The local RSPB group is organising a nature walk in Swansea Vale on 11th April.
Their message reads:
"Meet at Swansea Vale Resource Centre Car Park, Ffordd Tregof, Llansamlet (SA7 0AL) at 10.00am. A morning walk around the marshland, footpaths and river paths in the Swansea Vale development area. Contact: Marlay John (01792-816250). Beginners and new members welcome.
"Warm weatherproof clothing and boots may be necessary. Please leave dogs at home. Walks are undertaken at your own risk. Directions: Turn north off A48 at Star Inn, Llansamlet into Church Road leading into Walters Road. Turn left at second roundabout into Ffordd Tregof. Centre is first right."
Unfortuantely, the nearest bus - First Cymru's 59 - does not run on Sundays.
I have also received the programme of summer walks from Neath and Port Talbot Ramblers' Association. Walks are listed for all over South Wales, plus one weekend away in Church Stretton. There are long walks of 8-11 miles and short walks around 5-6 miles. Of particular interest is the annual 10-mile Sarn Helen walk on 30th May.
For more information, contact the secretary on 01656 733021
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Tuesday, 30 March 2010
The News Read at Slow Speed
The son of a German immigrant - to India - reminisces. It's a longish tale, but I hope I'm not the only one in these parts to be moved right to the end.
Saturday, 27 March 2010
Sayers, Sondheim and Assassins
Stephen Sondheim could be described as the Dorothy L Sayers of the musical theatre - which is meant as a compliment. Ironically, he confessed on "Composer of the Week" last week (still available on "Listen Again" for a few days) that, after the commercial failure of "Merrily we Roll Along" that he considered devoting the rest of his life to writing mystery stories. The TV movie "The Last of Sheila" shows just how good he was at it.
Sayers deliberately set out to extend the reach of detective fiction, mainly to make it more literate (which many aficionados regard as patronising), but also introducing such serious themes as xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Musicals had already had been given more challenging storylines from Richard Rodgers and Sondheim's mentor, Oscar Hammerstein III, but Sondheim went further in cutting through the musical rhetoric and making more complex lyrics. He also deals in subjects which R&H would never have considered.
Among these is a pageant of assassins and would-be assassins of American presidents. "Assassins" contains some of his most tuneful numbers (though this may partly be because of the element of pastiche). However, he had some trouble putting it on because there was patriotic resistance to showing the head of state of the US being assassinated or threatened. It was the time of the Iraq war, and there was a Republican in the White House. Since patriotism is mainly associated with the "right", it seems from this news item that the time for this musical has come.
Sayers deliberately set out to extend the reach of detective fiction, mainly to make it more literate (which many aficionados regard as patronising), but also introducing such serious themes as xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Musicals had already had been given more challenging storylines from Richard Rodgers and Sondheim's mentor, Oscar Hammerstein III, but Sondheim went further in cutting through the musical rhetoric and making more complex lyrics. He also deals in subjects which R&H would never have considered.
Among these is a pageant of assassins and would-be assassins of American presidents. "Assassins" contains some of his most tuneful numbers (though this may partly be because of the element of pastiche). However, he had some trouble putting it on because there was patriotic resistance to showing the head of state of the US being assassinated or threatened. It was the time of the Iraq war, and there was a Republican in the White House. Since patriotism is mainly associated with the "right", it seems from this news item that the time for this musical has come.
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Conservative manifesto for government information technology
Silicon.com has reproduced the Conservative Party proposals for UK computing from 2010 onwards. There doesn't seem to be a specific Liberal Democrat equivalent, but the party's pronouncements on individual issues over the last few years suggest that it wouldn't be a lot different*. Most of the ideas are common sense (why hasn't New Labour implemented them before now?) - a presumption against a supplier cartel for large contracts, consistent use of open standards, not going for bespoke solutions where an off-the-shelf, or existing adaptable, system is available, opening up procurement to small businesses, publishing "gateway" reviews, and "a right to government data will be created that will allow the public to request and receive data collected by government".
Some of the Conservative ideas are gimmicky (a "British Google" is just nuts) and some - like universal fast broadband in UK - have also been promised by the current government, though with a different funding model.
What I found most interesting was the implicit rejection of the Thatcher/Heseltine idea of separating high-level specification (left with politicians) from design (privatised). The Thatcher government also destroyed the concept of a central civil service computing office. New Labour has largely followed the same strategy. However, the Conservatives are now saying: "a central store of common software applications would be created, enabling apps to be reused across government departments rather than having each department buying its own software, [an IT development team would be created within government] to create low-cost applications and advise on the procurement of IT projects [and the government Chief Information Officer would] have powers to set government-wide policies in areas, such as open standards when building systems and open data where recording information".
