This has been a very peculiar election campaign indeed. Several very odd things have happened, most of them to the detriment of democracy.
Firstly, we have seen the completion of the hijacking of the democratic process by the media. In a country with two major rolling news programmes we have had wall-to-wall election coverage, with almost total coverage of the three main party leaders, yet almost no serious discussion of policy. The level of wall-to-wall coverage has extended so far as to invade Gordon Brown’s privacy by broadcasting his private ‘drawing of breath’ after meeting a member of the public. Surely, the mic line feed had an off switch. This seemed to give the broadcast ‘journalists’ opportunity to analyse, dissect and further analyse his comments ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Secondly, we have had the leader’s debates, set up in such a way as to suggest that anodyne would be too dynamic a word to describe them. Both the debates themselves and the analysis of them concentrated almost solely on ‘performance’ and, again were devoid of in-depth policy analysis.
Thirdly, we have had a huge number of opinion polls, creating confusion in that most have been voting intention polls, whilst some have been ‘leaders debate performance’ polls. That is not to decry the value of opinion polls, but the sheer number does tend to again emphasise the media victory of process over policy.
Fourthly, the ordinary people of the country have been almost totally excluded from the pre-election process. For example, the chattering classes, through the London-based media, have begun to question if there is a re-alignment of the Left with the Liberal Democrats replacing Labour, and much talk has been of a Labour meltdown; all this on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence.
Before discussing this in any detail it is worth questioning the Liberal Democrat credentials as a party of the Left. It is the descendent of the Liberal Party, an establishment party, primarily concerned with issues relevant to the middle-class, such as civil liberties, equal opportunities, meritocracy etc. It is not a party primarily concerned with social rights, equality and wealth redistribution. The Labour Party, on the other hand, despite the gentrification of the party in the 1980s and 1990s, still retains some of those Left credentials. Hence the huge chasm between the Liberal Democrats and Labour over fundamental policies at this election such as maintaining Sure Start Children’s Centres, nursery fees and Working Tax Credit / Childrens Tax Credit. The Liberal Democrats, for all their posturing cannot see beyond the middle-class.
Today the Guardian has endorsed the Liberal Democrats and urged its readers to vote Liberal Democrat rather than Labour to keep out the Tories. The Guardian has always been a Liberal newspaper and only supported Tony Blair in 1997 to jump on the anti-Tory bandwagon. The opinion polls are showing Liberal Democrat and Labour exactly equal, about four points behind the Tories, with over 30 per cent of respondents still undecided. This neither points to Labour meltdown or the Liberal Democrats outpolling Labour. With the current distribution of parliamentary seats it actually points to a balanced parliament with Labour or Tory as the largest party,
Political choice in a democracy is surely about voting for an individual and / or a Party on the basis of what they are actually going to do, not what the Party leaders are wearing or their posture and demeanour.
The media campaign to defeat Labour may have serious repercussions. If, it does succeed, and we end up with a Tory of Tory / Liberal Democrat coalition (and don’t believe that the Liberal Democrats are not considering it), it will be a dark, dark day for the poorest 25 per cent of people in our country. Tax credits will not be protected, the schools budget will not be protected, the cuts will be immediate not in one years time, giving neither fiscal stimulus to the economy, nor giving the poorest people in our society any kind of opportunity to prepare themselves. The recession will return and abject poverty of a kind not known since the 1930s will stalk us like a spectre, with daily bankruptcies, job losses and evictions.
The measure of a civilised society is the quality of life of its poorest members. If some individuals and communities in our society do not have the wherewithal to participate fully in the economy, culture and polity of our society, we are all diminished. If significant numbers of people fall below the poverty line, that financial poverty draws down multiple other forms of educational, social and cultural poverty. It is, in effect, social exclusion.
Nothing points to the Liberal Democrats as anything but a ‘softer’ Tory party. Their real value in our polity is to split the Tory vote; if they eat into Labour support on a bogus claim to be progressive, modern, or even, ‘Left’, it will be music to the Tories ears. I would thus urge those who think the Liberal Democrats are a progressive party to examine their manifesto and scrutinise the coherence of their ideas. Indeed, I would challenge anyone to actually state in basic, straightforward terms, what the Liberal Democrats actually stand for. The basic philosophical underpinning of Labour and of the Tories is manifest and easy to understand; despite the various degrees of gloss they both tend to overlay it with. The Tories stand up for big business, privilege and minimal government; Labour stands for social inclusion, the welfare state and full public provision of the essentials of education, health and social care.
On a lighter note, we need a touch of realism. As a grandfather I am old enough to have witnessed many general elections and have drawn my own conclusions on the way this election will eventually pan out. My experience this time round is that there is a definite majority of people who don’t want a Tory victory, and those people comprise Liberal Democrat, Labour, Green and Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. Of these groups the Liberal Democrats have had a media influenced surge, which is beginning to tail off, whilst Labour (after being in power for thirteen years) is holding its position. As we see the election campaign rush towards its climax and eventually the votes are counted we will see a parliament returned with little support for the lunatic fringe (BNP, UKIP, English Democrats etc), one possible MP for the Greens, the Liberal Democrats in third place (both in terms of sets and popular vote) and either the Tories (probable) or Labour (possible) as the Party with the most seats and the largest share of the popular vote. To ensure that the Tories don’t get in by default I would urge all those who are considering putting their lot in with the Liberal Democrats to think again, examine their consciences, think seriously about the most vulnerable people in our society and cast a vote for their Labour candidate on May 6th.
Saturday 1 May 2010
Wednesday 7 April 2010
Election
Gordon Brown has announced that the General Election is to be on May 6th (alongside council elections in parts of the UK). Given the current economic climate this may well prove to be the most important election since 1997. I was going to say 1979, but the 1997 election ousted the (then) last remnants of Thatcherism.
Although the election was announced yesterday, everyone has known that May 6th would be the date for some time. The government could have gone to the country as late as June, but late spring has always tended to be a preferred date for UK elections, given the traditional May date for local elections. The silliness has already started with the various Party Leaders commencing their various election stunts.
Labour's election slogan is 'A Future Fair for All' and, it is to some extent backed up with policies, not least in terms of dealing with the deficit, that appear to have the ring of social justice, although tax rises beyond simply increasing National Insurance would be helpful. They have however outlined a longer timescale than the Tories to reduce the deficit, avoiding the obvious pitfalls of mass unemployment, reduced tax receipts and an increased benefits burden that would accompany any stark changes in economic activity levels.
