THERE was a long-standing joke during the Hutton inquiry about the Daily Mail’s coverage of it. It was said by many, the the mid-market paper had a tough task: who to side with, Labour or the BBC?
For it, it really was a case of the lesser of two evils. I think it plumped with the BBC in the end, though I’m not sure that truce lasted all that long.
This week, we had another of those situations for the media, after Prince Charles announced that he thought McDonald’s should be banned.
So who do we side with? The multi-national giant which had made fatty foods available for all and made the task of bringing up children on a healthy diet so much harder for parents who care (ie those not in North Tyneside) about what goes into their children’s mouths?
Or the slightly potty, greatly detached-from-reality prince who seems to be more Teflon than the prime minister when it comes to making sure nothing ever sticks to him?
Initially, I’d have plumped for Charles on the grounds that a bit of Maccie bashing is almost as popular in the media as a bit of Mucca (lady Heather Mills) bashing.
But then it emerged that while, yes, McDonald’s food range isn’t that healthy for you, it certainly beat a range of snack type products called Duchy Originals.
Organic they may be, but just being free of chemcials doesn’t guarantee low calorie count, low sugar, low fat or low salt counts. As Prince Charles should know – given that the Duchy Originals range is actually his own.
This, in my book, makes him either ignorant, or a hypocrite. Or both. A man happy to jump on a bandwagon rather than assess the facts, which are these: Yes McDonald’s foods aren’t the healthiest, BUT the company has tried very hard to put healthy products on its menu. It’s also possible to have some regular McDonald’s meals for fewer Weightwatcher points than a low-fat ready meal.
And above all, Prince Charles forgets one important fact. Just because he doesn’t seem able to control what comes out of his mouth doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t able to control what goes into ours.
It’s called freedom of choice. Something we all have, except when it comes to deciding if we wish to pay for the monarchy.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Getting forgetful
ONLY 13 Labour MPs attended, but the fact that Sky News and BBC News 24 covered it live meant it was beamed into my living room when I really should have been trying to catch up with Phil and Fern on This Morning.
I'm talking about this bizarre 2020 vision thing which Alan Milburn, he who makes a great play of representing a down-at-hell constituency in the North East, and Norfolk's answer to Shrek - Charles Clarke, launched yesterday morning. Cue sighs at Sky News and News 24 as another half hour of television was filled easily.
Both - Clarke and Milburn, not the news channels - insist it's a chance to kick about ideas about future Labour policy via the internet to make sure Labour has a purpose for the next decade.
It's not, they say, a ploy to flush out some Blarite candidate to stand against Gordon Brown. Which is just as well really, because any politician who can properly read public opinion - rules out David Blunkett then - will know that standing on the Blairite ticket in the current anti-Tone climate will generate a similar reaction to Michael Barrymore promoting swimming pools.
But if they do both desire a non-Brown successor to Blair, then why not say so? Brown isn't stupid, he knows who his friends are, and surely Milburn won't be hoping for a way back in? And Charles Clarke? Too frank, too often, about Brown, me thinks, to think he can find a way back in.
Because, as I've said before, it's wrong for Labour to assume it can just pick a new prime minister for the country. It should pick a new leader, then go to the polls. And for the Labour Party itself, it is arrogant for Blair to engineer some sort of succession. That's not how it works. A realistic challenger is needed, not John McDonnell, to come and have a go with Brown.
I dare say Brown will be our next PM, and I certainly plan to vote for him ahead of Cameron if that is the case, but Brown will be all the stronger if he has fought off a real competitor for the top job. As Michael Howard will be only too happy to tell him.
But seeing as Milburn - who, I've always found, has the sort of demeanor when being interviewed which suggests he thinks he's only one question away from having a secret revealed - wants to focus on policies, lets do just that.
He wants policies to take Labour forward. I say this: How about getting the original policies sorted first.
During his tenure as health secretary, he pledged Alzheimer drugs for all who needed them, a decision now rescinded by NICE, the government body which rations drugs on the basis of cost.
