully thought out, although I am entirely clear about the sentiments within, having been thinking - and honing - them for quarter of a century.

And then, sometimes, I think, I'll post the coment here, so that I don't forget it. Maybe one day I'll want to expand on it.

Here it is:

I never read debates on whether or not men should have children. (Obviously, there is no real parallel between women having children and men having children.) Have them, or not.

In my view someone who wishes to imbue their personal choice not to have children with a moral weight is no better and no worse than those who tries to make out to be morally superior bevause they chose to have children (or had them, anyway). Either you believe that the welfare state is there for "those according to need from those according to ability" or you believe "each for themself and tough if you can't afford it".

Because I chose to pursue a University degree, those people who chose not to were forced to subsidise it. When I need my hip replacing in thirty years time, I will expect people with healthy hips to subsidise it.

It's what happens in a Welfare State.

I also have a lot of pity for women who actually believe that their sole purpose in life is to produce and fail to bring up their kids. On the other hand, if women (or men) decide to take a career break, or do so for financial reasons, it doesn't make them lesser people, or better people.

I thought that one of the great objectives and partial achievements of feminism was destroying the notion that people should or shouldn't do certain things. Even if you don't agree with people's choices, as long as they're rational choices (and are legal, and don't harm others etc etc etc), just accept the choice. If you don't like it, get over it.

On Green Fairy

Gay marriage

I started writing this as a comment on Jon's site, apropos New Rights For Gay Couples

It's an interesting one, because, on the whole, there are no impediments to straight people marrying, and if us straighties don't want all the hassle of a big ceremony there's nothing to stop us doing a three minute jobby at the Register Office with two random witnesses dragged in off the street (kicking and screaming from the bus shelter in the case of my local Register Office!).

When the matter was discussed on PolitX, Tory Boy brought up the issue of the two elderly spinsters. Now, he was using the elderly spinsters to beat gay people over the head (which is a fairly unique form of gerontophobia). Underneath the ridiculous ranting about marriage being for the children (thus rendering void every marriage of the barren and elderly - gerontophobia, again) and gays undermining the family (surely the elderly spinsters have been pretty undermining to family values, too!), there is potentially a serious point.

I am increasingly of the view that not only should it be a legal right for any adult of sound mind to designate any other adult of sound mind as next-of-kin, but, also for any adult to be able to designate a 'significant other' for, say, Inheritance Tax and pension purposes.

It would avoid the debate about the undermining of marriage (although, if it's so easily undermined, it can't be that hot a proposition). It would enable people who wish to get married for religious reasons to do so. Those who spurn the interference of church or state in private matters, as every good libertarian should, be they straight or gay, can ensure that they can die with dignity not leaving their life partner destitute. It would also ensure that those who will not, or cannot, share their life with a sexual partner are also not disadvantaged.

Disability now

In Croydon on Thursday, popping out of the Whitgift Centre for a smoke, I noticed a father and son. the son was between seven and ten, in a wheelchair. They were at the bus stop, waiting, probably for a bus, possibly for a lift.

I noticed a sticker on the entrance to the Whitgift, celebrating that it participates in Croydon Council's Disability scheme - whatever that is. On the bus Friday morning, I noticed that the bus is designed to accommodate one wheelchair user. I reflected that I have never seen a wheelchair user on a bus in Britain. Unlike in New York and Washington, where it seemed that every bus I was on 'knelt' to admit a wheelchair user. Basically, wheelchair users are not visible in Britain. I personally know two people - both of whom can, and choose to, walk short distances. I also know of one who campaigns tirelessly - and fruitlessly - for disabled access to Streatham Hill. Perhaps the wheelchair users I saw in the States were all men of a certain age - men who were old enough to have gone to Vietnam. Or am I being silly?

On Friday, just across the road from the Whitgift, I saw a man propelling himself down into the subway. Perhaps Croydon, for all its faults, is Disability Aware. On the way home waiting for a bus. I saw a couple emerge from a sandwich shop on Streatham Hill. She was about four foot, clearly a 'dwarf' - there is a medical name for the condition, I forget it. He was in a wheelchair and appeared from the back also to be a 'dwarf'. I wondered how they get around - the buses are not really accessible, and, as I say, Streatham Hill is a nightmare for anybody with any mobility issue (including buggies or luggage).

Thoughts on racism

Conscious that I tread into murky waters, I tread carefully.