The Tories have an election slogan 'Vote for Change', yet recently voted against the reform of the House of Lords and the removal of hereditary peerages. I guess that they mean a change of occupant in Number 10 but the retention of aristocratic privileges that pre-date the Magna Carta. Further they have reverted to classic Thatcherite 'solutions' in what little bits of policy that have inadvertently slipped out such as massive cuts to public spending that somehow don't impact on frontline services. Perhaps they mean an NHS without administrators, the abolition of school meals, volunteer firemen; it is hard to tell. But if anyone can square an economic circle then it must be 'Boy' George Osborne and 'Call me Dave' Cameron. After all, they claim to be a modern go-ahead Party whilst still remaining lukewarm on Europe, and decidedly vague on climate change. They also propose cutting public expenditure very sharply very quickly to reduce the deficit. Any person of even moderate intelligence can see that this is a complete non-starter. It would put tens of thousands of public sector employees out of work with a serious knock-on effect on the retail and other service industries as their spending power is reduced. This would lead to increased unemployment in the service sector, actually increasing exponentially the burden on the public purse by increasing the total of benefits payments. This brings us to their real policy to curb the deficit. They want to make poor people pay for it. One policy they have let slip is that are to reduce in-work and out-of-work benefits, hitting the very poorest in society at a time of great economic privation. Then again they are Tories!
The Liberal Democrats, bless them, so liked both the Labour and the Tory slogans that they combined them in a commendable spirit of inclusion. Their slogan is 'Change that Works for You - Building a Fairer Britain' and, to be fair their policies seem reasonable, but, with the exception of the hung parliament scenario, irrelevant as they will not be forming a government any time in this or any subsequent centuries.
It is easy to poke fun, but there is a genuine nightmare scenario on the horizon. The Tories could win and the darkest days of social division and the complete lack of any genuine hope that epitomised the 1980s could return. Never forget that David Cameron used to be a speech writer for Thatcher and that he presides over a party that is Eurosceptic to the point of xenophobia, that still tends to adhere to the greed is good mantra and sees public services not as an integral and vital element of a civilised society but as an 'add-on' and an economic burden.
The mark of a civilised society is the capacity of the poorest members of that society to participate in the social, cultural and economic life of that society. We need properly funded schools, free university education, a health service free at the point of delivery, free and accessible social services and in-work and out-of-work benefits and state pensions fit for purpose if we are even to begin to call ourselves civilised. None of these are safe in the Tories hands - remember Thatcher. We must never let it happen again!!
Although the election was announced yesterday, everyone has known that May 6th would be the date for some time. The government could have gone to the country as late as June, but late spring has always tended to be a preferred date for UK elections, given the traditional May date for local elections. The silliness has already started with the various Party Leaders commencing their various election stunts.
Labour's election slogan is 'A Future Fair for All' and, it is to some extent backed up with policies, not least in terms of dealing with the deficit, that appear to have the ring of social justice, although tax rises beyond simply increasing National Insurance would be helpful. They have however outlined a longer timescale than the Tories to reduce the deficit, avoiding the obvious pitfalls of mass unemployment, reduced tax receipts and an increased benefits burden that would accompany any stark changes in economic activity levels.
The Tories have an election slogan 'Vote for Change', yet recently voted against the reform of the House of Lords and the removal of hereditary peerages. I guess that they mean a change of occupant in Number 10 but the retention of aristocratic privileges that pre-date the Magna Carta. Further they have reverted to classic Thatcherite 'solutions' in what little bits of policy that have inadvertently slipped out such as massive cuts to public spending that somehow don't impact on frontline services. Perhaps they mean an NHS without administrators, the abolition of school meals, volunteer firemen; it is hard to tell. But if anyone can square an economic circle then it must be 'Boy' George Osborne and 'Call me Dave' Cameron. After all, they claim to be a modern go-ahead Party whilst still remaining lukewarm on Europe, and decidedly vague on climate change. They also propose cutting public expenditure very sharply very quickly to reduce the deficit. Any person of even moderate intelligence can see that this is a complete non-starter. It would put tens of thousands of public sector employees out of work with a serious knock-on effect on the retail and other service industries as their spending power is reduced. This would lead to increased unemployment in the service sector, actually increasing exponentially the burden on the public purse by increasing the total of benefits payments. This brings us to their real policy to curb the deficit. They want to make poor people pay for it. One policy they have let slip is that are to reduce in-work and out-of-work benefits, hitting the very poorest in society at a time of great economic privation. Then again they are Tories!
The Liberal Democrats, bless them, so liked both the Labour and the Tory slogans that they combined them in a commendable spirit of inclusion. Their slogan is 'Change that Works for You - Building a Fairer Britain' and, to be fair their policies seem reasonable, but, with the exception of the hung parliament scenario, irrelevant as they will not be forming a government any time in this or any subsequent centuries.
It is easy to poke fun, but there is a genuine nightmare scenario on the horizon. The Tories could win and the darkest days of social division and the complete lack of any genuine hope that epitomised the 1980s could return. Never forget that David Cameron used to be a speech writer for Thatcher and that he presides over a party that is Eurosceptic to the point of xenophobia, that still tends to adhere to the greed is good mantra and sees public services not as an integral and vital element of a civilised society but as an 'add-on' and an economic burden.
The mark of a civilised society is the capacity of the poorest members of that society to participate in the social, cultural and economic life of that society. We need properly funded schools, free university education, a health service free at the point of delivery, free and accessible social services and in-work and out-of-work benefits and state pensions fit for purpose if we are even to begin to call ourselves civilised. None of these are safe in the Tories hands - remember Thatcher. We must never let it happen again!!
Friday 20 November 2009
Nine out of ten readers whose cats expressed a preference have commented on the quality of what they (erroneously) think is my new black and white tea towel. One of my friends popped round the other day and caught me drying the dishes, and the second thing he said to me was, “Stewart, that tea towel is a reet bobby dazzler; I’ve nivver seen one like that afore”. (The first thing he said to me was, “Why ist tha drying dishes, ist tha a puff”.) One needs to note at this time that he is from Barnsley, and in terms of that fair town is seen as something of a new man. Not only does he rarely physically chastise his children but he also allows his wife to vote in local elections. He even admits to one time having partaken of a vegetarian meal, which he felt was alright, although following it he did need to take a couple of days off work because of “a bit o’ gut trouble”. But I digress somewhat. The tea towel is not new, but is to some extent novel. I feel now is the time to tell the full story of my excellent tea towel.