If Mr Milburn - who seems to love power but not real responsibility - really wants people to take his attempt at debating future policies seriously, perhaps he needs to try a little harder at ironing out where the current ones have gone wrong.
Perhaps then such fringe press conferences, which didn't even flicker on the radars of most Labour MPs, will be worth the coverage they got on the UK's rolling news channels.
I'm talking about this bizarre 2020 vision thing which Alan Milburn, he who makes a great play of representing a down-at-hell constituency in the North East, and Norfolk's answer to Shrek - Charles Clarke, launched yesterday morning. Cue sighs at Sky News and News 24 as another half hour of television was filled easily.
Both - Clarke and Milburn, not the news channels - insist it's a chance to kick about ideas about future Labour policy via the internet to make sure Labour has a purpose for the next decade.
It's not, they say, a ploy to flush out some Blarite candidate to stand against Gordon Brown. Which is just as well really, because any politician who can properly read public opinion - rules out David Blunkett then - will know that standing on the Blairite ticket in the current anti-Tone climate will generate a similar reaction to Michael Barrymore promoting swimming pools.
But if they do both desire a non-Brown successor to Blair, then why not say so? Brown isn't stupid, he knows who his friends are, and surely Milburn won't be hoping for a way back in? And Charles Clarke? Too frank, too often, about Brown, me thinks, to think he can find a way back in.
Because, as I've said before, it's wrong for Labour to assume it can just pick a new prime minister for the country. It should pick a new leader, then go to the polls. And for the Labour Party itself, it is arrogant for Blair to engineer some sort of succession. That's not how it works. A realistic challenger is needed, not John McDonnell, to come and have a go with Brown.
I dare say Brown will be our next PM, and I certainly plan to vote for him ahead of Cameron if that is the case, but Brown will be all the stronger if he has fought off a real competitor for the top job. As Michael Howard will be only too happy to tell him.
But seeing as Milburn - who, I've always found, has the sort of demeanor when being interviewed which suggests he thinks he's only one question away from having a secret revealed - wants to focus on policies, lets do just that.
He wants policies to take Labour forward. I say this: How about getting the original policies sorted first.
During his tenure as health secretary, he pledged Alzheimer drugs for all who needed them, a decision now rescinded by NICE, the government body which rations drugs on the basis of cost.
If Mr Milburn - who seems to love power but not real responsibility - really wants people to take his attempt at debating future policies seriously, perhaps he needs to try a little harder at ironing out where the current ones have gone wrong.
Perhaps then such fringe press conferences, which didn't even flicker on the radars of most Labour MPs, will be worth the coverage they got on the UK's rolling news channels.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Germans have got the right idea
2.30am Thursday morning - where were you? I was at Manchester Airport, waiting for my girlfriend to arrive on a flight from Gran Canaria.
Inside the incredibly bright arrivals area were maybe two dozen people. Then the flood of tanned-but-tireds surged through the door from baggage collection.
It was the only flight into Manchester between 1am and 6.30am-ish, which is when the run of flights from capital cities across Europe begins.
I've been there in the summer too, at 2am, waiting for my folks. Flying in from Croatia on one occasion, and Portugal on another. In the summer, you'd think it was daytime if it wasn't for the fact the shops are shut (and W H Smith can work out why they don't make as much money as they used to.)
And it got me thinking: Why do we stand for it? The flights times, that is, not a rank branch of Smith's being shut? People save up for months a week somewhere hot, and just shrug when they realise they've got duff times for flights.
I flew back in from Gran Canaria and landed at 6am in Manchester last summer - it knocked the sleep pattern out so much that I might as well have not gone away.
Inside Las Palmas airport at 1am, you couldn't move for Brits - some trying to get drunk to fall asleep, others trying to stay awake through it, and kids getting exceedingly grotty.
I only noticed this because the resort I'd stayed in had a fair old mix of nationalities. German, Swedish, even some French. But their flights weren't leaving at 1am, 2am or 3am. According to the list, theirs left during the day.
