Talking of nobs...

Perhaps unsurprisingly I was not impressed by Labour's campaign for the by-election in Crewe, which seems to be trying to woo voters on the basis that the Conservative candidate is a 'person of wealth or social importance' (or nob). 

 

This BBC Video makes for interesting viewing, and highlights just how awful the Labour campaign is.  Harriet Harman pointedly judges the Conservative candidate on the basis that  she *thinks* he is a multi-millionaire.  There's some waffle about being 'excessively privileged' and when it's pointed out that Ms Harman would certainly fit any reasonable definition of that phrase she bats it away by claiming that she's "not making an issue of it" in her case.  That may be, but something in me thinks that Edward Timpson (the Conservative candidate) isn't making an issue of his background himself either.  It's only come about because of the blatant hypocrisy of Ms Harman and her ilk.

 

I should add that I don't buy in to this rubbish about the Labour candidate being better because "as a hard-working mum she's more in touch with the people".  I do wish that Labour would stop bleating about 'hard working people' as though having money and being 'hard working' must be mutually exclusive.  I could go further and be very derogatory, noting that a lot of their supporters are probably not 'hard working' at all.  In this case though, I have other gripes with the argument put forward.   Firstly, as a "hard working mother of five", is this woman actually going to have time to fulfil the commitment of representing the people of Crewe?  I'm sure that as people who work hard, the residents of the area would want someone who has the time to do the job of MP properly, and don't want their taxes spent on child-care while she does it.   Secondly, why do people go for this nonsense about having an MP who's "just like them"? You can't have someone who's like all of the thousands of people who live in the area, and at the end of the day what people need is someone to do  the job properly.  People come from all sorts of different backgrounds and have all sorts of different skills, and at the end of the day, all I personally would want an MP who has well thought through ideas and can get their views across in Parliament.  Whether or not he or she can mother five children is an irrelevant point.  Actually, the whole thing is irrelevant, because despite the campaign's aim of coming across as "the party for the common people", the aforementioned video also makes it clear that the late Mrs Dunwoody's house was also quite something and that she would also count as being "excessively privileged".

 

Thinking about the Labour party, I wonder if I should have used a 'k' in this post as well.  I do hope nonetheless that this campaign backfires and that Labour continue to get the thorough kicking they well and truly deserve.

Isn't it spelt with a k?

As I approach three years in the Blogosphere, I see that the cowardly art of the anonymous 'insult' is still alive and well...

Selling Out?

It's possibly been well documented in the past that I am not the world's biggest fan of Microsoft. I've not followed the extreme trends of some (I didn't write this webpage using vi, for example) but even so, I'm definitely more Firefox than Internet Explorer and more Gmail than Hotmail. I've always been pro Open Source and I do really like Linux. If there was a quick and painless way of running Linux on a Tablet PC I'd be tempted, but needs must and I'm happy with XP for now.

However, I've just discovered Microsoft's Windows Live Writer, and against my principles I'm giving it a go. You may have noticed that I've been quite quiet in recent months, and one (just one) reason for that is simply that I've become a bit disenfranchised with the Blogger user interface. For a start, I've found the site to be painfully slow recently, to the extent that writing new posts and adding comments to old ones has become quite a chore. Besides, if I'm using a computer without an Internet Connection, penning my thoughts for later is always a bit of a faff.

Last week I bought a computer magazine which talked about Live Writer, and I have succumbed to the temptation to try it. It promises a better user interface than the web-based Blogger one, and it promises to allow me to work offline. Of course, I did Google for alternatives before I went ahead and installed it, but to no avail. So, here I am using Live Writer. It's already got a big black mark for not allowing me to zoom in on the text as I write; for want of a better word, I do have a visual impairment and it's not comfortable for me to type with text this small. In this day and age the lack of zoom is pretty poor to say the least, especially given that Microsoft clearly know how to use the technology; if and when I use Word I can zoom to my heart's content.

