On Thursday (15/12) a by-election took place in the parliamentary constituency of Feltham and Heston. It offered voters in West London the opportunity to cast their verdicts of over eighteen months of the Con Dem nation. The voters chose to overwhelmingly reject the coalition, with both the Tories and Liberal Democrats taking a massive hit.
Unsurprisingly, the broadcasters opted to make the lousy turnout of 28 percent the story of the election. One could almost sense their disappointment that they had to concede the poor turnout was due to stormy weather and the proximity to Christmas, when a big story about political disengagement throughout the public would have been more desirable.
There were few surprises in how the parties responded to the result. It gave Labour the chance to remind the public that Tory policies were "hurting, but not working". There is truth to that claim: Tory cuts, leading to more unemployment, less tax revenue and more benefit payments, therefore putting government finances under more pressure, will not help Britain in the short or long term.
The Tories' responses ranged from the very dignified speech by their defeated candidate Mark Bowen, who paid tribute to the late Feltham and Heston MP, Alan Keen, to the sour grapes from Baroness Warsi, who complained of the election being won with just 12,000 votes. That response is evidence in itself as to how bitterly disappointed the Tories are with the result. Off the back of a fortnight when David Cameron went on a European wrecking mission, much to the delight of the press and a reasonably Euro-sceptic public, little gloss can be put on the 8.4 percent swing to Labour.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes, the straight-talking Liberal Democrat, somewhat arrogantly conceded the government losses are to be expected when in government. There was no suggestion of an inquest to find out why the voters are deserting the Con Dems, despite their repeated claim of how they are trying to clean up the mess they 'inherited' from the last government. (One of the things I learned from the Feltham and Heston by-election coverage is they still fail to realise the electorate is turned off by the 'inherited mess' line of argument. If I have realised that, why are party strategists yet to do so?)
Unless the Liberal Democrats are more prepared to look inwards at why they are losing so many voters, then the 5.87 percent they polled in Feltham and Heston will become the norm. There is no point being arrogant about the trappings of power, when a 'generation of voters' have been lost. The loss of a 'generation of voters' are not my words, but the words of Liberal Democrat MP, Adrian Sanders.
It is true that governments often fare badly in by-elections, but they usually have to become unpopular first. Labour continued to sweep up by-election post successes, even after their post-1997 election victory. The Feltham and Heston result suggests the Con Dem coalition is already losing the public, with Labour making a comeback.
Election summary; Feltham and Heston 2011: BBC NEWS
Friday, 16 December 2011
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Con-Dem government sell Northern Rock at a loss
The incompetent Tory-led government have sold Northern Rock - the bank rescued by their predecessors during the credit crisis. The price at just £747 million is almost half the £1.4 billion invested by the taxpayer, though there is the possibility of a further £280 million. Angry? You should be.
Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.
If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.
Over thirty years, the Tories have repeatedly shown they have failed to learn from history and are doomed to repeat their own mistakes. In the same way they handed over Britain's utilities for the financial equivalent of peanuts in the 1980s and 1990s (those utilities that now change hands for billions, and charge their customers extortionate fees), they handed over the bank, almost at the first opportunity.
If a director of your company paid to acquire a struggling company, steadied the ship, then sold it for less than paid for it, would you have confidence in that director? No you would not. And I do not have faith in this government.
Labels:
Banks,
Conservatives,
Debt Crisis,
Economic Downturn,
Labour,
Morons,
Northern Rock,
Politics,
Tories
Chiles and Bleakley lose Daybreak gig
After some rather poor ratings for ITV's Daybreak, the finger of blame has finally been directed towards the overexposed presenting duo of Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles. It has been reported in the press that they have fallen on their swords and will no longer present the breakfast programme.
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Labels:
Bleakley,
Broadcasting,
Celeb,
Celebrity,
Chiles,
Showbiz,
Television
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Sir Cliff Richard songs banned by new 60s radio station
He has sang on pop records spanning six decades, but there is no place for Sir Cliff Richard on a new 1960s radio station being spawned by Absolute Radio.
Quoted in the Daily Mail, presenter Pete Mitchell said: ‘His songs don't fit the cool sound of the swinging sixties we're trying to create on our new station'. In other words, his songs do not fit the conceptualisation of what is 'cool' by Absolute Radio.
For those who are new to Absolute Radio, here is a brief introduction. It is the current name for the former Virgin Radio, launched in the 1990s as an at-the-time much needed radio station to address the adult-oriented rock (AOR) much-neglected elsewhere on the radio.
The station already has 1980s and 1990s versions on digital radio. I listen to both sometimes, and they are good. The 1990s version does at times resemble a bad 1990s Britpop mixtape, with the inevitable top guns Blur, Oasis and Pulp, but also plays the work of many other acts caught up in the wave, some of which were awful.
All things considered, Sir Cliff is not typical of what Absolute will be playing to their target audience (expect lots of Beatles and Kinks). And I see no reason why such a big deal has been made out of the fact he will be among a number of singers who will not be finding their way on Absolute. So why make a big deal about it? The station launches on November 22nd. I will leave it at that.
Quoted in the Daily Mail, presenter Pete Mitchell said: ‘His songs don't fit the cool sound of the swinging sixties we're trying to create on our new station'. In other words, his songs do not fit the conceptualisation of what is 'cool' by Absolute Radio.
For those who are new to Absolute Radio, here is a brief introduction. It is the current name for the former Virgin Radio, launched in the 1990s as an at-the-time much needed radio station to address the adult-oriented rock (AOR) much-neglected elsewhere on the radio.
The station already has 1980s and 1990s versions on digital radio. I listen to both sometimes, and they are good. The 1990s version does at times resemble a bad 1990s Britpop mixtape, with the inevitable top guns Blur, Oasis and Pulp, but also plays the work of many other acts caught up in the wave, some of which were awful.
All things considered, Sir Cliff is not typical of what Absolute will be playing to their target audience (expect lots of Beatles and Kinks). And I see no reason why such a big deal has been made out of the fact he will be among a number of singers who will not be finding their way on Absolute. So why make a big deal about it? The station launches on November 22nd. I will leave it at that.
Labels:
Broadcasting,
Music,
Pop,
Radio,
Showbiz
Introducing Vulture Funds
Picture the scene: you are broke, you need money, you borrow money from someone who knows you cannot afford to pay it back, who then kindly sues you for 100 times what you borrowed. This BBC report explains the controversy of a character called Peter Grossman, who runs what the BBC describes as a 'vulture fund which buys up the debts of poor nations cheaply and then sues for 10 or 100 times what they paid for them'.
At a time when there is a global financial crisis, such a practice is a highly unappetising thought. It is also a reminder that while many people around the world suffer financially, there are people out there who are profiting from the misery of others.
Illegal in the UK, charities are calling for a block on Grossman's gross attempt to sue the DR Congo for £100m through a loophole that enables him to make the claim in Jersey.
And rightfully so.
At a time when there is a global financial crisis, such a practice is a highly unappetising thought. It is also a reminder that while many people around the world suffer financially, there are people out there who are profiting from the misery of others.
Illegal in the UK, charities are calling for a block on Grossman's gross attempt to sue the DR Congo for £100m through a loophole that enables him to make the claim in Jersey.
And rightfully so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)