The story begins in 1973, predating the three day week and the winter of discontent, although where I worked on the railway there were a fair few discontented souls and despite turning up for five days in each week most only actually worked a one day week. The phrase “work is the curse of the drinking classes” could easily have been coined for the staff in West Offices in the 1970s. It all started with a trip to the local butchers. We were a bit strapped for cash so my mum sent me out to buy a sheep’s head. Now, in these days when less than choice cuts of meat are hard to come by and offal is either trendily expensive or simply unavailable, and BSE and scrapie have ruled out the sale for human consumption of nervous tissue, a sheep’s head is not even perceived of as food. How wrong that is. Anyway, I went to the butcher and asked him for a sheep’s head, to which the hilarious wag replied, “what do you want a sheep’s head for, your own head seems to fit you very well”. He was such a card. I patiently responded by stating that I was not Wurzel Gummidge and only wanted the sheep’s head for food and sustenance not as an alternative adornment to my neck. I then added “could you leave the eyes in as I want it to see me through the week”. He then proffered me a nice looking head complete with a full set of peepers, for which I paid him one shilling and then duly took home to my mum.
Upon receiving the sheep’s head my mum washed it and then put it in a big bowl and covered it in brine. (Now, as a relatively poor family we didn’t buy those fancy bottles of made up brine, but made our own just by adding table salt to cold water, and I remain convinced that it is just as good as supermarket brine.) She left the head to soak in the brine overnight and then she washed it again, put it in a big pan, covered it in cold water, added a stock cube and brought it to the boil, then simmered it for two hours, constantly topping up the water. She then removed the head from the pan and left it to cool. She added diced carrots, sliced onions and a handful of pearl barley to the remaining liquor and brought it back to the boil. She then removed the chaps (cheeks) from the sheep’s head, cut them into small pieces and added them to the pot. This was left to simmer and reduce and within another couple of hours we had a tasty pan of sheep’s head broth. Mum then removed the tongue from the sheep, peeled off the outer skin and placed the peeled tongue on a plate and added a weighted plate on top. By the following morning we had some delicious pressed tongue for sandwiches and salads. Finally, she cracked open the skull and removed the brain, which then went into the fridge to chill, and was used as a wonderful creamy paté or spread. (It may seem strange today, but my memories of sheep’s brain are that it is one of the very nicest things I have ever eaten.)
As all this was going on I was watching the telly. Not surprisingly, Bruce Forsyth was on reprising his act from the first ever TV broadcast in 1936. Although I am not his biggest fan it was nice to see him (to see him nice?). Then my mate Dave rang up on our new trimphone and asked if I had heard of the new competition on BBC2. They were offering a prize of a weekend in London and a meeting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat for the person who could best complete the phrase “What shall we do the National Front do dah do dah, what shall we do the National Front?????…..” Dave the brave (so named because he once went to Leeds by himself – although it later transpired that the epithet was somewhat undeserved as most of his family actually lived in Leeds) knew I had a more than passing interest in politics so thought I would be the man to give it a go. I pondered the phrase for several hours and discussed with my mum and dad and eventually came up with the answer. “What shall we do with the National Front do dah do dah, what shall we do with the National Front, make them go away” Amazingly I won, manly because the only other entrant was an illiterate lunatic from Cardiff who just sent in a picture of a racing car. When the man from the BBC rang me up I was quite excited, partly because of winning the competition, and partly because I loved the ring tone of the trimphone.
So, it was time to go to London. I then remembered the sheep’s head and asked my mum if I could have the eyes, so she got them out of the bin, washed them and gave them to me. “What you want to take these eyes from me for?” she sang; “because I have read that sheep’s eyes are a delicacy among Arabs and I think Mr Arafat is an Arab”, I replied. (I had read it in a book somewhere that was all about weird food like salami, olives, garlic and such stuff.) Anyway, I got on the train and went to London and met Mr Arafat at the BBC Television Studios, where he had just completed a recorded interview with Robin Day. I was shown into his dressing room and immediately offered him the sheep’s eyes as a gift of friendship. “You’ve read that bloody book, haven’t you, I am up to here with sodding sheep’s eyes, but thanks for the gesture, it beats that knobhead last week who brought me an entire casserole of pig’s eyes; what he was thinking beats me, and he was the Israeli Prime Minister for God’s sake. Look lets go the Savoy Grill and have a proper meal; I’m paying”. So we dined on Caesar Salad, Beouf en Croute and a nice bit of Blue Stilton from the cheesboard, washed down with a creditable yet unassuming Bordeaux Villages, and a couple of Crème de Menthes. We then got talking about vexed question of Israel and Palestine. I must admit he did seem to have a slightly one-sided take on the issues, but you know what it is like; when you are too close to something it is hard to see the wood for the trees. My main contribution was to posit the ‘two-state’ theory and suggested that it would probably begin to see the light in about forty years. He was unsure, but thanked me for my contribution and offered me a gift in appreciation of my efforts; he gave me his keffiyeh (his distinctive hat).
I bad him farewell and made my way back home with my wonderful prize. Sadly, as the years went by I lost the agal (headband) so the keffiyeh became reduced from a symbol of Palestinian nationalism to the role of a large yet distinctive tea towel, which upon marriage and subsequent children served me very well, drying a million dishes whilst all the time I was thinking of the day when Palestine would be liberated. Unfortunately as the years went by it become more and more worn out, until last year I had a fateful decision to make; do I throw it out or renovate it. Despite the cost I got a team of expert cloth renovators in to give it a complete retread, and once again it graces my kitchen and has started the process of drying its second million dishes. So my tea towel is not new, but it is novel, and will always hold a special place in my heart.
All of this is true. I know, as I made it all up myself.
