I've been doing local media today about this piece in the BEP, about the derelict former Royal Mail building by Temple Meads. Are the developers, just sitting on it, waiting for the price of land to increase so they can sell it at a profit, or are they genuine developers (rather than property speculators) and have plans for the site? Given the pressure on land use in the city, and the relative scarcity of brownfield sites, especially in such a plum location, should the Council be doing more to get things moving, or can we do nothing until the developers decide to act?
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Being polite to Americans
This is as ever not the most topical post, but one that keeps bubbling up every now and again, and finally has reached the stage when I feel it should be committed to online immortality. (What a build up... it's not really deserving of that!)
Jeremy Paxman interviewed Al Gore the other day, on Newsnight, and as ever when he interviews Americans I was struck by just how persistently he pursues questions which are designed to catch the interviewee out, or embarrass him. This - famously summarised by him as the 'why is this lying bastard lying to me' - is par for the course with UK politicians, but it seemed rather discourteous and frankly a little petty to be trying to trip up the former Vice-President and Nobel Prize winner on how eco-friendly his house is, and whether he's going to give up meat for environmental reasons. (The latter is a valid question, but Paxman was so obviously only asking it because he knew/ strongly suspected the answer was no and would thus give him an opportunity to sneer.) I just thought it was, rather rude? This is one of the reasons why I think people love Evan Davis, which I may well have mentioned on here before. He is genuinely interested in the answers to the questions rather than just trying to land a cheap shot and catch a still sleepy politician out.
Incidentally, Gore used the interview to praise Gordon Brown for his 'outstanding leadership' on the international stage, on climate change. Something even Paxman couldn't sneer at.
Jeremy Paxman interviewed Al Gore the other day, on Newsnight, and as ever when he interviews Americans I was struck by just how persistently he pursues questions which are designed to catch the interviewee out, or embarrass him. This - famously summarised by him as the 'why is this lying bastard lying to me' - is par for the course with UK politicians, but it seemed rather discourteous and frankly a little petty to be trying to trip up the former Vice-President and Nobel Prize winner on how eco-friendly his house is, and whether he's going to give up meat for environmental reasons. (The latter is a valid question, but Paxman was so obviously only asking it because he knew/ strongly suspected the answer was no and would thus give him an opportunity to sneer.) I just thought it was, rather rude? This is one of the reasons why I think people love Evan Davis, which I may well have mentioned on here before. He is genuinely interested in the answers to the questions rather than just trying to land a cheap shot and catch a still sleepy politician out.
Incidentally, Gore used the interview to praise Gordon Brown for his 'outstanding leadership' on the international stage, on climate change. Something even Paxman couldn't sneer at.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Traffic lights - a disappointing response
I'm disappointed with the council's response to the BEP campaign to reduce the number of traffic lights in Bristol city centre. They've come up with seven sets of lights shortlisted for a potential switch-off (either permanently or during off-peak times). But why are none of them on roundabouts? Surely a roundabout is in itself a device to manage traffic flow, which should be more than adequate apart from during the very busiest periods?
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
The week so far
Just in case people think I've done nothing this week but tweet and sit on the front bench waiting to trip up the Prime Minister on his way out of the Chamber (almost!), thought I'd just give a bit of a rundown of the week so far... It's included: meeting a constituent (and friends) on a lobby of parliament by people with disabilities, concerned about changes to the direct payments regime; meeting a constituent on an Amnesty International lobby of parliament regarding trafficking and victims on domestic violence; sitting on a Northern Ireland delegated legislation committee regarding the regulation of private security guards; meeting with Refugee Action to talk about changes to payments to asylum seekers; meeting with BUAV to talk about their 'Ugly Truth' campaign; attending a meeting of the All-Party Group on Vaccine Damage, (because of a constituency case); in the Chamber for Northern Ireland Qs, PMQs, Harriet's statement on the Kelly report, the Prime Minister's statement on the Council of Europe; an anti-social behaviour debate, and more; meeting the head of New Media at the Labour Party; and doing whips stuff. And of course emails and paperwork and all the Kelly-related stuff...
