Democracy in action?

In what I hope will be my last post on the recent elections, I am irresistibly reminded of that wonderful quote attributed to one Dick Tuck, an American political consultant who ran for senator and, realising he had lost, is reported as saying - The people have spoken - (sotto voce) the bastards!

Music Man

The Irish mezzo-soprano Tara Erraught has come in for some stick in the Glyndebourne Opera's production of Der Rosenkavakier, being described as "chubby", "dumpy" and even like "something between Heidi and Just William". Have to say that the criticisms seem to be more directed at her being miscast in the role of Octavian, who is supposed to be a rather willowy androgynous young man, rather than her singing which is generally praised.  But all this brought to mind the old saying "It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" and the fact that traditionally female opera singers tended to be big women - you needed to be big so as to generate a big voice which, particularly in the days before electronic assistance, could be heard right at the back of the concert hall.  Actually it's not that old a saying - it seems to have originated in the 1970s as "The opera ain't over until the fat lady sings" (sort of "don't count your chickens before they're hatched") and probably is a reference to Götterdämmerung where right towards the end Brünnhilde (a big lady if ever there was one) has a long, long aria.

What I mean is...

Can the electorate ever be wrong?  Because it seems to me that that - however expressed - is the response of the major parties to the results of the recent elections.  "We get it - we understand what you are saying - but you have failed to understand that we (and only we) have the answers to your problems" - that as I see it is what the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems are all saying.  So - is this a valid position to take?  We've talked about this before - we elect people to act on our behalf, but does this mean that they must do what we want, even if they disagree with us?  The problem is twofold - firstly (and I've said this many times before) not voting is as much a statement of opinion as voting. Something like two out of every three people chose to express themselves by not voting.  So the "earthquake" said to have been created by the results is more of a minor tremor. UKIP's 20-some-odd percent comes down to something more akin to nine. Secondly, there seems to be an idea that everyone who votes for a particular party does so for identical reasons - which is an obvious nonsense.  So what are we supposed to make of that.  If party A has the most votes, and party A's main platform is the abolition of broccoli, does that mean that all those who voted for party A wish to do away with broccoli, or did some of them vote party A for other reasons - maybe they thought party A's candidate was particularly handsome or beautiful, or perhaps they voted party A because they didn't like the other parties, or they were passionate about saving the hedgehog, which is a minor part of A's manifesto.  So the question perhaps is not can the electorate ever be wrong, but more can we ever really know what the electorate are saying?

Ah, but look at what I might have done...

You're a salesman - right?  You get a basic salary and if you make a sale, you get commission on it. Perfectly common and straightforward arrangement.  But now you go on holiday.  While you're on holiday, you won't be making any sales, so you'll just get your basic salary - right?  Well no, apparently.  In what I find an unbelievable judgment, the European Court of Justice have ruled that you must be paid commission for "potential" sales whilst you are on holiday.  So they have to pay you for work you haven't - and indeed couldn't have - done.  Somebody's been at the funny pills again!

And then there's that other lot...

So, following the recent elections - European and local - where do the LibDems go now?  They may well seek to change their leader, but I don't think that will help. Their fundamental problem is, and to a certain extent always has been, one of image.  We have a mental picture of Conservatism - it's a rich businessman.  We equally have a mental picture of Labour - a blue-collar trade-unionist.  Even the johnny-come-lately UKIP have a persona of sorts - a bloke in a pub looking back through rose-coloured spectacles at their (probably false) image of the country as it was in the past.  But LibDem - they're faceless.  At best the image is of a faded hippy in a poncho and sandals going round saying "Peace, man" a lot.  They used to be able to rely on their secondary image as the irritable party of the protest vote, but UKIP have stolen that one, so where do they go from here? They badly need to decide where their political heart is or I fear they will just fade away.

In/Out - shake it all about??

European elections last Thursday - I found it all a bit weird.  There were about a dozen parties on my ballot sheet, and as far as I could see, at least half of them were campaigning on a platform of leaving the EU - doesn't anyone else find it queer that you would put yourself forward for membership of an organisation that you wish to leave?

Hard cheese!

I've posted before about the Cooper's Hill cheese rolling event, where people chase a wheel of cheese down a steep hill in Gloucestershire.  Traditionally the cheese is Double Gloucester, made locally, but this year it will be Dutch Gouda - why?? Because the kill-joys who have been trying for years to get this event banned have told the Double Gloucester makers that if anybody is injured (which considering the steepness of the slope is pretty much a given) they (the makers) could be sued for damages.  And so they've decided not to take the risk, and the Dutch have stepped in to save the event.  Good on them, but how sad that there are those who seem set on denying others their fun.