We might mock the Germans for always grabbing the best sunbeds, but when it comes to bagging the best flight slots, we need to fight a bit harder.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Get well soon, Tony
IT'S safe to say that most people have heard of Anthony Wilson. If you live anywhere near Manchester, as I do, you can't avoid seeing him.
And thanks to the Steve Coogan film 24 Hour Party People, which chronicles the history of Factory Records, which Wilson created to marke the likes of the Happy Mondays, most people know the legend, if not the man.
For a long time I thought he was a jumped-up self-publicist who kept cashing in on his trend-setting past to turn himself into some sort of TV presenter turned regeneration guru.
And lets be honest, anyone who calls themself Tony H. Wilson is inviting such comments.
I finally met him last year, when he arrived to work on a project to rebrand East Lancashire. Towns like Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley are currently saddled with the dark-mills-and-cloth-caps image, he argued. He's right, I've worked there. His solution? Rebrand the area 'Pennine Lancashire' and cash in on its biggest asset - the rolling countryside.
My misguided thought prior to meeting him was that here was a man, like so many others these days, ready to come up with a plan just to cash in on Government money meant for regeneration projects.
But unlike the many other people I have met of that ilk - and they are everywhere - he spoke so passionately and was so frank that it became obvious he wasn't some regen bullsh*tter. And as for the arrogant Tony H image - I'm pretty certain that's more to do with the people who have hung around him, hoping for a scrap of his glory, rather than the man himself.
And this week, it was sad to see him in the pages of the Manchester Evening News talking about a fight he's currently having with kidney cancer. I know loads of celebrities regularly rock into town and talk about their illness.
Not many, however, do it the way Wilson does. There's was no 'I'll be back for the fans soon,' or similar such PR clap trap. Nor was there any hiding away in a posh hospital getting the sort of treatment which is actually readily available on the NHS.
And it wasn't about telling people about his big op to get some media attention.
Instead, he'd broken his silence because he wanted to praise the quality of care he had received ... on the NHS.
He said: The sheer quality of the care provided to me by the nursing staff and doctors has been fantastic," he said.
"It's funny that everyone has a moan about the NHS except for people who actually use it."
And do you know what, he's spot on. Get well soon, Anthony.
And thanks to the Steve Coogan film 24 Hour Party People, which chronicles the history of Factory Records, which Wilson created to marke the likes of the Happy Mondays, most people know the legend, if not the man.
For a long time I thought he was a jumped-up self-publicist who kept cashing in on his trend-setting past to turn himself into some sort of TV presenter turned regeneration guru.
And lets be honest, anyone who calls themself Tony H. Wilson is inviting such comments.
I finally met him last year, when he arrived to work on a project to rebrand East Lancashire. Towns like Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley are currently saddled with the dark-mills-and-cloth-caps image, he argued. He's right, I've worked there. His solution? Rebrand the area 'Pennine Lancashire' and cash in on its biggest asset - the rolling countryside.
My misguided thought prior to meeting him was that here was a man, like so many others these days, ready to come up with a plan just to cash in on Government money meant for regeneration projects.
But unlike the many other people I have met of that ilk - and they are everywhere - he spoke so passionately and was so frank that it became obvious he wasn't some regen bullsh*tter. And as for the arrogant Tony H image - I'm pretty certain that's more to do with the people who have hung around him, hoping for a scrap of his glory, rather than the man himself.
And this week, it was sad to see him in the pages of the Manchester Evening News talking about a fight he's currently having with kidney cancer. I know loads of celebrities regularly rock into town and talk about their illness.
Not many, however, do it the way Wilson does. There's was no 'I'll be back for the fans soon,' or similar such PR clap trap. Nor was there any hiding away in a posh hospital getting the sort of treatment which is actually readily available on the NHS.
And it wasn't about telling people about his big op to get some media attention.