Beastly behaviour in the tearoom
Shocking behaviour by two Tory grandees in the Members tearoom yesterday. One was seen to waltz in there, grab a slice of meat from the buffet with his bare hands, stuff it into his mouth and waltz off again. Another - a knight of the realm no less! - slapped a shocked female Labour MP firmly on her bottom in full view of other members.
Perhaps their excitement over the collapse of Cameron's "cast-iron guarantee" on Lisbon has gone to their heads. It's like Lord of the Flies in the Tory ranks - and fairly obviously who Piggy is!
Perhaps their excitement over the collapse of Cameron's "cast-iron guarantee" on Lisbon has gone to their heads. It's like Lord of the Flies in the Tory ranks - and fairly obviously who Piggy is!
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Cameron's backbench boys - part two for today
The Conservative MP Peter Luff has a Ten Minute Rule Bill today entitled the Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) Bill.
At first glance I suspected this might be an another exercise in nimbyism, as we've seen up and down the country with Tory councils rejecting planning applications for windfarms and Ken Clarke saying there would be no onshore wind farms built under a Tory government... I think my suspicions may be correct, as the British Wind Energy Association has emailed MPs to urge them to vote against the Bill, saying there shouldn't be a fixed distance but that applications should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
"Whilst we want to ensure that national priorities on climate change and renewable energy are balanced with concerns for local populations, we consider the current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), used throughout Europe, and designed to assess all impacts in a manner specific to the location, the most appropriate method of ensuring both local amenity and development of renewable energy than a buffer zone.The EIA is able to assess the impact on an area based both on sets of criteria and also the local conditions - for example variance on background noise in different sites. A standardised buffer zone is not able to do this."
I have one of the world's biggest wind energy companies, Garrard Hassan, in my constituency, so I shall be listening with interest. It's very unlikely there will be a vote, unless someone objects to the Bill being presented. This is just to flag up an issue; the Bill won't go anywhere this close to the end of the parliamentary session.
At first glance I suspected this might be an another exercise in nimbyism, as we've seen up and down the country with Tory councils rejecting planning applications for windfarms and Ken Clarke saying there would be no onshore wind farms built under a Tory government... I think my suspicions may be correct, as the British Wind Energy Association has emailed MPs to urge them to vote against the Bill, saying there shouldn't be a fixed distance but that applications should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
"Whilst we want to ensure that national priorities on climate change and renewable energy are balanced with concerns for local populations, we consider the current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), used throughout Europe, and designed to assess all impacts in a manner specific to the location, the most appropriate method of ensuring both local amenity and development of renewable energy than a buffer zone.The EIA is able to assess the impact on an area based both on sets of criteria and also the local conditions - for example variance on background noise in different sites. A standardised buffer zone is not able to do this."
I have one of the world's biggest wind energy companies, Garrard Hassan, in my constituency, so I shall be listening with interest. It's very unlikely there will be a vote, unless someone objects to the Bill being presented. This is just to flag up an issue; the Bill won't go anywhere this close to the end of the parliamentary session.
Stop press... a Lib Dem has risen to oppose the Bill. This means there will be a vote. Still doesn't mean anything, and it's not often the practice for Government ministers to vote in such a division, but will go down and see what's going on.
Update... Lib Dem has decided not to push it to a vote because it stands no chance of becoming law before prorogation.
The ugly truth about botox
Just had a very interesting meeting with BUAV, which was arranged a while ago but neatly coincided with a piece in the Sunday Times this week on what goes on in a lab where botox is tested on mice. Summary execution with ballpoint pens for starters...
Since the ban on cosmetics testing on animals (introduced by a Labour Government - hurrah!) the ingredients in expensive moisturising creams which claim to erase wrinkles and fine lines or cheap ones for that matter - cannot be tested on animals. But because botox has some useful medical qualities and was originally designed for medical purposes (for example, it's used for patients with Parkinsons and MS, as a muscle relaxant), it not only can be tested on animals. It has to be.
