I enjoyed this quote of the week by Thomas Cawston at Reform taken from
The Sun:
"The truth may be out there. But now we’ll never know. The Defence Ministry is closing its UFO department to save money. Even ET can’t escape the recession."
Let’s hope the money goes towards funding essential equipment for our heroic servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So it’s nothing to do with talent and all to do with running order. That’s the reason why Jedward were booted out of X-Factor, according to researchers at Cambridge and London universities.
But is there a lesson here for our aspiring parliamentary candidates?
Researchers who analysed data from 165 series of X-Factor and Pop Idol discovered that running order was crucial to winning.
Their study concluded that contestants who performed last were most likely to receive the highest proportion of votes, followed by those who performed first. But those who appeared second or third in a round were the most likely to be eliminated that week.
No wonder Jedward didn’t stand a chance when they performed in third place on X-Factor the day before they were eliminated. The odds were stacked against them from the very beginning. Researchers say viewers are less able to remember earlier performances and are more likely to vote for later performances which are fresh in their mind.
The study was led by Dr Lionel Page of Judge Business School, Cambridge University, and Dr Katie Page of Heythrop College, University of London. They believe the findings could be helpful for candidates who are judged sequentially, such as job interviews or competitions.
This could equally apply to political candidates when they are up for selection and take it in turns to make their X-Factor pitch. I wonder how many successful candidates were first or last in the line up on their big day.
Sir Paul McCartney rolls into the European Parliament in Brussels today with the “Meat Free Monday” campaign he launched with daughters Mary and Stella. He wants everyone to avoid eating meat one day every week in order to fight climate change.
My MEP Robert Sturdy, who sits on the Agriculture Committee, has taken the ex-Beatle to task, and disagrees with the points he raises, thinking they are short-sighted. Robert says:
“In the UK our livestock production systems are already highly sustainable and are essential for our future food security. Eating less meat will not mean less climate change. Such a simplified message takes no account of the fact that much of our agricultural land in the UK is unsuitable for arable and vegetable crops. It is clear that Sir Paul does not understand livestock production.
“Focussing on a single issue as a way of saving the planet is irresponsible and will be counterproductive in the long run. It is likely that we will become more dependant on other imported sources of protein, such as soya, which will lead to an increase in the amount of rainforest felled to make way for cultivation. What we should be doing is investing in agricultural research and development to enable farmers to produce food more efficiently with less impact.”
Robert raises an important point about the agricultural research needed to provide crops which can grow in drought stricken areas and reduce famine and the displacement of huge communities which can result in conflict.
I already do eat less meat as my dietary tastes have changed, but what are your views about this, will you eat less meat because some say it will reduce climate change?
I’ve just been reading some latest figures about the number of women candidates selected for parliamentary seats which were presented to the Speaker’s Conference.
This conference is convened by the Speaker of the House of Commons following an invitation from the Prime Minister, and MPs from all political parties meet to consider issues within the electoral system.
In November 2008, a new conference committee was formed and asked to: "Consider, and make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large".
In many ways it seems that history is repeating itself as the first Speaker’s conference back in 1916 paved the way for the enfranchisement of women in the UK. Yet getting women into parliament still remains a problem, it is still high on their agenda.
Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all gave the Speaker’s Conference their full support and pledged to do all they could to recruit PPCs from diverse background. They also complied with a request asking them to provide data showing the diversity of candidates who were selected by 12 October, and to make this information available in the future.
The first report shows that between July and October, Labour selected 8 candidates, including 5 women; four of whom were on all-women shortlists. Conservatives selected 25 candidates, including 7 women (no all-women shortlists). Lib Dems selected 16 new PPCs, of which 5 were women, using their standard list.
Most tellingly, although Labour is actively selecting women candidates with its all-women’s list which it introduced in 1997, it still struggles to get women selected in open selections. Evidence presented to the Speaker’s Conference said that in the first 15 or 16 open selections, the Labour Party selected only one woman in a seat it held. It does not seem that real progress has been made.
The shortlists were meant to help foster a cultural change, but that does not seem to have happened, so all-women lists seem to be the only way of increasing the number of women MPs, which is why Conservatives need to do the same. And Lib Dems probably would if they could attract enough women candidates, a problem which they have admitted.