Instead, he'd broken his silence because he wanted to praise the quality of care he had received ... on the NHS.
He said: The sheer quality of the care provided to me by the nursing staff and doctors has been fantastic," he said.
"It's funny that everyone has a moan about the NHS except for people who actually use it."
And do you know what, he's spot on. Get well soon, Anthony.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Cameron's potty to hide behind 'privacy'
If there's one constant in the UK, it's that we Brits like nothing more than building someone up in the limelight only to sit back and watch when they get knocked sideways.
And after two days of being the darling of Fleet Street's political editors and commentators, David Cameron may just be feeling that the worm is beginning to turn.
The sad thing is, he only has himself to blame. The issue about him smoking pot as a child - as reported across the Sundays and no doubt in depth in the Mondays too (very slow news weekend overall) - could easily have been wafted away when he was going for election.
Why wouldn't he admit or deny taking class A drugs prior to becoming a politican? And why won't he admit or deny smoking pot as a teenager? A denial would be a swift way of knocking it on the head, unless he did smoke pot in which case journalists will soon find the proof. Admitting it would simply serve to show him regretting his past and using his own experiences to good effect.
But instead he hides behind some pretence that he deserves the right to keep his life before politics private.
Which is rubbish. He chose to stand for election, chose to run for leader of the Conservatives, chose to start presenting himself as an alternative to what everyone assumes will be a Gordon Brown-run Labour Party at the next general election.
By choosing to do all those things he has invited the spotlight into his public and private life - warts and all. He has pledged a clean and honest party, and one which will take the Punch and Judy element out of politics. He's already failed on the latter, and is in danger of falling down on the former.
As an elected representative, he can't on one hand call for cannabis to be reclassified but not divulge if he has ever smoked it. That smacks to the British public of 'do as I say, not as I do.'
If he wants to represent the British people on a world stage as our leader, he has to answer every question put to him. We have a right to know everything about him.
After all, if he feels he can pick and choose what he tells us about himself, can we trust him to be clean on affairs on state if in charge?
He might have a stronger arguement about privacy if he didn't, when it suited him, flout parts of his personal life in public in a desperate attempt to hide his privileged upbringing by screaming 'Hey middle England, I'm like you too, honest.'
Grappling with the webcam in the kitchen with the child appearing bang on cue as he tries to discuss politics while doing the pots - it's a great way to show he's just like each and every one of us but once he's started, he can't decide when to stop.
And what a stupid issue to decide to become the bastion of MP privacy over. Smoking pot. There was a time when it seemed you weren't worth knowing if you weren't admitting to enjoying the weed as a youth.
With his cronies coming out of the woodwork to back him up, we're learning a lot about Cameron's Tories. They believe they're reinventing politics, doing a 'New Labour' in the 21st century. They think they're deciding the rules, playing the game they're way, and the rest of us can play along.
Wrong. We make the rules. We're the ones who vote for you. And by refusing to accept that, the mask of Cameron is starting to slip.
If this man really believes he can have secrets from the British public, then the British public has a duty to make sure he never gets the keys to number 10.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Bakr's dozy
When in doubt about how to begin a blog, I find the best way is to build it around a well-known phrase.
So here's one: You can't make an omlette without breaking any eggs.
And if you want to create a safe, terrorist-free society in 2007, it's pretty much assured that some people arrested will be innocent.
I'm referring to the anti-terror raids which took place in Birmingham last week. Birmingham, of course, is a city which has first-hand experience of terrorism and its human cost.
It also has a police force which many feel was unfairly used as a scape goat when the Birmingham Six had their convictions for the IRA bombing in 70s, quashed.
That same police force, some 30 years on, was at the centre of last week's raids after intelligence suggested a 'Baghdad' style plot to kidnap a British soldier and execute him on camera - only in the UK.
One of the men arrested was Abu Bakr. He's since been released without charge and - as you do - went straight on to TV to blast the police. Admittedly, Operation Gamble - the name the police used for this raid - probably wasn't the smartest in terms of giving pundits an easy hit, but that's besides the point.