There's a legal requirement for LD50 (Lethal Dose 50) batch testing, i.e. testing to be carried out to such levels that 50% of the animals die, which then establishes what a lethal dose would be.
People will be aware that I don't have a totally hardcore attitude towards animal testing. I accept the necessity of testing in certain fields of medical research. But it seems to me that testing batches of botox which are designed purely for cosmetic use, just because the product has other uses, goes against the spirit of the ban. 75,000 mice a year are used in botox testing, which is small scale when put against overall numbers of animal tests, but still seems rather unnecessary.
And I'm not sure how effective or accurate such a test could be; I know the Minogue sisters are small, but even so, I think they might be able to handle slightly more botox than your average mouse.
More on the BUAV "The Ugly Truth" campaign here - http://www.buav.org.uk/
Since the ban on cosmetics testing on animals (introduced by a Labour Government - hurrah!) the ingredients in expensive moisturising creams which claim to erase wrinkles and fine lines or cheap ones for that matter - cannot be tested on animals. But because botox has some useful medical qualities and was originally designed for medical purposes (for example, it's used for patients with Parkinsons and MS, as a muscle relaxant), it not only can be tested on animals. It has to be.
There's a legal requirement for LD50 (Lethal Dose 50) batch testing, i.e. testing to be carried out to such levels that 50% of the animals die, which then establishes what a lethal dose would be.
Apparently licences cannot be granted for tests where death is the intended end result, but it's OK to carry out LD50 testing which results in death so long as you intervene before death occurs and use your trusty ballpoint to put the animal out of its misery. (Got that? Good).
People will be aware that I don't have a totally hardcore attitude towards animal testing. I accept the necessity of testing in certain fields of medical research. But it seems to me that testing batches of botox which are designed purely for cosmetic use, just because the product has other uses, goes against the spirit of the ban. 75,000 mice a year are used in botox testing, which is small scale when put against overall numbers of animal tests, but still seems rather unnecessary.
And I'm not sure how effective or accurate such a test could be; I know the Minogue sisters are small, but even so, I think they might be able to handle slightly more botox than your average mouse.
More on the BUAV "The Ugly Truth" campaign here - http://www.buav.org.uk/
How PMQs works
I promised someone on Twitter last week that I would explain how the ballot for PMQs works, and who else gets to speak, so here goes, using tomorrow's session as an example.
Backbenchers (which includes all the Lib Dems except Clegg and all the Tories except the Shadow Cabinet) have to submit their question for PMQs by 12.30pm the Thursday before. They don't have to actually specify what question they want to ask, other than 'what engagements the PM has today'. Then it's down to pure luck, whether your question comes up in the shuffle conducted by the Table Office. I don't know how they do the shuffle but it is entirely random. This week, for example, there are five Lib Dems on the order paper as well as Stephen Pound, who was called by the Speaker at last week's PMQs, and Karen Buck, who has been down the bottom of the order paper twice in the three weeks that Parliament has been back. Maybe they'll get round to her this week; she just missed out last time.
The draw for tomorrow's session is as follows:
1. Jamie Reed (Labour)
2. Tom Brake (Lib Dem)
3. Dr. Brian Iddon (Lab)
4. Andrew Turner (Con)
5. Ronnie Campbell (Lab)
6. Sir Alan Beith (Lib Dem)
7. Dr Phyllis Starkey (Lab)
8. Bob Russell (Lib Dem)
9. David TC Davies (Con)
10. Liz Blackman (Lab)
11. Stephen Pound (Lab)
12. Willie Rennie (Lib Dem)
13. seems to have disappeared
14. Karen Buck (Lab)
15. Paul Rowen (Lib Dem)
The Speaker will also call Cameron (who gets six questions), Clegg (who gets two) and then various backbenchers who bob up and down to get his attention, to ensure political balance - i.e. it has to alternate between Government and Oppostion benches.
1. Jamie Reed (Lab) - Jamie will actually ask the PM what his engagements are today, by just saying "Question Number One, Mr Speaker", and will then get a supplementary question
David Cameron (Some Tory leaders have used their six questions in two bursts of three, but Cameron always does his six together, even if he changes subject halfway through).