(Where I live is multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic. Thankfully, the outward manifestations of racism are passive. We don't get too many reports of racially motivated attacks. Of course, the rhetoric is different, and while I'm not condoning it, there's a big difference between an ignoramus mouthing off in a pub, and firebombing someone's home. And this is not intended as a comment on the ingrained institutional nature of racism, nor on inequality of opportunity etc)

Yesterday, I was sitting on Streatham Hill station waiting for a train to Croydon. Hearing a strange noise, I looked behind me to see a young black man riding his bike down the stairs to the platform. Baseball cap on backwards, earphones clamped to his ears, his face and body language yelling aggression. He rode the bike at speed along the platform, stopping only at the furthermost bench, where he dismounted, to sit. Not on the seat of the bench, but on the back, his feet resting on the seat, where some innocent will later place their clean trousers/skirt.

There was nothing wrong in what he did - certainly not criminally wrong. However, if I were not a Sandal wearing Guardianista, I would have been intimidated, and thinking 'Typical, aggressive, black man'. I looked around - on either side of me were black men of about my age. One staring into space, clearly lost in thoughts and daydreams. Another reading the manual for his phone (a man reading a manual?). Further along a twenty-something black man read his book. On the other platform, a sixty something black man read his Daily Mail. A late-teened black man paced around in that aimless waiting-for-a-train way, matching Ray-United-Airlines in his pacing.

All of those black men, like everyone else on the station, were going about their everyday life, not drawing attention to themselves. The faces of those close to me were gentle - the faces of good fathers, loving partners, conscientious workers.

Yet, for most people, the stereotype of a black man was that idiot riding his bike down the stairs and along the platform. I wonder whether he knows or cares about his image. Do I, as a middle class white woman, have any right to even comment? Should he change his image to confront, rather than pander to, the stereotypes of Middle England? Am I not being prejudiced in even noticing? And not until then noticing the characteristics of anyone else? Is my dislike of him a subtle - or not so subtle - form of racism, or is it a justifiable and justified dislike of aggressive anti-social behaviour?

Birthday Honours

Celebrities get gongs.

As a child I was fascinated - and impressed - by the Honours system. As a teenager, I was virulently opposed, seeing it as no more than a snob-accumulation-of-pseudo-status.

Age has mellowed me, and I am now broadly in favour of the Honours system. The different classes leave an unpleasant taste - for example, Senior Civil Servants and their NHS/Local Government equivalents tend to get a C, whereas Admin Officers get the M - but overall, I think it's a good thing.

As usual, I looked through the list. People seemed to have got them for a variety of reasons. There are clearly a few who have got them for giving enormous amounts of money to Charidee. A cynic would say that they gave the money in order to buy an honour - to be honest, it has limited cache, except, perhaps when reserving tables in a restaurant.

Cabinet ministers I have fancied...

I joined the Labour at sixteen out of firm political convictions. It gradually took over my life - what with party activity and eight years being a Lambeth councillor. I have met the majority of friends and, indeed, former boyfriends, via the Labour Party. Even my fiancé, whom I met in a pub, turns out to resigned from the Young Socialists over Vietnam.

When I first joined, part of the Left - where I firmly placed myself - were characterised by a lack of humour and a strict adherence to dogma. There was a specific way to dress. I embraced the jeans, DMs and long dangly earrings, but ruined it by wearing brightly coloured tops. In my final year at Uni I took to wearing skirts (with thick tights and DMs, I hasten to add). Andy, who was Chair of the Conservative Association, told me that I didn't look like a lefty. I suggested to him that he did. We agreed that sometimes your message can be more effective if you challenge the stereotype.

Make no mistake, I was a serious politician.

However, I am also a human being with a predilection for developing embarrassing teenage crushes.

Back in 92, I was staying with Auntie Moira, one of only two people in her ATS regiment to vote Tory in 1945. Tony Blair, then Shadow spoke on Employment (I think) was on the TV. She asked me whether I thought he was dishy. Yuck, I said. He's going to be Prime Minister, she said. Rubbish, I said, after Neil Kinnock, it will be Gordon Brown.

1995. I was my constituency party's delegate to Young Labour conference. The oldest one - I slipped into the age range by one day. It ran concurrently with Local Government Conference. On the Sunday lunchtime, we came together for a series of keynote addresses.