So, maybe I've just proven to myself why I don't like Microsoft. But even so, I'm going to continue this experiment for a short while. If you can read this, it's been moderately successful, though I shall be on the hunt for alternatives until Microsoft get their A in to G and provide me with some zoom.

Shaken but not stirred

I was relieved this week to get the news that my colleagues who are currently out Chengdu are OK following the recent earthquake. I was however amused by the way in which the email was worded.

"(they) are well (which is excellent news), although they are a little shaken".

You don't say...

Has someone beaten London with the ugly stick?

On my travels today I've been able to take in a braod spectrum of the nation's newspapers* and I'm wondering what all the fuss regarding the new Sex and The City movie is about. To be fair, I'm a man and I've never seen the TV series, but even so, I can't understand why it's such big news that some older bird has turned up in London in a green dress and a silly hat. Even taking her age in to account, she's not really that much of a looker.

Talking of 'not being much of a looker' I have to say that I was very disappointed by the lack of eye candy as I crossed town earlier on the Tube. I hope that this isn't a sign that Boris has banned more than just booze, but on the plus side it did mean that I didn't feel the urge to try and nonchalantly appear to be cool and sophisticated.

>>

*I say broad spectrum, but it wasn't entirely unbiased; I decided against pulling the Guardian from the rack in the Waitrose cafe, because I had no desire to ruin an otherwise blissful lunchtime.

Sensory Delights

I'm at Swindon station, where I have just discovered the 'Sensory Garden'. Someone has fenced off a bit of the platform and thoughtfully placed some pot plants and some benches within the enclosure. I kid you not. Someone else has thoughtfully left a copy of The Times. Is there a better place in which to enjoy the glorious sunshine?

JP reappears, waving the blue flag for London

It's been really very quiet in this Corner of the Blogosphere recently. I've not looked at the site statistics, but I suspect that I really am now only talking to one of you. And you've probably only found yourself amongst the tumbleweed by mistake.

Whilst you're here though, let me talk to you about tomorrow's election in London. I've never been one to shy away from dipping my toes in and having a political opinion, and it would be wrong of me to let tomorrow pass by without passing comment. As I've said before, I'm a Boris supporter, and if I had a vote, he'd certainly get it. Happily, the opinion polls seem to suggest that many people have also seen sense, but if you're unsure, or are dithering, allow me to explain my choice.

I know that some think that Boris is a bit of a buffoon, but I stand in the camp holding the view that underneath that image he's actually quite intelligent. I also take the view that it's good for the mayor of London to be a something of a character, and as far as I know he is liked by people in his current parliamentary constituency in Henley, and has served them well.

When it comes to his policies, I like his proposal to replace the unpopular bendy-buses. I like his stance on the Congestion Charge, which would appear allow it to be just that – a charge aimed at reducing congestion – and not cripple drivers of large family cars whilst simultaneously allowing anyone with a small and supposedly "green" car to congest the Capital for free. I like his views on cutting crime and rebuilding the moral fabric of society, and although the likes of Jacqui Smith have made some jibes about his policies, ultimately I like the fact that he will have a fresh approach. Let's face it; the current approach isn't exactly working.

Of course, no candidate is perfect, but it was interesting to note that the biggest complaint thelondonpaper seemed to have about Boris in their big article on Monday was that his estimated costs for replacing the bendy-buses with some new Routemasters were wrong. Maybe he should have done some more homework before bandying the suggested figures about, but it's not as though he's been billions of pounds out and then actually sanctioned it anyway, is it now, Ken?

As with any election, it's also important to consider the alternatives. I've made it clear before that I don't like Ken Livingstone, and think that he 's something of a weasel. But do bear with me, before you write that off as 'personal opinion', and let's look at some of the facts.

I've had a rant here before about the new proposals for the Congestion Charge, and I've alluded to some of the issues again above. Lots of manufacturers are making cars which squeeze under the emissions limits, and I don't think that the new charges will result in reduced emissions, let alone congestion. I'm quite tempted to jump on the bandwagon which sees this as a cynical attempt to win some voters, and have noted that it's well documented that Ken has had a series of mood swings and broken promise after promise on this issue alone.