A Labour backbencher
Nick Clegg
A Labour backbencher
2. Tom Brake (Lib Dem)
3. Dr. Brian Iddon (Lab)
4. Andrew Turner (Con)
5. Ronnie Campbell (Lab)
6. Sir Alan Beith (Lib Dem)
7. Dr Phyllis Starkey (Lab)
8. Bob Russell (Lib Dem)
A Labour backbencher
9. David TC Davies (Con)
10. Liz Blackman (Lab)
An Opposition backbencher - could be Tory, Lib Dem, Nats
11. Stephen Pound (Lab)
12. Willie Rennie (Lib Dem)
13. seems to have disappeared from order paper
14. Karen Buck (Lab)
15. Paul Rowen (Lib Dem)
Occasionally the Speaker will depart from this order, if for example there is an issue which is all over the national media and one MP has a particular constituency interest (in which case the MP will normally drop a note to the Speaker beforehand). Or he might call one of the Unionists/ SDLP when there's been a significant development in the peace process.
So... that's it. As you will see from tomorrow's draw, it's not a good week for the Conservatives. They only have two MPs on the order paper - and one of those is TC - and only one opportunity for someone else to be called (and the Speaker could well choose a Nat instead). Usually there are more opportunities for MPs to 'bob', but the draw this week is unusually evenly spread. It's still worth bobbing though, because the Speaker will note who has been trying week after week, and it may up your chances of getting called.
PMQs this week is preceded by Northern Ireland questions and because I'm Northern Ireland whip I get to be on the front bench. This happens when it's DFID questions too.
Backbenchers (which includes all the Lib Dems except Clegg and all the Tories except the Shadow Cabinet) have to submit their question for PMQs by 12.30pm the Thursday before. They don't have to actually specify what question they want to ask, other than 'what engagements the PM has today'. Then it's down to pure luck, whether your question comes up in the shuffle conducted by the Table Office. I don't know how they do the shuffle but it is entirely random. This week, for example, there are five Lib Dems on the order paper as well as Stephen Pound, who was called by the Speaker at last week's PMQs, and Karen Buck, who has been down the bottom of the order paper twice in the three weeks that Parliament has been back. Maybe they'll get round to her this week; she just missed out last time.
The draw for tomorrow's session is as follows:
1. Jamie Reed (Labour)
2. Tom Brake (Lib Dem)
3. Dr. Brian Iddon (Lab)
4. Andrew Turner (Con)
5. Ronnie Campbell (Lab)
6. Sir Alan Beith (Lib Dem)
7. Dr Phyllis Starkey (Lab)
8. Bob Russell (Lib Dem)
9. David TC Davies (Con)
10. Liz Blackman (Lab)
11. Stephen Pound (Lab)
12. Willie Rennie (Lib Dem)
13. seems to have disappeared
14. Karen Buck (Lab)
15. Paul Rowen (Lib Dem)
The Speaker will also call Cameron (who gets six questions), Clegg (who gets two) and then various backbenchers who bob up and down to get his attention, to ensure political balance - i.e. it has to alternate between Government and Oppostion benches.
1. Jamie Reed (Lab) - Jamie will actually ask the PM what his engagements are today, by just saying "Question Number One, Mr Speaker", and will then get a supplementary question
David Cameron (Some Tory leaders have used their six questions in two bursts of three, but Cameron always does his six together, even if he changes subject halfway through).
A Labour backbencher
Nick Clegg
A Labour backbencher
2. Tom Brake (Lib Dem)
3. Dr. Brian Iddon (Lab)
4. Andrew Turner (Con)
5. Ronnie Campbell (Lab)
6. Sir Alan Beith (Lib Dem)
7. Dr Phyllis Starkey (Lab)
8. Bob Russell (Lib Dem)
A Labour backbencher
9. David TC Davies (Con)
10. Liz Blackman (Lab)
An Opposition backbencher - could be Tory, Lib Dem, Nats
11. Stephen Pound (Lab)
12. Willie Rennie (Lib Dem)
13. seems to have disappeared from order paper
14. Karen Buck (Lab)
15. Paul Rowen (Lib Dem)
Occasionally the Speaker will depart from this order, if for example there is an issue which is all over the national media and one MP has a particular constituency interest (in which case the MP will normally drop a note to the Speaker beforehand). Or he might call one of the Unionists/ SDLP when there's been a significant development in the peace process.