I trust that our proposals, when they appear, will be equally pragmatic. The free market just doesn't work in this area.
*except on the issue of control of ISPs, where we are clearly more liberal - see various Liberal Democrat postings on the subject of the Digital Economy Bill
Some of the Conservative ideas are gimmicky (a "British Google" is just nuts) and some - like universal fast broadband in UK - have also been promised by the current government, though with a different funding model.
What I found most interesting was the implicit rejection of the Thatcher/Heseltine idea of separating high-level specification (left with politicians) from design (privatised). The Thatcher government also destroyed the concept of a central civil service computing office. New Labour has largely followed the same strategy. However, the Conservatives are now saying: "a central store of common software applications would be created, enabling apps to be reused across government departments rather than having each department buying its own software, [an IT development team would be created within government] to create low-cost applications and advise on the procurement of IT projects [and the government Chief Information Officer would] have powers to set government-wide policies in areas, such as open standards when building systems and open data where recording information".
I trust that our proposals, when they appear, will be equally pragmatic. The free market just doesn't work in this area.
*except on the issue of control of ISPs, where we are clearly more liberal - see various Liberal Democrat postings on the subject of the Digital Economy Bill
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Rambling
The latest issue of the online Ramblers newsletter lists a few new books with a Welsh connection:
| |||
| | |||
| |||
| | |||
| |||
| | |||
| |||
| By the way, it was good to see Floella Benjamin at the ICC on Saturday. Sadly, I didn't get a chance to say hello. |
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Michael Foot and Free Speech
In my posting immediately after Michael Foot's death, I was too pessimistic about how he would be remembered. Yesterday's report of his funeral in the Indy was typical of the high esteem in which he was still held.
For my part, I must correct the impression I gave that the 1950s discussion programme which Foot took part in was a BBC televised version of the "Brains Trust". In fact, it was a Sunday afternoon programme presented for ITV by John Irwin and Edgar Lustgarten. It was called "Free Speech" and typically also featured Sir Robert Boothby MP (his underworld connections and bisexuality not then public knowledge, of course), Bill Brown, the reactionary general secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association who had started his career as a radical firebrand, and AJP Taylor, the historian. There was thus a straight conservative/socialist divide.
I doubt that, sadly, Associated Television, the company which had the London franchise and produced "Free Speech", considered recording any of those smoke-wreathed arguments. Even then, ITV companies operated on a tighter budget than BBC.
In the edition of TV Times for the second week in April 1956 in which I found the above programme information, there was a celebrity endorsement of the Daily Mail. The man featured in the advertisement for the deep-dyed conservative daily was Lord Elton, the father of Thatcher-baiting Ben.
For my part, I must correct the impression I gave that the 1950s discussion programme which Foot took part in was a BBC televised version of the "Brains Trust". In fact, it was a Sunday afternoon programme presented for ITV by John Irwin and Edgar Lustgarten. It was called "Free Speech" and typically also featured Sir Robert Boothby MP (his underworld connections and bisexuality not then public knowledge, of course), Bill Brown, the reactionary general secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association who had started his career as a radical firebrand, and AJP Taylor, the historian. There was thus a straight conservative/socialist divide.
I doubt that, sadly, Associated Television, the company which had the London franchise and produced "Free Speech", considered recording any of those smoke-wreathed arguments. Even then, ITV companies operated on a tighter budget than BBC.
In the edition of TV Times for the second week in April 1956 in which I found the above programme information, there was a celebrity endorsement of the Daily Mail. The man featured in the advertisement for the deep-dyed conservative daily was Lord Elton, the father of Thatcher-baiting Ben.
End the vulture culture
"Vulture fund" is a name given to a company that seeks to make profit by buying up "bad" debt at a cheap price, then trying to recover the full amount, often by suing through the courts.
Such companies often describe themselves as "distressed debt funds". Some target failing companies, but debt campaigners are concerned about those that target poor countries. Despite its poverty, Liberia has been one of the countries most heavily targeted. $357m , equivalent to 49% of its GDP, has been awarded against the country in recent years. Zambia is another sufferer. (There is more explanation in this pdf file, and Private Eye is worth reading to keep up to date with the latest depradations.)
