It seems that Sir Alan is being touted by some to take on Boris for the Mayoralty next time, this news hasn't gone down well with some, thinking this a desperate grab for celebrity.
The thinking behind the Sugar approach seems to be that Boris won because he was a celebrity figure, which I think is only half the story.
Boris was for some a celebrity vote, but without the anti-Ken, anti-Labour and pro-change feelings last year, celebrity or not, he would not have won.
There is a growing 'anyone but Ken' feeling, and without another credible candidate, it seems natural that people will look outside Parliament.
Celebrity for celebrity's sake is not what is needed, but if a businessman such as Michael Bloomberg can make a decent stab at running New York, then that should be no bar to Sir Alan. However, has he got a political bone in his body (has he got a Labour bone in his body?)
The pickings next time round are slim, Politicians such as David Lammy, Oona King and Tessa Jowell all tick some boxes, and perhaps if we could pick and mix their differing pro's then perhaps.
Young candidates such as Chuka Umunna, Rushanara Ali and Stella Creasy are all great hopes, but they will probably want to get elected first before thinking about the Mayor's office.
Local candidates such as Mayors Jules Pipe and Sir Robin Wales would be a safe pair of hands, Assembly Member John Biggs has been having great fun ripping into Boris in the GLA, and Claude Moraes is a good speaker and very likable, but none of the above have the broad appeal or name-recognition.
As with contenders for the party leadership post-Brown, there are plenty of candidates, but all with drawbacks.
We may need to look to those outside the political world, but perhaps we shouldn't select a man best known for the catchphrase "you're fired" when people all over the capital are losing their jobs.
I'm trying to think of other celebrity Labour backers, Sir Alex Ferguson...Mick Hucknell...Ross Kemp...oh dear.
Ken, all is forgiven.
James
UPDATE
I have seen the current betting for this and obviously forgot about Jon Cruddas, probably better placed as most. However, I have also thought of a couple not on the list. Alan Johnson is a genuine 'lahndoner' and would be instant front runner if he wanted it, a more leftfield candidate could be Alistair Campbell, his web 2.0 efforts, TV and charity work are going some way to detoxifying him, worth a punt?
Friday 27 February 2009
Wednesday 25 February 2009
Ceasefire
The extremely sad news that Ivan Cameron died last night, should see, I hope, the best of politicians in the UK.
PMQs has been canceled, replaced by the deputy leaders and the PM reading statements.
I hope, indeed woe betide, any politician who even teeters on making a political point during this time.
The grief and sympathy from all sides should come naturally and be respectfully, and an opportunity for Gorden Brown to put aside his feelings toward Cameron and help him through.
I hope Brown's own personal experience will be, if wanted, privately offered to Cameron, on how to deal with suffering such a loss and see light the other side.
PMQs has been canceled, replaced by the deputy leaders and the PM reading statements.
I hope, indeed woe betide, any politician who even teeters on making a political point during this time.
The grief and sympathy from all sides should come naturally and be respectfully, and an opportunity for Gorden Brown to put aside his feelings toward Cameron and help him through.
I hope Brown's own personal experience will be, if wanted, privately offered to Cameron, on how to deal with suffering such a loss and see light the other side.
Tuesday 24 February 2009
Who wants to be.... a millionnaire???
The success of Slumdog Millionaire has been fantastic, not only for the British film industry and arguably our best director, Danny Boyle, but also in demonstrating the fusion that can be possible between western cinema and other cultures.
However, the film has also garnered criticism from Indian and British commentators, mostly for the treatment of the extras and the child stars. The producers have been at pains to point out their treatment of the children. They got paid a very decent sum (3x the average adult wage) as well as the establishing of a school and a trust fund set up for when they complete their education. I can't fault the producers efforts to make sure they have treated the children well, but does this not have undertones of western hectoring?
Did Steven Spielberg provide the same scheme for Drew Barrymore in ET, her troubles throughout her teenage years prove that she was not well cared for after being thrust into the limelight. Did the cast of Bugsy Malone have trust funds set up? Gary Coleman is now a security guard after being the best paid child actor in the US, and whatever happened to Rolo from Grange Hill??
Child stardom brings about various pitfalls, but rarely do producers get criticised for giving starlets the opportunity.
Why do we feel that Slumdog have to do this, do we feel that the actors family's cannot be trusted (Gary Coleman sued his parents for taking his salary)?
If the producers have paid a good wage, which few people can argue they did not do, then what further duty of care do they owe?
The makers of Borat royally screwed the local inhabitants of Glod, paid an alleged £3 for their humiliation,a derisory figure. But, Slumdog did not.
In the future, when plucking a select few lucky locals for extra work, what should filmmakers do? This scheme has set a precedent, but shouldn't missionary work should be left to charities? Filmmakers should concentrate on just that, film-making. The liberal intelligentsia should not expect producers to improve the community of foreign countries, we don't expect that when filming is done in poor communities in the US or UK.
As it stands, I think Danny Boyle has down a wonderful thing for those children, a lucky pluck from the crowd has changed those 6 kids lives forever, I'm sure in a positive way, but we should not look down our noses at other communities in an inverted snobbish manner, that, for me, is more insulting than anything Slumdog has done.