I was late into the hall, and joined the group of other late people standing at the back. When Tony Blair began his speech, I panicked, realising that by standing, I would by default, have to join in the standing ovation. I spotted a spare seat next to Jimbo, then leader of Lambeth Labour Group. Our relationship over the years has been variable. But it was a seat. Stood just behind where I had been standing was Cherie, literally trembling with nerves as Tony spoke.

A few months later I had to substitute for Kate Hoey at an event. The main speaker was Paul Boateng.

When I met him, it was one of those very few occasions that I felt a tingle, an excitement, a lust-at-first-sight. He was very charming. (Of course, that's part of a politician's job description, but I've met a good few in my time, and he was different). I invited him down the Town Hall bar afterwards. He declined, much to my disappointment.

Nevertheless, I developed a crush on him, and still have it slightly.

I will never ever forget 1 May 1997 for as long as I have my marbles. Bliss it was in that dawn etc. Hope filled the country, a country disillusioned by Tory misrule. Even Auntie Moira voted Labour, and for the first time ever, Hove returned a Labour MP.

I was excited that finally we had a government whose policies were broadly on the right track, whose values were my values, and were staffed by people a little bit more like everyday people. I rapidly developed a mega celebrity crush on Tony Blair, that lasted for about three years. I know more about him than is healthy for anyone to know.

And although I am going through a period of disillusionment with politics, and with the Labour Party, I am still of the belief that it is a Good Thing to have a Labour Government.

Reshuffle

My analysis waits to see what happens in the middle and junior ranks. Particularly considering my department is currently minus two Ministers of State. And it looks like we have a lost a bit of the department, so, having been off today with the runs, I need to examine the emails at work., especially to see whether it will have any effect upon the Unit.

As I watched the news I reflected that the second most-dishiest member of the Cabinet has departed, leaving, let's face it, only one hunk. Then I looked more closely at the formerly second-most-dishy Cabinet member and thought, 'Blimey, hasn't he aged?'.

Then I remembered that I didn't study all that time for a Politics degree in order to be able to appraise the relative hunkiness of Cabinet Ministers.

Euro or not Euro

I am broadly in favour of joining the Euro. It seems such a no-brainer. As a tourist, I resent the cost of money changing. Even though I have a commission free account, I inevitably lose out on exchange rates somewhere along the line. Indeed, it's such a hassle having to go and pick up currency before going on holiday. If it's an expense for the individual, I am prepared to believe it is even more so for business.

Time again, Big Business People state how their medium-and long-term investment needs are predicated on the UK joining the Euro. Just this morning, Alan Wood, Chief Executive of Siemens plc said that Britain not joining the Euro may lead to Siemens withdrawing investment from the UK.

There is a lot of popular opposition in the country to the idea of joining the Euro. Some of it is based on cold analysis of the hard economic facts, and I will respect that opinion.

But so much of it is based on sheer prejudice, or on absorbing the propaganda from newspapers owned by people who have just their own business interests to worry about.

Some people fear a loss of sovereignty were we to join the Euro. Ask the majority of them what 'sovereignty' they have, and they'll say that it's about having the Queen's Head on the coins. Ask them about all the other Western democracies where sovereignty is deemed to lie with the people; contrast that with the British system, where sovereignty lies with the 'Queen-in-Parliament'.

Apparently, if we join the Euro, we'll lose a lot of freedoms. Nobody's ever really explained what those freedoms are. Just because Eddie George has the freedom to set interest rates - and, thus, my mortgage repayment - at whatever rate he wishes doesn't give me any freedom. It makes no real difference whether it's the Bank of England or the European Central Bank.

Of course, interest rates in the Eurozone are significantly lower. According to the reactionary g Hertfordshire and Surrey Commuter Belt Evening Standard, this will fuel a housing boom, followed by a bust. This might well be the case; it doesn't really mention the fact that plenty of people would be very happy to see their mortgage payments slashed.

I think that there is such an ingrained insularity in too many Britons that once again, we are choosing to marginalise ourselves, and in time, will rue it, but feel better ruing than being 'ruled' by the 'French'.

Is business about profit?

Being at home today, I listened to Radio 4. My line-up included Shop Talk, to which you can listen by following the link.

The subject matter was Corporate Longevity - does it matter and what is the key to achieving it?

The research presented was that companies that achieve longevity do so by seeing themselves as part of a community, and by seeing profits as oxygen - essential for survival but not the reason for survival.