Then there's the well documented 'cronyism'. There have been quite a few suspicious dealings, including the well documented case involving funding from City Hall where one of Ken's aides was arrested for money laundering and has since quit his job. I'm not alone in noting this sort of thing, either. Yesterday, I read that Brian Cooke, chairman of London TravelWatch has chosen to support Boris, saying in a statement that "there is strong evidence that [Ken] has played with both Tube and bus fares for his own political aims".

So, if you are able to vote, it's over to you. Use your vote wisely. After all, even if Boris does turn out to be a circus performer, you've got nothing to lose by giving him the chance to prove otherwise.

entering the fray

Some of you have probably been paying attention to my recent post on "the purpose of religion". Chrisp was probably right when he said that no-one would have the strength to wade through 25 posts, and perhaps I should have stormed in with the pepper spray and called it quits.

However, I've not had time to respond for a while, but have some thoughts of my own. So to quote the wedding service I attended yesterday, "for richer for poorer, for better, for worse...", I shall now make an attempt to distill some of my thoughts.

I was hoping to tag a comment on the end but there seem to be some technical difficulties with that, so I'm taking the rather brave step of putting it all in a whole new post. On the plus side, some of you probably wouldn't have bothered scrolling down anyway, This would have been comment number 26 on this post, so I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond to everything, if I've missed something important, or if I've grasped the wrong end of the stick. All sorts of issues have arisen, and I will try now to address one or two points.

Firstly, I'm not happy with the way that the debate degenerated and became unnecessarily personal. I like to keep an open mind, but I am nonetheless disappointed in this case. Scott, I think I've been critical of your posting before, and although I don't want to point the finger squarely at you, I'm not exactly impressed. I hate it when people uphold expectations of the way others should behave (as even Christians sometimes get it wrong, believe it or not), but at the same time, your behaviour hasn't exactly been a great Christian witness. For a start, I'd expect a bit more humility, and although the debate has been heated, may I remind you that you are afforded the luxury of thinking about what you write before you hit 'post'.

Anyway, moving on. The first issue which I'd like to think about is the idea that as a Christian I am "duty bound to explode the theories of others". I couldn't agree more that Christians should stand up for, and defend their faith. In fact, I would go one further and note that we are called to preach the Gospel and "make disciples of all nations". I'd also agree that it's often good to engage in debate, but "duty bound to explode the theories of others" sounds as though it's bordering dangerously on the blinkered, arrogant, and "Bible Bashing". For a start, if someone has a theory that there is no God, I cannot disprove them. If I could, I wouldn't have any 'faith' per se.

It's all part and parcel of the issue of accepting that other people have a different viewpoint. As a Christian, I believe that accepting Jesus is important for everyone, not just my fellow believers. Of course I find it sad when friends choose not to believe, and ultimately, if I believe that I am right, then yes, logically, I must believe that others are wrong. But no amount of bashing them over the head is going to change that. If it could, someone would have got there before me and we'd all be believers by now. Indeed, when Jesus sent people out, he didn't say "stay there and explode their theories until they've seen the light", he said "if they don't accept you, shake the dust off your feet and move on". Obviously, this doesn't mean that I should neglect my duty to stand up for my faith and preach the message, and neither am I about to abandon friendships with those who disagree with me; however, at the end of the day it's important to remember that as Christians we might claim to be "saved by God", but not "JP who repeated himself until it got through our thick skulls".

Another issue which has arisen from this debate seems to be that of setting Christians apart from other religious people. I disagree with whichever anonymous person said that to do this was questionable; is my judgment as questionable for not thinking that as an atheist you must have exactly the same views as Joseph Stalin? There are times when it is acceptable to view all "religious" people as a whole. There are, after all, some things which hold true across the board. But at other times, a distinction must be made. Buddhists don't believe in a God as such, and so the nature of my 'religion' is fundamentally different. Muslims believe that to get in to heaven you must live a good life such that the good outweighs the bad. As a Christian I believe that I can't get to heaven on my own merit, but that God will welcome me anyway if I repent and accept him. I could go on. Furthermore, when entering in to a debate like this, as a Christian, I am going to see it more from that viewpoint than any other. It's just the way these things go.