James
(BTW, the lack of posting in the past few days is due to a well earned holiday, not through disappointment that I haven't turned into Iain Dale overnight)
However, the film has also garnered criticism from Indian and British commentators, mostly for the treatment of the extras and the child stars. The producers have been at pains to point out their treatment of the children. They got paid a very decent sum (3x the average adult wage) as well as the establishing of a school and a trust fund set up for when they complete their education. I can't fault the producers efforts to make sure they have treated the children well, but does this not have undertones of western hectoring?
Did Steven Spielberg provide the same scheme for Drew Barrymore in ET, her troubles throughout her teenage years prove that she was not well cared for after being thrust into the limelight. Did the cast of Bugsy Malone have trust funds set up? Gary Coleman is now a security guard after being the best paid child actor in the US, and whatever happened to Rolo from Grange Hill??
Child stardom brings about various pitfalls, but rarely do producers get criticised for giving starlets the opportunity.
Why do we feel that Slumdog have to do this, do we feel that the actors family's cannot be trusted (Gary Coleman sued his parents for taking his salary)?
If the producers have paid a good wage, which few people can argue they did not do, then what further duty of care do they owe?
The makers of Borat royally screwed the local inhabitants of Glod, paid an alleged £3 for their humiliation,a derisory figure. But, Slumdog did not.
In the future, when plucking a select few lucky locals for extra work, what should filmmakers do? This scheme has set a precedent, but shouldn't missionary work should be left to charities? Filmmakers should concentrate on just that, film-making. The liberal intelligentsia should not expect producers to improve the community of foreign countries, we don't expect that when filming is done in poor communities in the US or UK.
As it stands, I think Danny Boyle has down a wonderful thing for those children, a lucky pluck from the crowd has changed those 6 kids lives forever, I'm sure in a positive way, but we should not look down our noses at other communities in an inverted snobbish manner, that, for me, is more insulting than anything Slumdog has done.
James
(BTW, the lack of posting in the past few days is due to a well earned holiday, not through disappointment that I haven't turned into Iain Dale overnight)
Wednesday 18 February 2009
Camerons localism
Yesterday, Cameron unveiled his plans for a new wave of localism in politics. The policy lays out proposals for more power to be given to local authorities, and for the major cities to have referendums on directly elected mayors. However, leaving aside the various funding issues that would arise, I think most people would agree with more decisions being decided locally.
I have always had a respect for Conservative and Republicans who feel strongly on the expansive state, I feel I would agree, if not for the inability of the small state to provide fairness and equality in the major areas of health, education and welfare.
The idea of more powerful town halls is still attractive though. It puzzles me, the number of Council leaders that ditch their town hall at the chance of a parliamentary seat: they rarely rise far in the commons, and never have that power to change people’s lives, or improve there local community, ever again.
The status of parliament is inflated, and the effects of local democracy are undervalued. Yet with the introduction of directly elected mayors, and greater powers for local councils, could redress that issue.
The role of MPs in the country is confused, as a constituent, do I vote for the best legislator, the best person to represent me, the person most suited to high office or blindly just tick near the box with a rose in it. (Obviously for me it is the latter)
In that other great exemplar of democracy across the pond, these issues are clearer. You elect Congressmen as representatives and legislators, Senators as legislators and representatives, Governors and Presidents and executives and the person with the best net as dog catcher, much simpler, and usually provides the best candidate for each job.
We need to look again at what we want from our various levels of government (House of Lords included), and alter the system accordingly. Blindly giving powers to sub-par, part time, first step/last step of their political career, councillors, however, is not the answer.
James
I have always had a respect for Conservative and Republicans who feel strongly on the expansive state, I feel I would agree, if not for the inability of the small state to provide fairness and equality in the major areas of health, education and welfare.
The idea of more powerful town halls is still attractive though. It puzzles me, the number of Council leaders that ditch their town hall at the chance of a parliamentary seat: they rarely rise far in the commons, and never have that power to change people’s lives, or improve there local community, ever again.
The status of parliament is inflated, and the effects of local democracy are undervalued. Yet with the introduction of directly elected mayors, and greater powers for local councils, could redress that issue.
The role of MPs in the country is confused, as a constituent, do I vote for the best legislator, the best person to represent me, the person most suited to high office or blindly just tick near the box with a rose in it. (Obviously for me it is the latter)
In that other great exemplar of democracy across the pond, these issues are clearer. You elect Congressmen as representatives and legislators, Senators as legislators and representatives, Governors and Presidents and executives and the person with the best net as dog catcher, much simpler, and usually provides the best candidate for each job.
We need to look again at what we want from our various levels of government (House of Lords included), and alter the system accordingly. Blindly giving powers to sub-par, part time, first step/last step of their political career, councillors, however, is not the answer.
James
The death of English cricket
In Affectionate Remembrance
of
ENGLISH CRICKET,
which died at the Oval
on
29th AUGUST, 1882,
Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing
friends and acquaintances
R.I.P.
N.B.—The body will be cremated and the
ashes taken to Australia.