The story begins in 1973, predating the three day week and the winter of discontent, although where I worked on the railway there were a fair few discontented souls and despite turning up for five days in each week most only actually worked a one day week. The phrase “work is the curse of the drinking classes” could easily have been coined for the staff in West Offices in the 1970s. It all started with a trip to the local butchers. We were a bit strapped for cash so my mum sent me out to buy a sheep’s head. Now, in these days when less than choice cuts of meat are hard to come by and offal is either trendily expensive or simply unavailable, and BSE and scrapie have ruled out the sale for human consumption of nervous tissue, a sheep’s head is not even perceived of as food. How wrong that is. Anyway, I went to the butcher and asked him for a sheep’s head, to which the hilarious wag replied, “what do you want a sheep’s head for, your own head seems to fit you very well”. He was such a card. I patiently responded by stating that I was not Wurzel Gummidge and only wanted the sheep’s head for food and sustenance not as an alternative adornment to my neck. I then added “could you leave the eyes in as I want it to see me through the week”. He then proffered me a nice looking head complete with a full set of peepers, for which I paid him one shilling and then duly took home to my mum.
Upon receiving the sheep’s head my mum washed it and then put it in a big bowl and covered it in brine. (Now, as a relatively poor family we didn’t buy those fancy bottles of made up brine, but made our own just by adding table salt to cold water, and I remain convinced that it is just as good as supermarket brine.) She left the head to soak in the brine overnight and then she washed it again, put it in a big pan, covered it in cold water, added a stock cube and brought it to the boil, then simmered it for two hours, constantly topping up the water. She then removed the head from the pan and left it to cool. She added diced carrots, sliced onions and a handful of pearl barley to the remaining liquor and brought it back to the boil. She then removed the chaps (cheeks) from the sheep’s head, cut them into small pieces and added them to the pot. This was left to simmer and reduce and within another couple of hours we had a tasty pan of sheep’s head broth. Mum then removed the tongue from the sheep, peeled off the outer skin and placed the peeled tongue on a plate and added a weighted plate on top. By the following morning we had some delicious pressed tongue for sandwiches and salads. Finally, she cracked open the skull and removed the brain, which then went into the fridge to chill, and was used as a wonderful creamy paté or spread. (It may seem strange today, but my memories of sheep’s brain are that it is one of the very nicest things I have ever eaten.)
As all this was going on I was watching the telly. Not surprisingly, Bruce Forsyth was on reprising his act from the first ever TV broadcast in 1936. Although I am not his biggest fan it was nice to see him (to see him nice?). Then my mate Dave rang up on our new trimphone and asked if I had heard of the new competition on BBC2. They were offering a prize of a weekend in London and a meeting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat for the person who could best complete the phrase “What shall we do the National Front do dah do dah, what shall we do the National Front?????…..” Dave the brave (so named because he once went to Leeds by himself – although it later transpired that the epithet was somewhat undeserved as most of his family actually lived in Leeds) knew I had a more than passing interest in politics so thought I would be the man to give it a go. I pondered the phrase for several hours and discussed with my mum and dad and eventually came up with the answer. “What shall we do with the National Front do dah do dah, what shall we do with the National Front, make them go away” Amazingly I won, manly because the only other entrant was an illiterate lunatic from Cardiff who just sent in a picture of a racing car. When the man from the BBC rang me up I was quite excited, partly because of winning the competition, and partly because I loved the ring tone of the trimphone.
So, it was time to go to London. I then remembered the sheep’s head and asked my mum if I could have the eyes, so she got them out of the bin, washed them and gave them to me. “What you want to take these eyes from me for?” she sang; “because I have read that sheep’s eyes are a delicacy among Arabs and I think Mr Arafat is an Arab”, I replied. (I had read it in a book somewhere that was all about weird food like salami, olives, garlic and such stuff.) Anyway, I got on the train and went to London and met Mr Arafat at the BBC Television Studios, where he had just completed a recorded interview with Robin Day. I was shown into his dressing room and immediately offered him the sheep’s eyes as a gift of friendship. “You’ve read that bloody book, haven’t you, I am up to here with sodding sheep’s eyes, but thanks for the gesture, it beats that knobhead last week who brought me an entire casserole of pig’s eyes; what he was thinking beats me, and he was the Israeli Prime Minister for God’s sake. Look lets go the Savoy Grill and have a proper meal; I’m paying”. So we dined on Caesar Salad, Beouf en Croute and a nice bit of Blue Stilton from the cheesboard, washed down with a creditable yet unassuming Bordeaux Villages, and a couple of Crème de Menthes. We then got talking about vexed question of Israel and Palestine. I must admit he did seem to have a slightly one-sided take on the issues, but you know what it is like; when you are too close to something it is hard to see the wood for the trees. My main contribution was to posit the ‘two-state’ theory and suggested that it would probably begin to see the light in about forty years. He was unsure, but thanked me for my contribution and offered me a gift in appreciation of my efforts; he gave me his keffiyeh (his distinctive hat).
I bad him farewell and made my way back home with my wonderful prize. Sadly, as the years went by I lost the agal (headband) so the keffiyeh became reduced from a symbol of Palestinian nationalism to the role of a large yet distinctive tea towel, which upon marriage and subsequent children served me very well, drying a million dishes whilst all the time I was thinking of the day when Palestine would be liberated. Unfortunately as the years went by it become more and more worn out, until last year I had a fateful decision to make; do I throw it out or renovate it. Despite the cost I got a team of expert cloth renovators in to give it a complete retread, and once again it graces my kitchen and has started the process of drying its second million dishes. So my tea towel is not new, but it is novel, and will always hold a special place in my heart.
All of this is true. I know, as I made it all up myself.
Tuesday 17 March 2009
CMS for our website clients
After much reading, Googling and experimenting, I have now found a Content Management System that seems ideal for our website clients. It seems to offer enough features, whilst retaining a very, very inuitive interface. Early testing also suggests that the pages validate, and, because it actually builds real pages, a full set of metatags for each page, and an accurate Google sitemap as part of the simple editing process, it seems SEO friendly as well. It is Light N Easy CMS. My role as the website designer will be to devise a template for each site (and disable or remove all other templates), which simple means creating a PHP fime and a CSS file. The software even takes care of linking the CSS. It is also constructed in nice, straightforward PHP, allowing the designer / developer to include all sorts of other stuff in the pages just as plug-ins.