When I was doing my professional training I had to write an essay about whether the main objective of a business is profit. My Management Accounting lecturer stated his view that the main objective of most businesses is a quiet life.

I am still to be convinced.

As a Social Democrat and a Trade Unionist I strongly oppose the view of profit at all costs. As human beings we live in a world where decisions cannot be - mustn't be - based entirely on the bottom line.

We live in a world inhabited by people - a world of amazing but delicate natural beauty. As human beings we have a soul - however we describe it according to our belief system, or none.

But a company is not the same as a human being.

A company includes humans, but it has a dynamic which is not a human dynamic.

The conclusion I drew from this programme, which is the same that I drew twelve years ago in the essay I wrote is that ultimately every for-profit organisation has to have profit as its main impetus.

The people running the business, consciously or sub-consciously, decide whether they want a short-term massive profit or a "guaranteed" long-term modest profit.

In general, the firms that achieve the former do so by exploiting their workers and their environment; those that opt for the latter are more in tune with the environment, and the people who are stakeholders in the firm.

The history of business is that those who behave with human characteristics survive. The future seems to indicate that the ruthless, profit-at-all-costs are gaining a supremacy.

Section 28

On politX , I found a debate about the odiousTory use of the words 'tolerate' and 'wrong' in relation to homosexuality.

I think the phraseology is akin to say "I tolerate left-handedness, even though I know it to be wrong." I'm straight and right-handed.

It wasn't so long ago that southpaws used to have it beaten out of them; it often made them stammer (King George VI is the most famous example).

However, I don't know how I could ever convince a bigot that homosexuality isn't wrong. I then think, why should I have to. Surely the burden of proof is on the other side. I can argue, logically, on the basis of behaviour of other species, of what I know about my own, predominantly-straight, sexual orientation, on the basis of all the gay people I know and know of. I could also argue from a libertarian point of view - that it is not the role of the state to attempt to regulate the private lives of adults, be it their sex lives, or the (im)balance of their diet, or how they pass their leisure time. Being not a libertarian, I see there are boundaries.

The arguments that are used to demonstrate that homosexuality is 'wrong' are always flawed in that, they are applicable to some or many heterosexuals, and not applicable to all homosexuals. Or in that very special case of Leviticus, don't ever forget the rule against eating shellfish. My god gave me a brain with which to think and a soul with which to feel.

The word 'tolerance' is more difficult. A Government Department of my acquaintance has a slogan: "Building a Safe, Just and Tolerant Society". I have always seen that as a positive thing. But perhaps it's positive when nebulous - let's all be tolerant of each other - but when converted to a specific becomes negative - tolerating a child's rowdiness because the child is cute, or tolerating someone's loud unmusic because it's Saturday night.

What clinches it, though, is the knowledge that if you think something is wrong, you shouldn't tolerate it. I think murder is wrong, I don't tolerate it; I think bad food is wrong, I don't tolerate. And so on through a very long list.

So what Edward Leigh was actually saying was "We still think homosexuality is wrong because it challenges the nice little world in which I'm doing just fine, thank you, but because we want some votes from people beyond the lunatic hardcore, we'll pretend that we don't really despise fags-and-dykes, coons, and uppity-bitches....Was that right, Theresa?"

Not consulted, this time

Davies admits he was in woods

Last time when Ron Davies had his moment of madness on Clapham Common I was fending calls from the Press all day. the supposed mugging had taken place in my ward; the Press were sheeplike following the ITN who had notroriously nick-named the estate "Crack Alley". The Press were trying to desperately to get me to admit that it was known locally as "Crack Alley", which it wasn't and isn't. They wanted me to say that Brixton was a thoroughly horrible place; the fact that I focused on soaring house prices, vibrant nightlife, and beacon primary schools ensured that I didn't earn one quote or namecheck in the next day's papers. The Chair of the Tenants Association was furious at the dissing they gave to the Estate

I also objected to the fact that the Press were harassing Lambeth staff as they left the local housing office to go to lunch or home, or about their duties as housing officers.

Conservative Commentary?

Like a fool, I have been drawn repeatedly to reading Conservative Commentary . I don't know why - perhaps I was looking for something that explains the thinking behind Conservative ideology. I was to be disappointed.

You might say you're not surprised at me not liking this site. After all, I am deeply political; for very many years I have loathed the Tories and what they stand for. But, I thought, if I could get a sense behind why someone would want to be a Young Conservative it would aid my intellectual development.