There's this Miss Jones in the typing pool...

Ipswich Borough Council have introduced a new code of conduct for their workers which requires them to tell their bosses of any "close personal relationships" they have with other members of staff. You may think this is an unwarranted intrusion into people's personal lives - but I can see it both ways. First off, I met my wife-to-be when we both worked in the same office and if it had been known that we were going out together it might well have damaged what was at first a rather fledgling relationship.  On the other hand, I once managed an office of some 200 people and found it pretty essential to know who was doing what with whom so as to try and ensure when assigning people to particular jobs that there were no personality clashes or other obstacles to the smooth running of the office.  So like I say, I can see it both ways.

Compare and contrast.

"Prince Charles compares Putin to Hitler" say the newspaper headlines.  Two points - firstly this was not a public pronouncement by the Prince, it was a private conversation with a member of the public which happened to be overheard by a nearby journalist, and the question arises as to whether in those circumstances it should ever have been reported - but I'm afraid journalistic ethics have long since gone the way of all flesh.  Secondly, the comparison between Hitler's annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and Putin's annexation of the Crimea and moves towards areas of Eastern Ukraine are obvious - this does not, as the newspapers would have it, compare Putin to Hitler, but more compares what Putin is doing to what Hitler did - a very different thing.  But then, as I've said before, the mantra is - don't let the facts get in the way of a good headline.

Clever??

I have the sneaking feeling that the SNP have never really wanted independence for Scotland at all.  What they wanted was devo-max - the best of both worlds, with the power to go their own way in matters of spending and revenue-raising, but with the comfort of continuing to belong in the UK and so the knowledge that, if the worst ever came to the worst, they could look to the rest of us to step in and sort it all out.  And if I'm right, then everything is on course, because those in Westminster are falling over themselves to tell the Scots that if they vote "no" in the referendum, they will promise them more devolved powers.  You can almost hear Alex Salmond quoting Hannibal Smith in The "A" Team - "I love it when a plan comes together"!

Relevance - once again?

Richard Scudamore is the Chief Executive of the Premier League, and by all accounts is very good at his job and well respected by the clubs in the Premiership. He has apparently exchanged some private e-mails with friends of his which contained material which a personal assistant of his (to whom they were not addressed but presumably came across them in passing) found offensive and leaked them to the media. Big hoo-haa and several calls for him to resign.  I get rather weary of saying this, but why??  What do his private views on women (if indeed the e-mails are in any way representative of that) have to do with his worthiness to hold the position which he does.  Thankfully, at the time of writing, it seems he will ride out the storm - but should there have been a storm in the first place?

Oh no - not semolina again!

I went to a boarding school and we ate in a big dining hall sitting at four or five long tables - bit like the Harry Potter films without the magic (definitely without the magic!)  Before we were allowed to sit down the senior master would say grace, and, being a school with some pretensions, he would say it in Latin - Benedictus, benedicat, per Jesum Christum dominum nostrum Amen.  But on Sundays it was different - instead of grace, the Headmaster (always the Headmaster on a Sunday) would recite the "school prayer", which went -

Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change

The courage to change the things I can

And the wisdom to know the difference.

And this was always attributed to St Francis of Assisi.  So I was somewhat surprised the other day when, flicking through the internet as I am wont to do, I came across something called The Serenity Prayer, which with the substitution of "serenity" for "strength" in the first line is virtually identical, and is apparently the house prayer of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Don't think the Headmaster - a lifelong teetotaller - would have been impressed!

Puff, puff...

Old people find it difficult to get across the road at a pelican crossing in the time allowed, it seems. So pelican crossings are being phased out in favour of puffin crossings.  These are crossings which are controlled by the traditional traffic light sequence, rather than the flashing amber of the pelican, and are regulated by being connected to a CCTV camera and a computer.  So the theory is that the lights will not change from red to green so long as there are still people on the crossing, and equally they will not change to red unless there is someone waiting to cross. Sounds very sensible - but in my experience, they don't work like that.  There's one I come across regularly when I go shopping, and it will change to red even though there's nobody in sight, and then stay on red for about 15 seconds. Don't know whether it's faulty, but it's a right pain!

That'll be twenty quid then...