Bakr said the police had no grounds to arrest him and that his arrest proves Muslims live in a police state.
Actually, it doesn't. The fact he was allowed to go on Newsnight and make that claim shows he isn't living in a police state.
What's more, if it was a police state, he probably wouldn't have resurfaced for several weeks - if at all. Did he appear on Newsnight with bruises all over him from repeated beatings? No. His harshest accusation was that the police seemed to be fishing for information. Also known, I think, as asking questions.
Sure, it must feel like an affront to be arrested for something you know nothing about, but here are the facts: Twice in 2005, radical Muslims set about blowing up parts of London. One group succeeded, another didn't.
That doesn't mean all Muslims should be suspects, far from it. But it wouldn't hurt for people like Bakr, when released without charge, to express an understanding for the work of the police and why they are doing it. After all, how would he like it if 'dodgy' intelligence - as he called it, although we don't now how reliable it was - wasn't acted upon, and a member of his family died when a bomb went off?
Back to the phrases: Engage brain before mouth appears to one that's spot on here...
So here's one: You can't make an omlette without breaking any eggs.
And if you want to create a safe, terrorist-free society in 2007, it's pretty much assured that some people arrested will be innocent.
I'm referring to the anti-terror raids which took place in Birmingham last week. Birmingham, of course, is a city which has first-hand experience of terrorism and its human cost.
It also has a police force which many feel was unfairly used as a scape goat when the Birmingham Six had their convictions for the IRA bombing in 70s, quashed.
That same police force, some 30 years on, was at the centre of last week's raids after intelligence suggested a 'Baghdad' style plot to kidnap a British soldier and execute him on camera - only in the UK.
One of the men arrested was Abu Bakr. He's since been released without charge and - as you do - went straight on to TV to blast the police. Admittedly, Operation Gamble - the name the police used for this raid - probably wasn't the smartest in terms of giving pundits an easy hit, but that's besides the point.
Bakr said the police had no grounds to arrest him and that his arrest proves Muslims live in a police state.
Actually, it doesn't. The fact he was allowed to go on Newsnight and make that claim shows he isn't living in a police state.
What's more, if it was a police state, he probably wouldn't have resurfaced for several weeks - if at all. Did he appear on Newsnight with bruises all over him from repeated beatings? No. His harshest accusation was that the police seemed to be fishing for information. Also known, I think, as asking questions.
Sure, it must feel like an affront to be arrested for something you know nothing about, but here are the facts: Twice in 2005, radical Muslims set about blowing up parts of London. One group succeeded, another didn't.
That doesn't mean all Muslims should be suspects, far from it. But it wouldn't hurt for people like Bakr, when released without charge, to express an understanding for the work of the police and why they are doing it. After all, how would he like it if 'dodgy' intelligence - as he called it, although we don't now how reliable it was - wasn't acted upon, and a member of his family died when a bomb went off?
Back to the phrases: Engage brain before mouth appears to one that's spot on here...
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Tony Blair is the new Chesney Hawkes
.jpg)
DID you see that video footage of Tony Blair arriving at a school in, I think, Telford, on Thursday?
There he was, surrounded by youngsters, just ahead of education secretary Alan Johnson, with that perma-grin on his face, hoping to talk about the importance of sport.
And talk he did about it - only the media weren't listening. Because all they wanted to know about was his latest chat with the police. One which was kept secret for four days at the request of the police, and for a further day by Downing Street.
I've seen that footage several times on TV now and it's only in the last 20 minutes I've twigged who he now reminds me of: Chesney Hawkes.
Think about it. Popstar of the early 90s, his career has been dominated by one thing: the embarrassing 'I am the one and only' single which topped the charts. No matter what he tries, he can't escape it.
He's now big on the uni ball circuit, and will come out and sing a few of his newer songs, but no-one cares. By the fifth, normally, the audience are singing 'The One and Only' and he decides to oblige.