I don't deny that you don't have to be a Christian to live your life in a particular way. Neither do I deny the fact that Christianity hasn't been immune to corruption. As I said above, even Christians get it wrong, and the self-centredness I talked about in my original post creeps in at all sorts of levels. That classic "please sit somewhere else because this is my pew and I always sit here" is just one (perhaps trivial) example.

However, whoever made the point that fundamentalist Christians aren't known for blowing themselves and others up did actually make a fair point. Just because a religion has demonstrated extremes with such devastating consequences doesn't mean that all religions must form such extremes. Furthermore, although atrocities have been committed by religious people "in the name of God", talk of "Holy War" and "Jihad" is usually peppered with talk of "receiving glory for being a martyr" and on that basis my point stands that it's not belief in God which is the problem, but the self-centredness of humanity.

Finally, back to the issue of worshipping God. I can see that from an atheistic "god-less" point of view, the idea of putting a god first is difficult. But look at it from another point of view. I believe in a God who created the Universe and all that is in it. A God who created the people around me. A God who wants us to enjoy his world. A God who loves us and likes us to relate to Him. A God who answers prayer. A God who has given an assurance of life eternal. On that basis, to rank anything above God is foolish and illogical.

Socks and Helium Balloons

I think that perhaps Gareth was right, when he implied that this post is perhaps in danger of causing a riot. Underneath it all there is an interesting debate going on, and I shall wade in with my thoughts in due course, but there’s been another small drought in this Corner of the Blogosphere recently, and I feel that I should address that issue first.

If you were the one who received a random text last Wednesday reassuring you that I was wearing Wednesday’s socks I apologise for the inconvenience. It was an ‘in joke’ (he says, trying not to admit too obviously to the fact he has Days of the Week Socks, on the basis that it might not be A Good Thing). However, as per the second half of the message, if you did happen to have a cold, I do genuinely hope that it’s better.

Wednesday was a particular day of Faux Pas for me, but it was all quite amusing. Being Holy Week (the week preceding Easter), I took part in a church service that evening as part of a series looking reflecting on the events leading up to Jesus’ death and resurrection*. The service was great, though that’s a slight digression from this particular anecdote. The fact is that I was in church. The other fact you need to know as I set the scene is that it was someone’s birthday and as a result, they were in possession of a couple of helium balloons as we mingled after the service.

One thing lead to another and one of the balloons ended up being released, coming to rest way up under the vaulted ceiling. For several reasons, this was not good. At the best of times, it isn’t especially desirable to adorn the ceiling of a church with a bright pink balloon, but it was particularly bad during Holy Week. It is, after all, meant to be a fairly sombre time of reflection. Furthermore, the following day was Maundy Thursday, when the church is symbolically stripped of all decoration during the evening service.

So, we had to get the balloon down. Cue an hilarious 20 minutes, as we endeavoured to achieve that aim. At this point, some of you are probably thinking that my faux pas was letting the balloon go in the first place, but you’d be wrong – it wasn’t anything to do with me. Instead, as we were experimenting with various different things, concern was raised that the Contraption wasn’t long enough. I couldn’t help opening my mouth and making the obvious comment. Evidently, such innuendo is not particularly appropriate in church, and despite a few stifled laughs it was as though the aforementioned balloon was made of lead. “I don’t think he should have said that” came the voice behind me…

Ah well. All’s well that ends well, and with the help of some masking tape, we extended the Contraption and provided a way of attaching it to the balloon. Cue some balancing in the pulpit followed by jubilation as the objective was achieved.

-----
*digressing slightly, I think that such reflection is important. It's been said that you can't celebrate the joy of the resurrection without thinking first about the preceding events.