If you get a plumber out to unblock the kitchen sink, or a carpenter to plane a bit off an ill-fitting door, or the window cleaner comes round, how do you pay them? Cash, don't you?  I certainly do. What's the alternative?  They have no provision for dealing with debit or credit cards, and may quite understandably not fancy accepting a cheque which might bounce.  So if they then don't declare that money to the taxman, are you in any way complicit in the fact that they are breaking the law?  It is seriously being suggested that you might be.  I think a distinction can and should be made between paying the asking price in cash and deliberately negotiating a cash price ("How much for cash?").  I can't see anything wrong with the former, but the latter may be questionable.

Well said!

Princess Stéphanie of Monaco is obviously less than impressed with the Hollywood film about the life of her mother, Princess Grace.  She is on record as saying "If you make a film based on historical fact, you should stick to those facts.".  Can I suggest that those words should be printed out in large letters and fixed prominently above the desks of all (and particularly American) film producers and directors?

Oh - I can't tell you about that!

What do you make of this "right to be forgotten" ruling against Google?  A man complained that, when he searched for his name on Google, one of the links which came up was a newspaper report from 1998 about his then house being up for sale by auction to pay his debts, and as this was now history and not representative of his current situation, Google should remove the link - and the European Court has ruled in his favour.  But the ruling relates just to the link, you understand - the newspaper report will continue to be there, it's just that Google will not be able to tell you it's there. But as Google is a search engine, it's whole raison d'être is to search the internet and report what it finds, so the judgment effectively means that Google can't do its job - weird eh?

Formula One

So we've swapped Vettel and Red Bull for Hamilton and Mercedes - nice to see a Brit leading the way for a change, but just as boring.  Don't know what the answer is, but feel something must be done - F1 is getting a reputation for being a real turn-off for both spectators and viewers - literally in the case of the latter.  When, as in Spain last time, you watch the first two cars come home, and then almost have time to make a cup of tea before the third car appears, there's something seriously wrong!

R.I.P.

Stephen Sutton - I stand in awe.

Nul points?

I didn't watch it, but what, if anything, are we to make of this year's Eurovision Song Contest?  For those others who didn't watch it and have somehow managed to avoid the news programmes, it was won by Austria who were represented by a transvestite man with a beard in drag.  Do we applaud the fact that the result showed the voters of Europe as open-minded and tolerant, or do we see the outcome as simply further evidence that the contest is all about gimmicks and silliness.  Doesn't seem to have much to do with songs and singers!

R.I.P.

Eli Woods - the man who turned "gormless" into high art.  Watch "The Box Sketch" - they don't make them like that any more.

Eyes before tongue?

I've been watching Masterchef - as I have done over many years.  I love watching people doing what they do well.  But, as in past years, I cannot understand this obsession with presentation.  I may be (probably am) a philistine, but I want food that tastes good - I really couldn't care less what it looks like.  And yet, so often contestants are criticised and sometimes it seems eliminated not for the quality of their food, but more on what it looks like on the plate.  Am I the only one who would much rather have a messy plate which tastes great rather than a pretty plate which tastes only so-so?

Still more labelling?

It is being suggested that meat which has come from animals killed according to "halal" practices should be labelled as such, so that anyone offended by that form of slaughter can avoid it.  This has arisen as a result of stories in the media that a significant amount of meat sold in supermarkets and used in restaurants (particularly fast food outlets) is halal.  I find it strange that, if you are prepared to have animals killed for your food, the actual details of the manner of their death should matter so much.  Basically we're talking chickens here, which are killed by having their throats slit, and the only difference between halal and non-halal is that under strict halal rules the chicken still has to be "fully alive" when this is done. The non-halal way is to stun the chickens first so that (theoretically) they are unconscious when their throats are slit.  I say theoretically because there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the stunning doesn't always work.  Equally, there are apparently halal butchers who do pre-stun (the argument being that fully alive does not necessarily mean conscious).  We kept chickens in the War, as many people did, and come Christmas my Dad had the horrible job of killing one of them for Christmas dinner.  He used to wring its neck and I know this used to upset him - but you either accept that meat on the table means that some animal has been killed to provide it, or you become vegetarian.

Hello Madam...er...Sir??

Remember the post about the American man who had been legally declared dead, and even though he is clearly alive, American law means the declaration stands and so he is legally dead?  Well, we now have an equally stupid situation here - a woman who, for whatever reason, was erroneously recorded on her birth certificate as a boy has now found that apparently there is no way that can be changed, and so, although she is married with children, she is officially male, with all the bureaucratic problems that brings - her marriage is invalid for starters.  What a mess!!