To be honest, I found it deeply disturbing. I think it's a well-designed site, and there s absolutely no doubt that the chap that writes it is articulate, eloquent and well-read.

The problem is that he gives no hint of actually existing in the world. He is nineteen years old; in his 'about' page he has the following:

I detest the modish belief that the father is superfluous to the raising of children, and that a single parent family is just as well equipped to raise responsible and mature children. I see marriage as the bedrock of a civilised society and its general valuation as such as immensely important.

He is, of course, entitled to his views, but I assume he wishes to impose them on other people. I happen to think that it's slightly ridiculous for someone with seemingly no life-experience to attempt to dictate how other people live their life. Because he appears to live in a vacuum with no human contact he probably doesn't know how single parent families happen (every single-parent family I know has happened in a different way). He puts no evidence forward for why single-parent families are unable to raise sensible and mature children, whereas I could happily put forward reasons why, and present multiple examples to illustrate my reasons.

He's an ignorant so-and-so, but cleverly disguises his ignorance in fine rhetoric

I value true talent, disliking most modern art and music and in general preferring the great accomplishments of Western Civilisation. I am strongly patriotic, and see the British - through its democracy, its learning and its empire - as having been the greatest civilisation in human history, the Romans following closely behind.

For somebosy who praises British learning, his list of favourite music is devoid of any British (unless you count Handel) or, indeed, any non-Germanic composers. The choice is narrow and shallow - not the pieces themselves, but the sheer predictability of "Your Favourite Tunes Top 100 CD Box Set collection."

His list of favourite books is depressingly soul-less. Whilst some are actually to my liking, the list shows an ignorance of literature, as opposed to books about politics. My own reading is heavily biased towards the political, but my favourite book, ever, is Wuthering Heights.

Twice now I have written comments to his posts, but then deleted them because I don't feel that there is any point. His writings are so based on regurgitation of what he has read, that supports his own prejudices, with no evidence of independent thought, that I doubt he would understand what I have written.

I find it frustrating that there are so many people in the Conservative party who have not an idea of the realities of life. He talks like a member of a Sixth Form debating society with no reference to personal experience, or even to personal observations. To me there is an irony, because classical Conservative philosophy is to accept that humankind is flawed, and to build a society to mitigate those flaws. However, he implies in his writing that the world is full of merely misguided humans, and if we but listen to him, our lives will be fulfilled.

Perhaps it's old age on my part but I really don't want to be lectured by some little upstart, who isn't in a relationship and probably hasn't lost his virginity, let alone explored his musical or literary tastes, nor knows much about history beyond the GCSE syllabus, nor seems to know anything about human life.

And it's not because I'm biased against teenagers, nor am I too proud to learn from them. One of my favourite blogs is written by a teenager. He lives in his life in the real world, and because he pretends not to take himself too seriously, he offers some fascinating insights into the human condition.

Nick has also picked up on this Cuthbertson chap, and has expressed far better than me, something I emailed to Guardian in response to Sites of Resistance

Terrorist alert or publicity stunt

Can I just say to the people who think that mobilising troops to guard the airports and the 'postcard' sites think it is a cynical vote-winning ploy, I say you should get out more.

Having spent 8 years representing real people as a councillor, and nineteen years canvassing for people's electoral support, I can assure you that a cynical publicity stunt would be to make sure that there was a Bobby on every street corner. Not that it would have any effect upon crime rates, but that's what the public wants.

I know it's a very long time ago now but when, after September 11, police were deployed to the centre of London away from the residential areas and the provinces, the levels of petty crime shot up.

Whether it is a proportionate response to reliable intelligence is not for me to say. But I do know that robbery/burglary/car crime and anti-social behaviour is much more of a touchstone issue amongst the swing-voters of Middle England.

Ireland to ban smoking in pubs

Metafilter has this strand.

I will say quite clearly that is smoking in bars and restaurants was banned in England, Jimmy and I would simply stop going.

Not only us: the people whom bars rely on for trade, the regulars-five-or-six-pints-a-day people, or the spend loads of money at the weekend are predominantly smokers. You look at groups in a pub; most groups will contain at least one smoker.

Restaurants are slightly different. Certainly, I wish some of my favourite restaurants would divide smoking and non-smoking areas. I feel ever so slightly guilty lighting up when someone's next to me eating. Not very guilty. And they could always go to McDonalds.