It is crucial that The House of Commons uses its newly elected MPs next year to modernise the way it works, and more women will be needed to help with this momentous task as they will bring with their skills a different awareness and understanding about life today. We also need more MPs from black and minority backgrounds and the disabled as, in the words of the Speaker’s Conference report, a parliament cannot be representative of its nation if it does not fully represent the diversity of people’s lives.
Parliament today still remains predominantly white, male, middle-aged and middle class, and it is no wonder that large sections of the public cannot connect with it.
*And please, no references to those demeaning media terms, Blair’s Babes and Cameron’s Cuties.
Pic: Courtesy of The Guardian.
I’ve been closely following the Doha trade talks as my MEP Robert Sturdy, who as vice-chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary World Trade Organisation Committee, has played a key role in these negotiations.
I know his frustrations only too well as year after year, world leaders fail to reach an agreement. Today we issued another press release voicing concerns that the latest talks this week will once again fail to be productive.
America holds some of the ace cards in reaching an agreement for these talks, which started in 2001 and are intended to lower trade barriers around the world to encourage free trade:
Robert warned:
"There is growing desperation around the world for a deal which would boost all of our economies, but particularly those in the developing world. It seems that everyone at the meeting wants to talk about Doha, except for the USA.
"A deal may seem far-fetched at the moment but it will become impossible unless the EU flexes its muscle and stands up for liberalisation of global markets. If the USA resorts to protectionism, the EU will follow, and the results for global trade will be devastating."
We can’t allow nations to behave the same way at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen next week.
Economist Sir Nicholas Stern, author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, and environmental activist George Monbiot share my concerns about these crucial talks being dragged out the same way as Doha, and are urging world leaders to work collaboratively.
The great difficulty is that different nations have their own agendas, and self-protectionism often kicks in when countries panic if they are struggling in any way.
The world will be watching President Obama, hoping he will heed the decisive words of Sir Nicholas who in today’s Guardian urges world leaders to see the bigger picture:
Do we collaborate and act to reach a strong political agreement that both decisively cuts the devastating risks posed by climate change, and rapidly opens up the opportunities offered by low-carbon economic growth? Do we in that way set ourselves to overcome poverty and promote prosperity? Or, do we give way to narrow, short-term interests, quarrelling, lack of ambition and delay, thus allowing the risks to the climate to grow to dangerous levels which will derail development in both rich and poor countries?
Given what is at stake, essentially the future peace and prosperity of the planet, world leaders must now recognise that Copenhagen is the most important international gathering of our time. A strong political agreement can and must be reached in Copenhagen. There can be no excuses for failure.
Today’s alarming report on the Dr Foster Hospital Guide about our under performing NHS trusts – based on a range of indicators including death rates, infection rates and staffing levels – reminded me of something worrying I learnt at the Infection 2009 conference earlier this month.
Dr Peter Wilson, consultant microbiologist at University College London Hospital, told me that because of insurance reasons, cleaners were only allowed to clean walls, floors and tables in the wards. Nurses were expected to clean everything else which had been in contact with the patient, and often in their own time, which naturally they were reluctant to do.
“Take the case note trolleys, they are never cleaned,” he said.
“We need to change the way our hospital cleaners work in the UK. We need a new breed of cleaner, one who is trained to clean all high contact surfaces immediately around the patient.
“It’s because of the insurance culture, in case somebody presses a wrong button, but they could be trained to learn about this. We need somebody to take up the banner.”
I met a trainee nurse at a party last night who told me their ward sister told them not to clean anything in the ward, that it was down to the cleaner. However, the cleaner has a different brief, and this demonstrates a clear lack of joined up thinking which has potentially serious repercussions. The issue cannot be left if hospitals have to clean up its act. Surely this is more important than pushing for our nurses to be trained to degree level, when we are not getting the basics right.
Let’s hope Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley will take up the banner. It clearly makes sense to have fully trained cleaners who can effectively do a job which the public expects of them so nurses can be left to do the job they are trained for.
Appearing confident and dressing the part – as well as being daring – opens any doors, as Michaele and Tariq Salahi discovered when they gatecrashed a presidential dinner at the White House hosted by President Obama and his wife Michelle.
“I belong here too,” is the message this clearly picture tells us. The beaming couple do not look like interlopers.
But how easy is it to get away with? Have you ever gatecrashed a party?
I did once unintentionally, in fact, it was a wedding reception. My husband and I were attending his cousin’s wedding and he dropped me off at a restaurant opposite the church as it was pouring with rain and he couldn’t find a car parking space.