So... that's it. As you will see from tomorrow's draw, it's not a good week for the Conservatives. They only have two MPs on the order paper - and one of those is TC - and only one opportunity for someone else to be called (and the Speaker could well choose a Nat instead). Usually there are more opportunities for MPs to 'bob', but the draw this week is unusually evenly spread. It's still worth bobbing though, because the Speaker will note who has been trying week after week, and it may up your chances of getting called.
PMQs this week is preceded by Northern Ireland questions and because I'm Northern Ireland whip I get to be on the front bench. This happens when it's DFID questions too.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Half man, half biscuit
I'm perhaps a bit slow off the mark on this one, but so were MumsNet who have now revealed the shocking truth behind the Prime Minister's failure to answer That Biscuit Question, which has been cited by all and sundry as evidence that Gordon can't make up his mind about anything, including Cameron at PMQs who sneered that the Prime Minister "sits in his bunker and can't even decide what biscuits he wants to eat".
And the truth is.... no-one asked Gordon. Someone at MumsNet filtered the questions and they ignored the biscuit ones.
This is obviously shocking in itself. Just who was this Carter Ruck of the MumsNet world denying British mums their fundamental human right to know exactly what the Prime Minister of this country chooses to consume in his teabreaks? What gross infringement of our civil liberties has been perpetrated by this NuMum monster? Where is Shami Chakrabati when the mums of this nation need her?
What amused me though, is that MumsNet's Malcolm Tucker said they'd not put the biscuit question to the Prime Minister because they didn't want to waste his time on such trivial matters. He is the Prime Minister after all. "We were conscious of not merely focusing on frivolities. Fun as biscuits are, access to the Prime Minister is precious and we would have hated to waste time on Rich Tea fingers at the expense of miscarriage or the school starting age."
But they asked Cameron (oatcakes*) and Clegg (Rich Tea**). Hmmm....
* They're not biscuits
** Goes soggy when dunked in something hot
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
A "lunatic consensus" amongst Tory bloggers
This has been linked and re-tweeted a fair bit today, but in case anyone hasn't seen it, a tidy piece of analysis of the views on climate change expressed by the top ten Tory bloggers. Tory Central Office will no doubt say that they aren't representative of the views of the leadership and the parliamentary party, in which case perhaps the CCO control freaks need to loosen the reins a little and let their front-benchers go online?
Cycling go slow
Confirmation that Cllr Jon Rogers is all talk and no action? Come on Jon - get a move on!
Vote early, vote often
Lifted entirely from the BEP website....
A Bristol organisation working with children in Zambia and the UK through a visual arts exchange is appealing for help to win free flights. Creative Kids International (CKI) was founded in March last year by Mia Harris and Sian Lamprey, and they have been shortlisted in the final round of the British Airways Great Britons programme to win free flights. If they win, they will use the flights to work with Barefeet Theatre and schools in Lusaka.
The Great Britons programme includes an online competition for free flights to people who want to develop their interests. Voting closes at noon on Tuesday, November 3. To vote for Mia and Sian visit www.greatbritons.ba.com/users/19837.
A Bristol organisation working with children in Zambia and the UK through a visual arts exchange is appealing for help to win free flights. Creative Kids International (CKI) was founded in March last year by Mia Harris and Sian Lamprey, and they have been shortlisted in the final round of the British Airways Great Britons programme to win free flights. If they win, they will use the flights to work with Barefeet Theatre and schools in Lusaka.