The thing comes in two flavours; a genuine flat file version and a SQLite version. I have plumped for the SQLite version. I fully understand that SQLite isn't as powerful as a genuine relational database such as MySQL, and it may be fractionally slower than a a site driven by a 'grown-up' database. However, we are talking about sites of less than 50 pages in general and the simplicity of the user interface is the real selling point.
It can be a nightmare to read a .db file if you don't know what you are looking for, so I have got myself a copy of SQlite Database Manager just in case the db for any of their sites gets corrupted and needs amending manually.
The one thing i am not sure of yet is the security of Light N Easy sites, but it bit more Googling should get that sorted.
I know customers will still make a hash of things sometimes, but far less than when they go into the XHTML and try to make amendments.
You never know, the clients may even decide to pay a little more; one can only hope.
The thing comes in two flavours; a genuine flat file version and a SQLite version. I have plumped for the SQLite version. I fully understand that SQLite isn't as powerful as a genuine relational database such as MySQL, and it may be fractionally slower than a a site driven by a 'grown-up' database. However, we are talking about sites of less than 50 pages in general and the simplicity of the user interface is the real selling point.
It can be a nightmare to read a .db file if you don't know what you are looking for, so I have got myself a copy of SQlite Database Manager just in case the db for any of their sites gets corrupted and needs amending manually.
The one thing i am not sure of yet is the security of Light N Easy sites, but it bit more Googling should get that sorted.
I know customers will still make a hash of things sometimes, but far less than when they go into the XHTML and try to make amendments.
You never know, the clients may even decide to pay a little more; one can only hope.
Sunday 8 March 2009
Books that changed my life
There are many lists produced by people of the ten best films, hundred best songs, twenty best books etc. and these lists can be very engaging and interesting. However, even the compilers of these lists would generally admit that on a different day they would compile a different list.
My list is a little different. It is a short list of books I have read that have changed my world view and helped to shape the person I am and my hopes for the world and its future. None of these books is my current ‘flavour of the month’; indeed I first read all of them at least ten years ago.
The first life-changing book I ever read was the authorised version of The Bible (not cover to cover but in an ordered fashion at Bible classes). What I took from The Bible was not the distorted message that is the watchword of many so called fundamentalists, but the humanity and sheer goodness that comes from the Sermon on the Mount, the concept of the glory of sacrifice, and the central tenet of The New Testament, to love thy neighbour, when all men are my neighbours. As a teenager the profound effect of The New Testament caused me to ‘get religion’ and I became a Methodist Lay Preacher for a short while. However, as time went on my scepticism grew as I observed so many pious and religious people who clearly defined their neighbours in a much more circumscribed manner. This led me to increasing secularism, but the concept of worldwide brotherly love never left me.
The second of these life-changing books I read was Robert Tressell’s The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. Robert Tressell was actually Robert Noonan, an Irish housepainter, who arrived in Hastings via South Africa, and wrote a thinly veiled story of the lives of himself, his workmates and their families in the fictional town of Mugsborough. The book revolves around the central character of Frank Owen, a housepainter who believes the capitalist system is the cause of all the poverty and degradation of himself and his workmates. The book is a brilliant analysis of the hypocrisy of religion and the contradictions of capitalism, written in a style that is easy to understand and exceptionally moving. It advocates a socialist society in which work is performed to satisfy the needs of all rather than to generate profit for a few. Although he completed the manuscript in 1910, the book wasn’t published until 1914, by which time Noonan had died. It is a truly remarkable book, written by a non-professional writer that remains in print to this day. It has been said by senior Labour politicians of the 1970s as diverse as Denis Healy and Tony Benn, that The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, available to servicemen in abridged form, was the book that won the 1945 General Election, and thus brought into being the greatest government that the United Kingdom has ever known.
It is difficult to put a measure on the influence and power of this book. In the end it shows not only hope but anticipation of the better days to come:
The gloomy shadows enshrouding the streets, concealing for the time their grey and mournful air of poverty and hidden suffering, and the black masses of cloud gathering so menacingly in the tempestuous sky, seemed typical of the Nemesis which was overtaking the Capitalist System. That atrocious system which, having attained to the fullest measure of detestable injustice and cruelty, was now fast crumbling into ruin, inevitably doomed to be overwhelmed because it was all so wicked and abominable, inevitably doomed to sink under the blight and curse of senseless and unprofitable selfishness out of existence for ever, its memory universally execrated and abhorred.
But from these ruins was surely growing the glorious fabric of the Co-operative Commonwealth. Mankind, awaking from the long night of bondage and mourning and arising from the dust wherein they had lain prone so long, were at last looking upward to the light that was riving asunder and dissolving the dark clouds which had so long concealed from them the face of heaven. The light that will shine upon the world wide Fatherland and illumine the gilded domes and glittering pinnacles of the beautiful cities of the future, where men shall dwell together in true brotherhood and goodwill and joy. The Golden Light that will be diffused throughout all the happy world from the rays of the risen sun of Socialism. (Tressell, R. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists)
Anyone who cannot be moved by such hope and a burning desire to awaken from our “long night of bondage”, must be a very odd person indeed.
At this point in my life, my early twenties I was active in Labour Politics and had a clear view that the Co-operative Commonwealth was the world I wanted to live in. I knew I was a socialist and that capitalism was an abominable evil, but I lacked any robust skills of analysing and fully understanding capitalism. In my mid thirties I was lucky enough to get a place at university and at this point two more books came into my life. These were Karl Marx’s The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and The German Ideology, also by Marx. These early Marxian works; one a collection of assorted notes, the other a philosophical treatise, made several things clear to me. Firstly, and most importantly, everything in our capitalist world is essentially upside down. Most importantly they make clear that God didn’t create Man; Man created God, and that capital is stored up labour and that any profit made by the capitalist beyond what is paid in wages is the theft of that stored up labour from the worker. Suddenly, things are beginning to become clear to me, and I am beginning to understand why there are different classes, and why I am destined to be forever poor: I am routinely being robbed and simultaneously being lied to.