The Sporting Times ran the obituary that was the catalyst of one of the most special sporting rivalries for the next 125 years, however, it is difficult to see what silver lining will come from yesterdays news fromTexas
It is quite a pity that English cricket died on a day when the 11 men wearing the three lions performed rather well on the pitch, but the news that (Sir) Allen Stanford was arrested yesterday for a fraud of massive proportions, should seal the death of the soul of English cricket.
For those who aren't aware, the ECB pimped out the nation’s cricket team to a rich Texan wanting a plaything. The players where complicit in their own whoaring, but the blame lays with those who run the game.
The announcement of this sordid deal was sealed by a gold plated helicopter landing in Lords, and 20 million dollars behind a perspex box, it seemed tacky then, in hindsight, it was grimy and dirty.
In essence, the ECB has been at this for a while, and selling the game to an American crook with no actual liking for the game is only symbolic of the state of play we find ourselves in today.
For the last 10 years, they have routinely sold the TV rights to the highest bidder, regardless of the actual worth. Which now means that no cricket is shown on terrestrial TV, and a child has as much access to the intricacies of Obama's bail-out plan, than what’s going on in with the cricket inAntigua .
This leads to a lack of interest, a lack of national awareness, the same national awareness that made the 2005 Ashes win so special, and feasibly the last time such levels of excitement regarding cricket will ever have again.
It takes a brave man to turn down millions for the greater benefit, the long term benefit, of any organisation. But turn it down, the ECB should have done.
Cricket is unlike any other sport, its soul, spirit and character are as important as what’s going on in the match. A day at the cricket is not solely based around the 22 yards in the middle, it’s the crowd, the occasion and the personality of the game. It’s why I can clap an opponent’s good work whilst sitting comfortably in theSurrey members end; indeed, I would be the only one who wouldn’t be, if I did not.
Stanford's millions have cheapened the game, and his arrest yesterday is symbolic of how a game that should represent some of the most positive aspects of our national identity, has changed-perhaps beyond repair.
James
of
ENGLISH CRICKET,
which died at the Oval
on
29th AUGUST, 1882,
Deeply lamented by a large circle of sorrowing
friends and acquaintances
R.I.P.
N.B.—The body will be cremated and the
ashes taken to Australia.
The Sporting Times ran the obituary that was the catalyst of one of the most special sporting rivalries for the next 125 years, however, it is difficult to see what silver lining will come from yesterdays news from
It is quite a pity that English cricket died on a day when the 11 men wearing the three lions performed rather well on the pitch, but the news that (Sir) Allen Stanford was arrested yesterday for a fraud of massive proportions, should seal the death of the soul of English cricket.
For those who aren't aware, the ECB pimped out the nation’s cricket team to a rich Texan wanting a plaything. The players where complicit in their own whoaring, but the blame lays with those who run the game.
The announcement of this sordid deal was sealed by a gold plated helicopter landing in Lords, and 20 million dollars behind a perspex box, it seemed tacky then, in hindsight, it was grimy and dirty.
In essence, the ECB has been at this for a while, and selling the game to an American crook with no actual liking for the game is only symbolic of the state of play we find ourselves in today.
For the last 10 years, they have routinely sold the TV rights to the highest bidder, regardless of the actual worth. Which now means that no cricket is shown on terrestrial TV, and a child has as much access to the intricacies of Obama's bail-out plan, than what’s going on in with the cricket in
This leads to a lack of interest, a lack of national awareness, the same national awareness that made the 2005 Ashes win so special, and feasibly the last time such levels of excitement regarding cricket will ever have again.
It takes a brave man to turn down millions for the greater benefit, the long term benefit, of any organisation. But turn it down, the ECB should have done.
Cricket is unlike any other sport, its soul, spirit and character are as important as what’s going on in the match. A day at the cricket is not solely based around the 22 yards in the middle, it’s the crowd, the occasion and the personality of the game. It’s why I can clap an opponent’s good work whilst sitting comfortably in the
Stanford's millions have cheapened the game, and his arrest yesterday is symbolic of how a game that should represent some of the most positive aspects of our national identity, has changed-perhaps beyond repair.
James
Tuesday 17 February 2009
Welcome to my blog!
I have eventually got round to doing this, if John Prescott can do web 2.0, I feel I should too.
The blog will try to add to the blogosphere, and will hopefully contribute to the left-of-center commenting on events, both political and irreverent.
I hope it goes without saying, that whatever opinions I offer, bare no relation to those of my employer, nor my local Labour party, and sometimes may bare little relation to my own thoughts, playing devil's advocate can be so much more liberating!
I make no apology for the techno-illiteracy of this blog, this is very much a steep learning curve.
Hope you enjoy,
James
I have eventually got round to doing this, if John Prescott can do web 2.0, I feel I should too.
The blog will try to add to the blogosphere, and will hopefully contribute to the left-of-center commenting on events, both political and irreverent.
I hope it goes without saying, that whatever opinions I offer, bare no relation to those of my employer, nor my local Labour party, and sometimes may bare little relation to my own thoughts, playing devil's advocate can be so much more liberating!
I make no apology for the techno-illiteracy of this blog, this is very much a steep learning curve.
Hope you enjoy,
James
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