The Great Britons programme includes an online competition for free flights to people who want to develop their interests. Voting closes at noon on Tuesday, November 3. To vote for Mia and Sian visit www.greatbritons.ba.com/users/19837.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Light pollution
I've been contacted by the Cardiff Astronomical Society, which is campaigning against light pollution and have suggested I might want to start a similar campaign going in Bristol. What do people think? Their petition is here: http://tinyurl.com/cfds-petition
On a related point, it's Blackout Bristol this coming weekend. Nominations anyone?
Great apes
The Guardian's piece on Lord Stern's comments about climate change also raises the current controversy over palm oil production. I am proud to report I purchased orangutan-friendly black pepper oatcakes this morning, which are made with olive oil rather than palm oil like most oatcakes. Now we need David "oatcakes are my favourite biscuits"* Cameron to confirm likewise. 
*They're not biscuits.
Speaking of apes, the adorable and fluffy AA Gill has upset people by revealing he shot a baboon on safari in Africa "to see what it would feel like to shoot a person". This gives me not only the opportunity to re-use my favourite holiday snap, taken in Victoria Falls a couple of years ago and previously used to illustrate a particularly insightful blog post on men sitting with their legs apart on trains...
... but also to draw attention to the fact that the delightful Mr Gill also confirmed what we all know, that arguments in defence of fox-hunting are just spurious efforts to justify bloodsports: "The feeble argument of culling and control is much the same as for foxes: a veil for naughty fun." While Mr Cameron is answering my question about oatcakes, perhaps he could also reveal how many live animals he's shot and killed for sport?
Children of prisoners
Almost a year ago, in the days when I could, I had a Westminster Hall debate on 'The Children of Prisoners'. It is therefore rather gratifying to see the new Barnardo's report on the issue, 'Every Night You Cry', being covered on BBC 24 this morning and Dawn Primarolo, the Children's Minister, admitting that we should have done more to support these 'invisible' children. I've got a copy of the Barnardo's South West report, which looks at 15 local case studies; will be reading it when I get into the office. 7% of children will experience having a parent in prison; 160,000 at any time - and yet it registers on the radar of very few local authorities.
A familiar theme
I refer honourable readers to blogs I have made earlier.... but here's an update on the good old Save the Cows, Save the Planet argument - front page of the Times no less. I'd love to know if anyone out there actually has... (given up meat to save the planet I mean).
And here's a link to the debate I called on it earlier this year, if anyone's interested.
And here's a link to the debate I called on it earlier this year, if anyone's interested.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Just arrived at Paddington....
Going to be a long day today... early start to do R5 Live (see below) and then back at the flat, was just tidying up, packing my suitcase for the week ahead and wondering why I could still make the 10.30am train if I got my skates on, when the phone rang. It was Alison Seabeck, Chair of the South West Regional Committee, telling me that all the trains had been cancelled because of a fatality at Reading, so she couldn't get to Bristol for the 10.30am start of the Select Committee hearing and seeing as I wouldn't be able to get to London, could I sub for her? Technically I'm still a member of the Committee although I was meant to come off it when I was appointed a whip, and as it's technically still a standing committee rather than a Select Committee (because you can't set up a new Select Committee till the start of the new parliamentary session) I am technically allowed to attend... So, technicalities sorted, I made it to @Bristol just in time for the start. Fortunately the session was about transport, which meant I got to quiz the West of England Partnership, Sustrans, Friends of the Earth, the Bristol/Bath Campaign for Better Transport, and of course First Bus.
Usual round of questions - do current plans go anywhere near meeting the projected demand for rail services in the region (no), would we be better off with an Integrated Transport Authority (yes), are people going to get out of their cars and start using the buses when the fares are so high and buses so unreliable (er...no). As usual First Group said that the problem in Bristol is that there's so much congestion, traffic speeds are so slow, that they can't run as good a service as elsewhere - and the West of England Partnership said the showcase bus routes would go some way towards addressing this. I spoke to a couple of the First Group people afterwards and they said they're pioneering a 'Two for the Price of One' service on the A420 Showcase Bus Route in the evenings, which I hadn't spotted.