University also opened my eyes to the fact that not only was I oppressed and exploited, but as a white European man I was also an exploiter. Yet more books changed my view of the world. The first of these was Robert Miles’ Racism, which laid bare the oppressive nature of Eurocentricism and the routine positing of the Black or the Jew as the other. This was particularly challenging to me as someone proud of his home town to realise that it was the first place of the first recorded instance of racial cleansing. I am from York and on the night of 16th March 1190, the feast of Shabbat ha-Gadol, the small Jewish community of 150 in York took refuge in Clifford’s Tower, to take refuge from the rampaging mob outside. Rather than face the mob, many took their own lives, others died in the flames they themselves had lit for warmth and light, and the rest eventually surrendered to the mob. All of those who surrendered were massacred. Miles takes issue with those who take sophistry too far in trying to determine how one should analyse racism, stating that it is tantamount to “fiddling whilst the gas ovens burn”.
This recognition that as a White European I was an oppressor was quickly followed by another book that showed me that as a man I was also an oppressor. Close to Home by Christine Delphy is an analysis of the patriarchal relations within the household, demonstrating that the household is an arena for the organisation of labour, in which the means of production are owned by the man and the labour of the woman is expropriated.
At this point I am in my mid-thirties and have begun to get a clear grasp of the trajectories of inequality in this world, but still have problems wondering why others can’t see it. At this point I encounter a number of books that one would best describe as social psychology. Many speak volumes in explaining why people are as they are. Erving Goffman (Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Asylums etc.) even explains why people appear different to different audiences. However the social psychological writings that impact on me most are the Collected Works of Sigmund Freud. I still believe that much of Freud’s theorising is based on paper-thin evidence and amounts to little, but he does make a very powerful argument for the internalisation of cultural norms. He shows us that our psyche is an internalisation of our world; thus middle-class families beget middle –class children both in terms of status and in terms of outlook. So I now know why so many apparently intelligent people cannot see what is so plain and obvious.
At this point I have more knowledge but I still have no idea how the Co-operative Commonwealth can be brought into being. Although Marx tells me it will, he does not say how. Everything then falls into disarray. I read Michel Foucault. In The History of Sexuality Volume 1 and in Discipline and Punish, Foucault not only shows the relationship between power and knowledge, but also theorises power in what seems for me a completely novel way. For Foucault, power is not a ‘given’, unchanging entity to be won or lost, but a constant ebb and flow of knowledge and social interactions. He also shows how power can be exercised in absentia through his brilliant analysis of panopticism. Reading Foucault is one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life. I suddenly really see the world as it is. This, however, would not have been the case without the books that had gone before. I now am more convinced than ever that the Co-operative Commonwealth will come to pass, that the world will become a greener and more loving place, but it won’t come through a great revolution as in the meta-narratives of Marxism, but through constant vigilance and innumerable small victories, as we, slowly but surely, change the world. At last I know. We can make a difference.
So there you have it; a short, and rather poorly written, essay on the books that have changed my life.
My list is a little different. It is a short list of books I have read that have changed my world view and helped to shape the person I am and my hopes for the world and its future. None of these books is my current ‘flavour of the month’; indeed I first read all of them at least ten years ago.
The first life-changing book I ever read was the authorised version of The Bible (not cover to cover but in an ordered fashion at Bible classes). What I took from The Bible was not the distorted message that is the watchword of many so called fundamentalists, but the humanity and sheer goodness that comes from the Sermon on the Mount, the concept of the glory of sacrifice, and the central tenet of The New Testament, to love thy neighbour, when all men are my neighbours. As a teenager the profound effect of The New Testament caused me to ‘get religion’ and I became a Methodist Lay Preacher for a short while. However, as time went on my scepticism grew as I observed so many pious and religious people who clearly defined their neighbours in a much more circumscribed manner. This led me to increasing secularism, but the concept of worldwide brotherly love never left me.
The second of these life-changing books I read was Robert Tressell’s The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. Robert Tressell was actually Robert Noonan, an Irish housepainter, who arrived in Hastings via South Africa, and wrote a thinly veiled story of the lives of himself, his workmates and their families in the fictional town of Mugsborough. The book revolves around the central character of Frank Owen, a housepainter who believes the capitalist system is the cause of all the poverty and degradation of himself and his workmates. The book is a brilliant analysis of the hypocrisy of religion and the contradictions of capitalism, written in a style that is easy to understand and exceptionally moving. It advocates a socialist society in which work is performed to satisfy the needs of all rather than to generate profit for a few. Although he completed the manuscript in 1910, the book wasn’t published until 1914, by which time Noonan had died. It is a truly remarkable book, written by a non-professional writer that remains in print to this day. It has been said by senior Labour politicians of the 1970s as diverse as Denis Healy and Tony Benn, that The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, available to servicemen in abridged form, was the book that won the 1945 General Election, and thus brought into being the greatest government that the United Kingdom has ever known.
It is difficult to put a measure on the influence and power of this book. In the end it shows not only hope but anticipation of the better days to come:
The gloomy shadows enshrouding the streets, concealing for the time their grey and mournful air of poverty and hidden suffering, and the black masses of cloud gathering so menacingly in the tempestuous sky, seemed typical of the Nemesis which was overtaking the Capitalist System. That atrocious system which, having attained to the fullest measure of detestable injustice and cruelty, was now fast crumbling into ruin, inevitably doomed to be overwhelmed because it was all so wicked and abominable, inevitably doomed to sink under the blight and curse of senseless and unprofitable selfishness out of existence for ever, its memory universally execrated and abhorred.
But from these ruins was surely growing the glorious fabric of the Co-operative Commonwealth. Mankind, awaking from the long night of bondage and mourning and arising from the dust wherein they had lain prone so long, were at last looking upward to the light that was riving asunder and dissolving the dark clouds which had so long concealed from them the face of heaven. The light that will shine upon the world wide Fatherland and illumine the gilded domes and glittering pinnacles of the beautiful cities of the future, where men shall dwell together in true brotherhood and goodwill and joy. The Golden Light that will be diffused throughout all the happy world from the rays of the risen sun of Socialism. (Tressell, R. The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists)
Anyone who cannot be moved by such hope and a burning desire to awaken from our “long night of bondage”, must be a very odd person indeed.