This was the background to a fringe meeting, arranged by the Jubilee Debt Campaign, at the Liberal Democrats Spring Conference in Birmingham last weekend. The sixty or more party activists (it was difficult to count how many had crammed into a too-small meeting room) were given both a brief history of the campaign (it was inspired by the ancient concept of one year in fifty in which sins were pardoned and debts remitted) and an authoritative overview of the current situation by guest speaker Vince Cable. Vince knows whereof he speaks, having worked for the Kenyan government, and written, or co-written, books on the subject.
A few myths were dispelled. The chief among them was that countries which had their debts cancelled immediately channelled the funds released to corrupt ministers. Overwhelmingly, the evidence is that tax previously wasted on interest on debt went straight to meet social needs, like schools and health provision.
Conservative shame. Labour's Sally Keeble, with support from all sides of the House of Commons, introduced the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill, designed to curb the activities of vulture funds. It seeks to ensure that creditors cannot pursue debt repayment beyond the level assessed as fair and sustainable by the World Bank. Being a private member's bill, it requires parliamentary time, which was denied it by Christopher Chope, the Conservative MP for Christchurch. There were suggestions at the weekend that there were other Conservative MPs who were interested in seeing the Bill run out of time, and that Chope was just the front man.
Such companies often describe themselves as "distressed debt funds". Some target failing companies, but debt campaigners are concerned about those that target poor countries. Despite its poverty, Liberia has been one of the countries most heavily targeted. $357m , equivalent to 49% of its GDP, has been awarded against the country in recent years. Zambia is another sufferer. (There is more explanation in this pdf file, and Private Eye is worth reading to keep up to date with the latest depradations.)
This was the background to a fringe meeting, arranged by the Jubilee Debt Campaign, at the Liberal Democrats Spring Conference in Birmingham last weekend. The sixty or more party activists (it was difficult to count how many had crammed into a too-small meeting room) were given both a brief history of the campaign (it was inspired by the ancient concept of one year in fifty in which sins were pardoned and debts remitted) and an authoritative overview of the current situation by guest speaker Vince Cable. Vince knows whereof he speaks, having worked for the Kenyan government, and written, or co-written, books on the subject.
A few myths were dispelled. The chief among them was that countries which had their debts cancelled immediately channelled the funds released to corrupt ministers. Overwhelmingly, the evidence is that tax previously wasted on interest on debt went straight to meet social needs, like schools and health provision.
Conservative shame. Labour's Sally Keeble, with support from all sides of the House of Commons, introduced the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill, designed to curb the activities of vulture funds. It seeks to ensure that creditors cannot pursue debt repayment beyond the level assessed as fair and sustainable by the World Bank. Being a private member's bill, it requires parliamentary time, which was denied it by Christopher Chope, the Conservative MP for Christchurch. There were suggestions at the weekend that there were other Conservative MPs who were interested in seeing the Bill run out of time, and that Chope was just the front man.
Liberal Democrats fight threat to Internet freedom
It seems that press coverage of Sunday's proceedings in Birmingham was monopolised by the leader's speech. One has to go to the blogosphere (e.g. Lynne Featherstone and Liberal Democrat Voice) to read of an equally important proceeding, the passing of emergency motion F19.
The threat was that, under the provisions of the Digital Economy Bill, a government minister - in practice, probably a middle-ranking Home Office civil servant - could close down an Internet Service Provider if there was a whiff of a breach of copyright. The pressure to include these powers had clearly come from the big record and movie production companies, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how they could be misused to suppress political comment as well. Their Lordships passed an amendment, sponsored by Liberal Democrats among others, to ensure that the power could only be exercised after the courts had intervened. Lord Clement-Jones explained the reasoning here.
But we decided that even this was too heavy-handed. There were significant contributions from a content provider, Neville Farmer, and David Matthewman, a man who, among other things, devised anti-piracy measures for other web-site owners. These two might have been expected to oppose the motion, but were enthusiasts for it.
The threat was that, under the provisions of the Digital Economy Bill, a government minister - in practice, probably a middle-ranking Home Office civil servant - could close down an Internet Service Provider if there was a whiff of a breach of copyright. The pressure to include these powers had clearly come from the big record and movie production companies, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how they could be misused to suppress political comment as well. Their Lordships passed an amendment, sponsored by Liberal Democrats among others, to ensure that the power could only be exercised after the courts had intervened. Lord Clement-Jones explained the reasoning here.
But we decided that even this was too heavy-handed. There were significant contributions from a content provider, Neville Farmer, and David Matthewman, a man who, among other things, devised anti-piracy measures for other web-site owners. These two might have been expected to oppose the motion, but were enthusiasts for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)