The West of England Partnership also said that they'd be looking at entering a Quality Partnership with First; I need to look into this. Does this tie us into having First as the virtual monopoly provider of bus services in Bristol for years to come, or do we still have the ultimate option of going for a Quality Contract instead if/when we finally lose patience with them? (And yes, I know for many that time has long since passed!)
As an aside, there was a few minutes break as one set of witnesses took the places of the previous set and so I tweeted I was about to quiz First - within seconds I got half a dozen replies, all urging me to 'give them hell'. I think this validates what I was saying about Twitter earlier. It didn't in anyway disrupt the committee proceedings or detract from my ability to question them, in fact it added a little 'oomph' to my questioning! I quoted First's response to the Committee's call for evidence back at them: "Commercial operators such as First provide a level of bus service provision across the region that meets current levels of demand... This competitive market for customers offers value for money and cost effective delivery of public transport to both the customer and tax payer". Can't let them get away with that, can we?!
Tweeting gibberish
UyyYyuyuuujiiuyUuyuyYyYyuUjYYyuuUuUU.
Who says you can't say anything meaningful in 140 characters? I think the above tweet perfectly summed up my feelings at being rudely awakened at 6.30am and whisked off to Whiteladies Road to talk about Twitter for Five Live. (The boring explanation is, was about to tweet then realised taxi driver didn't have a clue where he was going and got distracted).
Anyway... was on Five Live to discuss with Lib Dem MP John Pugh his Early Day Motion on the use of smartphones by MPs in Parliament. (See below for full text). To be fair, it was one of those pieces where the media was only interested in it because they thought he was talking about MPs tweeting during PMQs and I'm not sure he actually was (although I'm pretty sure that the only reason my neighbour, Mr Williams, co-sponsored it was because of my known proclivities in the tweeting arena). I think Mr Pugh is more upset about MPs checking their emails or texting their offices while he's speaking... although having been on a Bill Committee with him fairly recently, I can perhaps understand why.
Before anyone gets too excited about this, have a look at the EDM number - yes, there are more than 2000 of them this parliamentary session. Some have hundreds of signatures. This one, so far, has five. An EDM - accurately described by someone as 'parliamentary grafitti' - doesn't mean anything in itself, except as a public nailing your colours to the mast, or in this case, as the parliamentary equivalent of appearing on Grumpy Old Men.
An MP can get up at business questions on a Thursday and ask for a debate in the Chamber on an EDM, but it's highly unlikely to be granted. At best, Harriet Harman, as Leader of the House, might say Mr Pugh has a point and she will look into it... but we've already had and won the debate over whether electronic devices can be used in the Chamber.
Of course it's not polite to be tweeting when someone next to you is speaking. I didn't tweet during this week's PMQs for example because I was on bench duty and only about five or six Ministers removed from Gordon Brown. It wouldn't have looked good. And it would also have been entirely wrong to have tweeted as he was reading out the names of the 37 soldiers who had died in Afghanistan during the parliamentary recess. (Pete Wishart, the SNP MP, got into trouble for saying something like 'I expected a more exciting PMQs first week back - yawn!). Yes, some of us did tweet later on during that session of PMQs, but not in the yah-boo way that might characterise other Wednesdays. But it is perfectly possible to, as Nicky Campbell said this morning, to walk and chew gum - or listen and tweet - at the same time. For some of us, at least!
EDM 2113
SMARTPHONES AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ETIQUETTE
That this House while recognising the enormous benefits of the modern smartphone and the interest it generates, regrets the growing tendency of hon. Members to interact with these devices during select committee meetings and short debates when active engagement with the topic under consideration might be assumed, and the seeming, if at times quite understandable, greater interest shown in e-mails and messages than in the contribution of parliamentary colleagues; and encourages all hon. Members to limit their use of smartphones during proceedings of the House as part of the evolving courtesies and traditions of the House, helping to keep the proceedings of the House as genuinely interactive as the devices themselves.
Five signatories to date: John Pugh, Stephen Williams, Iris Robinson, Ann Cryer, Dai Davies.