And there is the Wetherspoons argument. No smoking at the bar. Fine. Have a no-smoking area (sure, it's usually empty, but it's a jolly good idea).

Almost all bar staff smoke. If the staff don't like it, there's always a job going at McDonalds.

And let's wise up about this coughing choking red eyes thing. In my personal experience, the people who generally complain the loudest are the ones who use their enormous petrol-guzzling cars to pollute the environment drive the shortest of distances. I read somewhere that people most affected by exhaust fumes are those inside cars. Perhaps if they got out and walked they would find a magic solution to their coughing choking red eyes.

My personal bugbear is people who eat food McDonalds/KFC on the bus or in the lift at work. It makes me want to throw up. I told someone once to move their food right away from me, or I would puke.

Talk about animal behaviour: - you eat shit, you eat it with your paws, you eat it on the move.

And another one I can't stand is people who sit opposite me at work and wear foul-smelling perfume that makes me want to gag. I can't get away from that.

Or people who heat - usually curried - meat in the office microwave, and then shut the door, leaving my hot milk to taste of curried meat.

Shock! Horror! Ethnic Minorities Exist North of Watford!

Another example from the Today programme of its narrow metropolitan bias. Jack Straw was interviewed about the possibility of Turkey joining the EU. Ed Stourton's contention - one shared with Right Wing Christian Democrats across Europe - is that Turkey is not suitable for entry into the EU, because it's, well, in Asia. And, more importantly, not of a Christian tradition.

Jack Straw pointed out that many areas of Europe have a Moslem tradition - for example, Spain. Ed Stourton asked him what his "constituents in the North West of England have in common with Turkey". Jack Straw replied that a third of his constituents in Blackburn are Moslems.

Note to BBC. There are Black and Asian people oop North. They're very easy to spot. They're the ones without ferrets and whippets. And cloth caps.

Just for the record, I am fascinated by the project of European expansion. In many ways it is a further step towards the dream of Robert Schumann et al of a truly United Europe. It is good that it is forcing Turkey - and other countries - to improve their human rights record, including the abolition of Capital Punishment.

Remember when the Isle of Man had to legalise homosexuality because of its indirect membership of the EU? Wasn't that membership also the reason that they abolished birching?

However, it will also see agreat movement of labour and capital across Europe. Which will be...interesting!

CherieGate

As soon as I heard that this story had been kicked up by the Mail, I sighed. Cherie Booth is the absolute antithesis of Mail-land. A mother of four who earns more than her husband, who's quite successful in his own right. A success in her career, who's the product of a broken home, the daughter of an alcoholic philanderer. A left winger and a devout Catholic. Everything the Daily Mail hates.

Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was horrified. They had dragged up some retired judge who stated that the whole issue was a scandal, because the next time Cherie sits as a judge, the defendant will bring up the subject and say, "Did you fancy this man?" The interviewer, Humphreys or Naughtie, I forget which let this ghastly man continue, and he finished by saying, "In my opinion, she's far too overdressed." Then the odious snivelling little Trevor Kavanagh came on, and said, "I agree with every word that he said."

I listened for an hour and a half and I did not hear one female voice in that entire time.

Just remind me, why is it that women are said to be 'apathetic' about 'politics'?

Screw You!

Royal butler trial collapses

I haven't written anything about this matter here, because until today I just mentally classed it as "Hello" material. That having been said, I have had a number of conversations about it.

One of the facts that came out a few weeks ago was that among the letters he was charged with stealing were from Prince Philip. Presumably, the ones that read:

Dear Diana. You are a truly wonderful person. I feel not that I have lost a son but a gained a daughter. Lots of love, Your adoring father-in-law Philip.

So, the Queen has decided to condescend to save an innocent man and loyal servant from going down for seven years. What a truly wonderful woman she is. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

How much has this case cost? A million and a half, said the BBC. Perhaps the Queen should be forced to pay out of her own fortune*. The sad and sick thing is that stilll the Stupid People will go on about how wonderful the Royal Family is.

And have to say that I wonder about Burrell. What kind of person would be prepared to spend seven years in prison rather than reveal a material conversation. Loyal, yes, but...get a grip! (And what about loyalty to his own family, who have suffered, and will have suffered more?)

The updated version of the book will sell.

* built up from centuries of expoiting the people and pocketing the income fromthe so-called Crown Estates (aka The Crown Estates)