At this point in my life, my early twenties I was active in Labour Politics and had a clear view that the Co-operative Commonwealth was the world I wanted to live in. I knew I was a socialist and that capitalism was an abominable evil, but I lacked any robust skills of analysing and fully understanding capitalism. In my mid thirties I was lucky enough to get a place at university and at this point two more books came into my life. These were Karl Marx’s The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, and The German Ideology, also by Marx. These early Marxian works; one a collection of assorted notes, the other a philosophical treatise, made several things clear to me. Firstly, and most importantly, everything in our capitalist world is essentially upside down. Most importantly they make clear that God didn’t create Man; Man created God, and that capital is stored up labour and that any profit made by the capitalist beyond what is paid in wages is the theft of that stored up labour from the worker. Suddenly, things are beginning to become clear to me, and I am beginning to understand why there are different classes, and why I am destined to be forever poor: I am routinely being robbed and simultaneously being lied to.
University also opened my eyes to the fact that not only was I oppressed and exploited, but as a white European man I was also an exploiter. Yet more books changed my view of the world. The first of these was Robert Miles’ Racism, which laid bare the oppressive nature of Eurocentricism and the routine positing of the Black or the Jew as the other. This was particularly challenging to me as someone proud of his home town to realise that it was the first place of the first recorded instance of racial cleansing. I am from York and on the night of 16th March 1190, the feast of Shabbat ha-Gadol, the small Jewish community of 150 in York took refuge in Clifford’s Tower, to take refuge from the rampaging mob outside. Rather than face the mob, many took their own lives, others died in the flames they themselves had lit for warmth and light, and the rest eventually surrendered to the mob. All of those who surrendered were massacred. Miles takes issue with those who take sophistry too far in trying to determine how one should analyse racism, stating that it is tantamount to “fiddling whilst the gas ovens burn”.
This recognition that as a White European I was an oppressor was quickly followed by another book that showed me that as a man I was also an oppressor. Close to Home by Christine Delphy is an analysis of the patriarchal relations within the household, demonstrating that the household is an arena for the organisation of labour, in which the means of production are owned by the man and the labour of the woman is expropriated.
At this point I am in my mid-thirties and have begun to get a clear grasp of the trajectories of inequality in this world, but still have problems wondering why others can’t see it. At this point I encounter a number of books that one would best describe as social psychology. Many speak volumes in explaining why people are as they are. Erving Goffman (Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Asylums etc.) even explains why people appear different to different audiences. However the social psychological writings that impact on me most are the Collected Works of Sigmund Freud. I still believe that much of Freud’s theorising is based on paper-thin evidence and amounts to little, but he does make a very powerful argument for the internalisation of cultural norms. He shows us that our psyche is an internalisation of our world; thus middle-class families beget middle –class children both in terms of status and in terms of outlook. So I now know why so many apparently intelligent people cannot see what is so plain and obvious.
At this point I have more knowledge but I still have no idea how the Co-operative Commonwealth can be brought into being. Although Marx tells me it will, he does not say how. Everything then falls into disarray. I read Michel Foucault. In The History of Sexuality Volume 1 and in Discipline and Punish, Foucault not only shows the relationship between power and knowledge, but also theorises power in what seems for me a completely novel way. For Foucault, power is not a ‘given’, unchanging entity to be won or lost, but a constant ebb and flow of knowledge and social interactions. He also shows how power can be exercised in absentia through his brilliant analysis of panopticism. Reading Foucault is one of the most eye-opening experiences of my life. I suddenly really see the world as it is. This, however, would not have been the case without the books that had gone before. I now am more convinced than ever that the Co-operative Commonwealth will come to pass, that the world will become a greener and more loving place, but it won’t come through a great revolution as in the meta-narratives of Marxism, but through constant vigilance and innumerable small victories, as we, slowly but surely, change the world. At last I know. We can make a difference.
So there you have it; a short, and rather poorly written, essay on the books that have changed my life.
Saturday 21 February 2009
What is interactivity?
Everyone talks about interactivity on the web, reckoning it to be just about the most important thing about a website; but what exactly is it, how important is it, and how do I get it?
The World Wide Web by its very nature has always been interactive in that it involves computers ‘talking’ to each other, but interactivity must mean more than that. Outside the cyber world, social scientists have always talked about interaction and interactivity; it is the basis of sociology, anthropology, economics and many other disciplines. In the real world, interactivity is simply the process of people interacting with one another; human interaction. This meaning seems to be more and more becoming the meaning of interactivity on the internet. People use instant messaging services and chat rooms to interact in real time either in or across cyberspace, and are increasingly using web pages in similar ways.
The basic level of interactivity on a web page that differentiates websites from static media such as books and magazines is the email link. You click the link and, hey presto, your email client opens with the address already in and all you have to do is type your message, click your mouse and you have sent a message to the website owner. That, however, seems very basic. The next step from that, and possibly the most common form of interactivity on websites is the email form. You fill in all the fields and click send, and an email has been sent to the website owner without the need to open your email client. For most users this is little different to the previous method, but it is more inclusive. Anyone using a computer can send a message even if away from their own computer and thus their email program. I recognise that this is less of s step forward than it seems as many people use online email programs such as yahoo mail and hotmail. I suppose all of these things are interactive but only in terms of being given the capacity to send someone an electronic letter.
The concept of interactivity in the media began in the1980s with interactive books. By making choices at specific points the reader determined the course of the story, and this concept has been developed and is the basis of many modern console and PC games. The human being is no longer a passive recipient of the messages from the artefact but plays an active part in shaping those messages. The thinking behind this aspect of interactivity is the reason why modern computers for home and small business use are all built to an open architecture (i.e. the owner of the computer can install whatever programs she likes, and customise the computer as she sees fit). In terms of electronic goods this is unique. Try to imagine an open architecture DVD player or radio; it isn’t possible. Many of the things we refer to as interactivity are just that; the capacity to actively interact with the machine. Using the dark arts of advanced web technologies, webmasters create a space where we can run through simulations of specific activities with choices at different points (just as in video games), and this can provide a very rewarding and active user experience.
In other words there is the idea of human-machine interaction.
The other key element is human-human interaction through the computer by leveraging the power of the World Wide Web. This is evidenced by the development of Web 2.0; a world of machines constantly talking to each other on our behalf as we conduct debates and discussions the social networking sites.
I am still not sure what interactivity means, but it all seems very worthwhile, and I am sure it helps with my online shopping. I know it is studied academically, and I know that it is a buzzword in the world of web developers, but as a social scientist that designs websites, I can’t help thinking that interactivity is the capacity of some websites to allow people, in the very broadest sense, to do stuff, rather than just read and look at the pictures.