It's kind of like that in reverse for Blair. Rather than the embarrassing moment coming at the start of the prime ministerial career, it's come at the end. And it doesn't matter what he says, or does, that's all people are interested in. Whether his hands are mucky in the cash for honours scandal.
From an outsider's point of view, it's quite amusing to see the upper levels of the Labour Party rattled as they are. The police investigation, which I suspect many thought would be a cursary white wash, is shaping up to be anything but.
But going back to the Chesney Hawkes analogy, while Chezza's embarrassment at not being able to get past his big single to quite amusing, for Britain, the shadow over Blair is a national disgrace.
Here is a man who, yes, has achieved a lot for the good of the country. But if he was working in commerce and his department was under investigation, surely he'd be suspended from his job pending the outcome? Denied the right to speak to those being interviewed?
For Blair, the time to go has come. There's no point hanging on, hoping it will go away. If he wants to be remembered for his achievements rather than his current sleaze, he'll step back, allow justice to take its course and, if in the right, come out smelling of roses. Of course, if he's got something to hide...
There he was, surrounded by youngsters, just ahead of education secretary Alan Johnson, with that perma-grin on his face, hoping to talk about the importance of sport.
And talk he did about it - only the media weren't listening. Because all they wanted to know about was his latest chat with the police. One which was kept secret for four days at the request of the police, and for a further day by Downing Street.
I've seen that footage several times on TV now and it's only in the last 20 minutes I've twigged who he now reminds me of: Chesney Hawkes.
Think about it. Popstar of the early 90s, his career has been dominated by one thing: the embarrassing 'I am the one and only' single which topped the charts. No matter what he tries, he can't escape it.
He's now big on the uni ball circuit, and will come out and sing a few of his newer songs, but no-one cares. By the fifth, normally, the audience are singing 'The One and Only' and he decides to oblige.
It's kind of like that in reverse for Blair. Rather than the embarrassing moment coming at the start of the prime ministerial career, it's come at the end. And it doesn't matter what he says, or does, that's all people are interested in. Whether his hands are mucky in the cash for honours scandal.
From an outsider's point of view, it's quite amusing to see the upper levels of the Labour Party rattled as they are. The police investigation, which I suspect many thought would be a cursary white wash, is shaping up to be anything but.
But going back to the Chesney Hawkes analogy, while Chezza's embarrassment at not being able to get past his big single to quite amusing, for Britain, the shadow over Blair is a national disgrace.
Here is a man who, yes, has achieved a lot for the good of the country. But if he was working in commerce and his department was under investigation, surely he'd be suspended from his job pending the outcome? Denied the right to speak to those being interviewed?
For Blair, the time to go has come. There's no point hanging on, hoping it will go away. If he wants to be remembered for his achievements rather than his current sleaze, he'll step back, allow justice to take its course and, if in the right, come out smelling of roses. Of course, if he's got something to hide...
Friday, February 02, 2007
Gordon's jackpot
HMMM. Here's a thought. Last week, Manchester announced it was going ahead with congestion charging. Up to £8 for a visit to the city centre, the experts reckon.
A week later, and against all the odds - betting odds, that is - Manchester lands a super casino, the first in the country.
Call me a cynic, but surely it's in the best interests of the Government to drum up as many visitors as possible for Manchester now it stands a chance of cashing in on them directly (and I'm sure the Government will get a share of a c-charge, even if it is because they will have to pay the councils less for transport projects in the future.)
Perhaps this is what Government means when ministers talk about joined-up thinking?
A week later, and against all the odds - betting odds, that is - Manchester lands a super casino, the first in the country.
Call me a cynic, but surely it's in the best interests of the Government to drum up as many visitors as possible for Manchester now it stands a chance of cashing in on them directly (and I'm sure the Government will get a share of a c-charge, even if it is because they will have to pay the councils less for transport projects in the future.)
Perhaps this is what Government means when ministers talk about joined-up thinking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)