Who says you can't say anything meaningful in 140 characters? I think the above tweet perfectly summed up my feelings at being rudely awakened at 6.30am and whisked off to Whiteladies Road to talk about Twitter for Five Live. (The boring explanation is, was about to tweet then realised taxi driver didn't have a clue where he was going and got distracted).
Anyway... was on Five Live to discuss with Lib Dem MP John Pugh his Early Day Motion on the use of smartphones by MPs in Parliament. (See below for full text). To be fair, it was one of those pieces where the media was only interested in it because they thought he was talking about MPs tweeting during PMQs and I'm not sure he actually was (although I'm pretty sure that the only reason my neighbour, Mr Williams, co-sponsored it was because of my known proclivities in the tweeting arena). I think Mr Pugh is more upset about MPs checking their emails or texting their offices while he's speaking... although having been on a Bill Committee with him fairly recently, I can perhaps understand why.
Before anyone gets too excited about this, have a look at the EDM number - yes, there are more than 2000 of them this parliamentary session. Some have hundreds of signatures. This one, so far, has five. An EDM - accurately described by someone as 'parliamentary grafitti' - doesn't mean anything in itself, except as a public nailing your colours to the mast, or in this case, as the parliamentary equivalent of appearing on Grumpy Old Men.
An MP can get up at business questions on a Thursday and ask for a debate in the Chamber on an EDM, but it's highly unlikely to be granted. At best, Harriet Harman, as Leader of the House, might say Mr Pugh has a point and she will look into it... but we've already had and won the debate over whether electronic devices can be used in the Chamber.
Of course it's not polite to be tweeting when someone next to you is speaking. I didn't tweet during this week's PMQs for example because I was on bench duty and only about five or six Ministers removed from Gordon Brown. It wouldn't have looked good. And it would also have been entirely wrong to have tweeted as he was reading out the names of the 37 soldiers who had died in Afghanistan during the parliamentary recess. (Pete Wishart, the SNP MP, got into trouble for saying something like 'I expected a more exciting PMQs first week back - yawn!). Yes, some of us did tweet later on during that session of PMQs, but not in the yah-boo way that might characterise other Wednesdays. But it is perfectly possible to, as Nicky Campbell said this morning, to walk and chew gum - or listen and tweet - at the same time. For some of us, at least!
EDM 2113
SMARTPHONES AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ETIQUETTE
That this House while recognising the enormous benefits of the modern smartphone and the interest it generates, regrets the growing tendency of hon. Members to interact with these devices during select committee meetings and short debates when active engagement with the topic under consideration might be assumed, and the seeming, if at times quite understandable, greater interest shown in e-mails and messages than in the contribution of parliamentary colleagues; and encourages all hon. Members to limit their use of smartphones during proceedings of the House as part of the evolving courtesies and traditions of the House, helping to keep the proceedings of the House as genuinely interactive as the devices themselves.
Five signatories to date: John Pugh, Stephen Williams, Iris Robinson, Ann Cryer, Dai Davies.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
You've been Pickled
The Tories seem to think Eric Pickles can be branded as a lovable, down-to-earth character, and are putting him at the forefront of their campaigning, with YouTube direct to camera pieces and now this, interrupting the reveries of innocent music lovers on Spotify. So what do you think - is it a vote winner?
Autism Bill becomes law
"Dear Member of Parliament,
I am writing to say thank you for your help with making legal history. The Autism Bill, the first disability-specific law in the UK, today passed its Third Reading in the Lords.
The National Autistic Society has been delighted by the overwhelming support shown by Parliamentarians from both Houses. The cross-party spirit with which all parties approached this has been commendable.
The Autism Act, and the Adult Autism Strategy, has the potential to make a real difference to people’s lives, and we will continue to campaign to make sure that delivers on its promise.
Once again, many thanks for your help in achieving this milestone for people with autism. Do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss the implications of the Autism Act and forthcoming strategy.
Best wishes,
The National Autistic Society"
www.think-differently.org.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