The World Wide Web by its very nature has always been interactive in that it involves computers ‘talking’ to each other, but interactivity must mean more than that. Outside the cyber world, social scientists have always talked about interaction and interactivity; it is the basis of sociology, anthropology, economics and many other disciplines. In the real world, interactivity is simply the process of people interacting with one another; human interaction. This meaning seems to be more and more becoming the meaning of interactivity on the internet. People use instant messaging services and chat rooms to interact in real time either in or across cyberspace, and are increasingly using web pages in similar ways.
The basic level of interactivity on a web page that differentiates websites from static media such as books and magazines is the email link. You click the link and, hey presto, your email client opens with the address already in and all you have to do is type your message, click your mouse and you have sent a message to the website owner. That, however, seems very basic. The next step from that, and possibly the most common form of interactivity on websites is the email form. You fill in all the fields and click send, and an email has been sent to the website owner without the need to open your email client. For most users this is little different to the previous method, but it is more inclusive. Anyone using a computer can send a message even if away from their own computer and thus their email program. I recognise that this is less of s step forward than it seems as many people use online email programs such as yahoo mail and hotmail. I suppose all of these things are interactive but only in terms of being given the capacity to send someone an electronic letter.
The concept of interactivity in the media began in the1980s with interactive books. By making choices at specific points the reader determined the course of the story, and this concept has been developed and is the basis of many modern console and PC games. The human being is no longer a passive recipient of the messages from the artefact but plays an active part in shaping those messages. The thinking behind this aspect of interactivity is the reason why modern computers for home and small business use are all built to an open architecture (i.e. the owner of the computer can install whatever programs she likes, and customise the computer as she sees fit). In terms of electronic goods this is unique. Try to imagine an open architecture DVD player or radio; it isn’t possible. Many of the things we refer to as interactivity are just that; the capacity to actively interact with the machine. Using the dark arts of advanced web technologies, webmasters create a space where we can run through simulations of specific activities with choices at different points (just as in video games), and this can provide a very rewarding and active user experience.
In other words there is the idea of human-machine interaction.
The other key element is human-human interaction through the computer by leveraging the power of the World Wide Web. This is evidenced by the development of Web 2.0; a world of machines constantly talking to each other on our behalf as we conduct debates and discussions the social networking sites.
I am still not sure what interactivity means, but it all seems very worthwhile, and I am sure it helps with my online shopping. I know it is studied academically, and I know that it is a buzzword in the world of web developers, but as a social scientist that designs websites, I can’t help thinking that interactivity is the capacity of some websites to allow people, in the very broadest sense, to do stuff, rather than just read and look at the pictures.
Web 2.0: an idea not a look
As a web designer I have often been asked to produce something Web 2.0. It is at this point that I start to get depressed. Web 2.0 seems to have become a mantra for modernity on the web for those who have little understanding of the inexact arts of web development. Do I at this point begin to discuss SOAP, HTTP requests and the finer points of web services? Not if I want the contract I don’t. It is at this point that I have to fish for what the client actually means. Nine times out of ten he or she (usually he – female clients tend to be much more to the point) then tells me about such and such a website with rounded corners and that special sort of blue colour, and can he have one that looks a bit like that.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. Hot air in copious quantities has been said and written about Web 2.0, and most of it is at best confusing. As one delves into the bowels of the internet to try and grasp the elusive meaning of Web 2.0, it all becomes terribly confusing. Some suggest that a concept it has no meaning at all, as it employs exactly the same technology as Web 1.0. However, the general consensus would seem to be that Web 2.0 refers to the rapid growth of web services and the explosion of many-to-many publishing sites.
It would appear that there are two distinct elements to Web 2.0. Firstly, we witnessed the widespread development of interactive technologies such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and web services, fuelled by enhanced hardware both in terms of higher spec computers for the end user and the rapid development of broadband. This in turn led to an increasing propensity for computers to ‘talk’ to each other in ever more sophisticated ways. For business this has meant an increasing capacity to share data with relative ease and for individuals the exponential growth of online social networking. The reality of Web 2.0 is probably that it is an idea rather than a tangible set of technologies we can point to. It is the idea of a more interactive internet. If Web 1.0 can be seen as analogous to a magazine or a brochure, then Web 2.0 is better seen as a conversation or a workplace.
Somehow, in all this, some people appear to think that Web 2.0 has a specific ‘look’, and that perception seems to revolve around the idea of rounded corners, even though sites such as MySpace and Facebook tend to have a decidedly rectangular look. The growth of rounded corners is less to do with Web 2.0, and much more to do with the transition from table-based websites to CSS styling, allowing web designers greater overall freedom including the capacity to provide small background images for elements of their sites; creating rounded corners. And then of course there is Web 3.0.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. Hot air in copious quantities has been said and written about Web 2.0, and most of it is at best confusing. As one delves into the bowels of the internet to try and grasp the elusive meaning of Web 2.0, it all becomes terribly confusing. Some suggest that a concept it has no meaning at all, as it employs exactly the same technology as Web 1.0. However, the general consensus would seem to be that Web 2.0 refers to the rapid growth of web services and the explosion of many-to-many publishing sites.
It would appear that there are two distinct elements to Web 2.0. Firstly, we witnessed the widespread development of interactive technologies such as blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and web services, fuelled by enhanced hardware both in terms of higher spec computers for the end user and the rapid development of broadband. This in turn led to an increasing propensity for computers to ‘talk’ to each other in ever more sophisticated ways. For business this has meant an increasing capacity to share data with relative ease and for individuals the exponential growth of online social networking. The reality of Web 2.0 is probably that it is an idea rather than a tangible set of technologies we can point to. It is the idea of a more interactive internet. If Web 1.0 can be seen as analogous to a magazine or a brochure, then Web 2.0 is better seen as a conversation or a workplace.
Somehow, in all this, some people appear to think that Web 2.0 has a specific ‘look’, and that perception seems to revolve around the idea of rounded corners, even though sites such as MySpace and Facebook tend to have a decidedly rectangular look. The growth of rounded corners is less to do with Web 2.0, and much more to do with the transition from table-based websites to CSS styling, allowing web designers greater overall freedom including the capacity to provide small background images for elements of their sites; creating rounded corners. And then of course there is Web 3.0.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