Music Man

The post the other day about the Church banning the "Devil's interval" brought to mind the story about Allegri's Miserere.  This is the only piece of music for which Gregorio Allegri (1582-1652) is now known, but it is so ravishing (and I don't think even today that is too strong a word - you can only imagine the effect it had on 17th century ears) that the Vatican decreed that it was not to be performed outside the Vatican, nor copied, on pain of excommunication.  The story goes that the young Mozart (then about 12 years old) heard it performed in the Sistine Chapel in around 1770 and went away and wrote it out from memory.  Whether it was as a result of this or not I don't know, but certainly the Papal ban was lifted soon after. But it is yet another example of the power of the medieval Church.

What's that in the woodpile?

So Jeremy Clarkson is in danger of getting the sack for reciting the "eenie-meenie-minie-mo" rhyme? Oh, puleeze can we all just grow up?

In a time of three minutes....

It's the 60th anniversary of the first sub-four-minute mile.  I remember it well - because I missed it!  I can't remember now just why my mother insisted that we went out that evening, but we did and so I missed seeing live one of the great moments in sport - no video recording back then of course, so it was live or nothing. It was quite some time before I forgave her - she of course couldn't see what all the fuss was about - women!!  Looking back now I think what strikes me the most is how naïve and amateur by today's standards everybody was.  Chris Brasher had bad eyesight and ran wearing spectacles, and Chris Chataway was a smoker - "but not on race days", he used to say.  And then many people seriously suggested that the record should not stand as Bannister was effectively "paced" by Brasher and Chataway - commonplace today but back then seen by some as rather infra dig. It was a very different world.

R.I.P.

Efrem Zimbalist Jr - altogether now (sing) "77, Sunset Strip"

Ha ha

I know this is a bit non-PC and I apologise in advance to anyone offended by it, but it did make me giggle -
A sadist, a masochist, a murderer, a necrophile, a zoophile and a pyromaniac are all sitting on a bench in a mental institution, bored out of their minds.
"How about having sex with a cat?" asked the zoophile
"Let's have sex with the cat and then torture it," says the sadist.
"Let's have sex with the cat, torture it and then kill it," shouted the murderer.
"Let's have sex with the cat, torture it, kill it and then have sex with it again," said the necrophile.
"Let's have sex with the cat, torture it, kill it, have sex with it again and then burn it," said the pyromaniac.
There was a few seconds silence and then the masochist said "Meeow??"

Quick drag?

Apparently there is the possibility that use of e-cigarettes could be banned in public places, as normal cigarettes are.  This has already happened in New York and Chicago, and there are calls for us to follow suit.  But e-cigarettes are mainly used by those who are seeking to give up smoking, like the use of nicotine patches, so what's the logic?  It seems that the fear is that the regular sight of people using e-cigarettes could "normalise" smoking and "undermine smoking prevention".  So it looks like we're dealing with a lesser-of-two-evils situation here, and perhaps we need more research in to precisely what motivates those who use e-cigarettes, and one thought which occurs is that if there were a ban on manufacturing e-cigarettes which look like real cigarettes the visual connection which is worrying some people would be broken.

Two sides - again...

Panorama has done one of its "exposés" on the standard of care in old people's homes, as a result of which one care assistant has got the sack for slapping an old lady.  Completely unacceptable of course, but is it quite so black and white?  I think I've mentioned before that a close relative of mine spent her last few years in a care home, and we visited her on a regular basis.  There was one of the other residents who (thankfully) spent most of the time in her own room, but when she did come down to the dayroom, she created chaos, by constantly demanding attention at the top of her voice, and when this was not immediately forthcoming, screaming and screeching and throwing things until somebody came to see to her. We called her Moaning Myrtle after the Harry Potter character - although if moaning was all that she did it wouldn't have been so bad.  She was rude and abusive to everybody and a thoroughly selfish and unpleasant person.  I never saw her treated by the staff other than with patience and tolerance, but frankly if one of them had lost it and shaken her or even slapped her, I think the rest of us would probably have applauded.  So the old folk in these homes are not all cuddly and sweet - some of them can be really obnoxious and awkward, and it's worth bearing that in mind.

A plague on all your houses!

Anybody else think that, whatever your opinion of them, UKIP are performing a useful function by providing a "none of the above" alternative on the ballot paper? There have long been arguments that there should be such a box. which you can mark to express your opposition to all those putting their names forward.  Of course, there's the problem of what do you do if "none of the above" gets the most votes, and where, as with UKIP it does have a platform of sorts, the problem is even more acute.  But I would really like to know how many of those who vote UKIP are really just using it as an anti-the-other-parties vote, rather than specifically agreeing with the policies they are putting forward.