I waited in the bar and one of the waitresses I knew asked me why I was there. I told her I was going to a wedding, and she directed me into a room where a wedding reception was being held.
I helped myself to a glass of bubbly and the room was so crowded that I couldn’t see the happy couple. I couldn’t work out why I was there, whether it was a pre-wedding drinks party. After a while, the bride came over and asked, “Excuse me, but do I know you?”
I was so embarrassed, and quickly gulped down the champagne. It’s not every day I go to two weddings in the space of 10 minutes!
I say well done to the Salahis, they will dine on this for the rest of their lives, but it certainly makes one question the president’s security.
Depression is one of those terrible illnesses we
handle so badly.
Mental illness is sadly still tabooed, and it is only when we hear about those who can no longer live with their tortured minds and commit suicide, like Germany’s famous goalkeeper Robert Enke, or the beautiful Korean model Daul Kim, that this difficult issue is publicly debated.
But what can be done to help those suffering from depression, those poor, helpless souls who would rather be anywhere instead of plummeting deeper their dark abyss?
These were two young and talented people who seemingly had it all with their successful careers. But they couldn’t cope with their depression, like countless others. Their fame and fortune couldn’t save them.
Tragically, even when you work in the profession, it seems little help is at hand, as this poignant letter in today’s Times describes, written by the bereaved father of a man who was severely depressed:
Sir, Your leading article (“Working minds”, Nov 23) about the need for depression to be accepted in the workplace has particular resonance for my wife and me because we lost our son to a severe depressive illness in 2005. He was a clinical psychologist, but as his illness developed he was desperate to keep it secret from all the mental health professionals who knew him or might have contact with him in the future. He insisted that his career depended on this because there was a strong prejudice in the profession against anyone who had suffered from mental illness: they were perceived as not “tough enough” for the job.
We found this hard to believe — the mental health profession seemed the last place on earth where such attitudes were likely to be found — but we were assured by others that it was so. Not only did this worry add to the burden of an already terrifying illness, whose features are so accurately and movingly described by Giles Andreae in times2, but it made our son reluctant to seek treatment and, when he did seek it, prevented him from making use of good local facilities that might have helped him. The treatment which he did accept was unsatisfactory and, in the end, unavailing.
Surely it is clear that someone who survives a depressive illness is enhanced rather than diminished by the experience, and that the insight which results may be of advantage, particularly in the field of mental health.
Richard Oerton
Bridgwater, Somerset
I’m a protective mum, but not in the insane way as French parents who are furious that the name Zoe has been chosen by Renault for its new electric car. They regard
it as a slur on their daughters called Zoe.
Zoe has become one of the most popular names for French baby girls, rising from somewhere over the past five years to become 17th favourite.
But some angry parents have launched an internet petition demanding that the car should be renamed, to prevent “Zoe” being devalued.
Renault has defended its choice of name, saying the it evoked values of “femininity of youth, a playful spirit and vivacity”.
I have an idea for Renault. Why not name it The Carla after the wife of the French president as she clearly has all the attributes they are seeking for the promotion of their zero emission car.
I’m sure you would sell a lot more too!
First our Norfolk folk were insultingly dubbed the “Turnip Taliban”. And now Conservatives in the neighbouring county of Suffolk who are selecting a parliamentary candidate this Friday have been mockingly lablled the “Suffolk Swede”.
Hey, why does the media keep insulting our residents this way? I am not alone in asking this question. The East Anglian Daily Times’ headline today points out, “Vegetables are not rooted in Suffolk.” The paper’s political editor Graham Dines reckons:
The implication is that East Anglia Tory members are a bunch of straw sucking, two headed yokels who don’t venture to the bright lights of London and therefore have no idea whatsoever what life is like in 21st century multi-cultural cosmopolitan Britain.
They’re standing in the way of the great David Cameron modernising effort to make the Conservatives liked and electable next year.
It’s natural that local political associations want to exercise their democratic right to select the candidate they feel will best represent them. They should not be insulted for requesting that local candidates are included on short lists along with the other willing wealth of talent that Conservatives have attracted.
If an analogy must be made between Suffolk folk and a local produce, I would suggest they use the apple which Suffolk is famed for with its delicious Aspall cider and scrumptious Copella juice. If it’s good enough for New York – city folk there don’t object to it being known as The Big Apple – then the good natured citizens of Suffolk will surely be able to take that on the chin too.
After one, one bite and you’re hooked; that’s the irresistible appeal of Suffolk.