text:
In 1988, Oscars' Master of Ceremonies, Chevy Chase took it upon himself to deviate from the scripted monologue to poke a bit of caustic fun at movie critics, suggesting all we ever do is spend two minutes dismantling two years of creative blood, sweat and tears put forth by hundreds of artisans; topping off his assessment with "…but never mind about the critics. Where would they be without us…we certainly know where we'd be without them!" Even so, it is times like these I feel a slight twinge more inclined to agree with Chase's summation of our profession; as I am about to tear into director, Bill Condon's Beauty and the Beast, a 2017 remake of the much beloved Disney animated and Oscar-nominated Best Picture from 1991. Condon's movie is a more elaborate, yet oddly, not more accomplished one; a queasy amalgam of scenes excised almost verbatim, although inserted herein with far less finesse or even 'animated' integrity in performances given throughout; also, gleaning moments from the Broadway redux, and finally, lumbering about with more than a hint of creative license from screenwriters, Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos. There is a bizarre disconnect working against the lithe and lyrical magic so effortlessly on display in the 1991 version; Tobias A. Schliessler's gorgeous cinematography, finessing Sarah Greenwood's as sumptuous production design, and deliberately glossy CGI, repeatedly sabotaged by Condon's desire to dip the whole artistic mélange in a sort of faux gilding of political correctness.
God forbid we should have a story set in 1740 rural France and not cast a handful of non-Caucasians in non-essential token parts scattered throughout its backdrop, merely to be fair to Hollywood's faux sanctimoniousness these days regarding 'diversity', if cruelly out of step with history itself and every previous movie incarnation made from the Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve's classic fairy tale, including the 1991 version! Sorry folks, but if blacks were not allowed in the court of Louis XV via France's Code Noir then I really do not see the point of pretending otherwise in a movie supposedly set in the same era. This is not my biggest pet peeve with this Beauty and the Beast: merely, one of many. And I should point out I feel the same way about listening to rap music inserted into Baz Luhrmann's bastardized version of The Great Gatsby (2013) or suffering through an endless hit parade of pop music infecting virtually every frame of Sophia Coppola's badly bungled reincarnation of Marie Antoinette (2007). Film makers: stay true to period – please! You do neither 'diversity' nor history any favors by rewriting it to suit this prevailing strain of diseased liberalism that has simultaneously professed tolerance even as it ruthlessly stamps out any opinion deviating from it, while sucking virtually all of the joy out of movies in general and going to the movies in particular. Our movie culture has increasingly become vacuous and antiseptic; something I cannot abide: a lot for the eyes, but precious little for either the heart or mind. And lest we observe that to illustrate intolerance – via tolerance for tolerance sake – is decidedly quite different from this all-pervading left wing determinist strain since indoctrinated the audience purely for politicized purposes that have little, if any genuine place in good solid storytelling.
But back to Condon and this version of Beauty and the Beast. Despite Herr Director's claim to have re-envisioned the movie for 'contemporary' tastes, what he has actually done is to cobble together a rather awkward rendition from multiple aforementioned source materials, while veering almost tragically beyond the ingeniously structured scope of the author's original work. Okay, we get it. Condon's not particularly interested in Barbot de Villeneuve or 1740's rural France. But he is also troubled by his adherence to the Disney animated legacy from whence his interpretation draws most of its strength and a good many of its shortcomings. Animation forgives a lot of structurally unsound narrative decisions, particularly when the cast includes such heavy hitters as Angela Lansbury, the late Jerry Orbach and David Ogden Stiers; a winsome and iconic vocal rendition of an as fetching female protagonist, voiced by newcomer, Paige O'Hara; a killer Howard Ashman/Alan Menken score, and…oh yes, that little sprinkle of pixie dust for which Disney in its prime under Walt's tutelage and during their mid-eighties artistic renaissance (carrying over for nearly a decade thereafter) are best known and renown. This Beauty and the Beast packs on the A-list names: Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen and Emma Thompson, seconded to infuse 'life' into the beloved characters of Lumiere, Cogsworth and Mrs. Potts respectively. Yet, it paints each of these characterizations – concealed behind ornately achieved special effects – in a rather insincere light as garish and cartoony recreations of the former rather than as stand-alone flesh and blood derivatives that possess and can offer us something refreshing.
This Beauty and the Beast cannot stand on its own. It is a movie instead commenting on another made better before it; the 'tale as old as time' now much too old because the memory of its predecessor remains far-reaching and resilient against any trampling from this lackluster reboot. Chiefly disconcerting about this remake is Dan Stevens' 'Beast' – forced to wear a rubberized grey suit and walk on elevated platform shoes to give his performance girth in the CGI domain. Alas, Stevens' tortured soul is less 'towering'; his one standout, the ballad, 'Evermore' effectively sung, but grotesquely marred by Condon's inability to allow Stevens to simply stand still and remain in frame; Condon's camera instead swirling around his largely CGI-concocted labyrinth of crumbling buttresses, gloomy towers and spiraling stairwells. There are, in fact, some affecting new songs to augment the original score; 'Days in the Sun' and 'How Does a Moment Last Forever' full of precisely the heart-tearing pathos of life's never to be dulled mad inhuman noise. Tragically, it remains the handling of the more time-honored score that sinks the picture; Emma Thompson's warbling of the title tune in no way coming close to rival the poignancy of Angela Lansbury's iconic and sigh-inducing ballroom pas deux from the 1991 movie. As if he realizes he hasn't a leg to stand on here, Condon repeatedly inserts pregnant pauses throughout the iconoclastic Menken/Ashman pantheon of songs, adding a fumbled dance routine to Josh Gad and Luke Evan's self-effacing and defeatist rendition of 'Gaston', and plunging 'Be Our Guest' into exactly the sort of gauche, Baz Luhrmann-esque spectacle from which even Busby Berkeley's razzamatazz would have shied away with blushed incredulity.
Plot wise, we are exactly where we were in 1991; the narrative moving from stained glass windows to brief vignettes showing a rather effete Prince (Dan Stevens) indulging in a hedonist gala, interrupted by Hattie Morahan's Agathe (a.k.a. – the enchantress). In the incarnation of an old hag, she offers him a red rose he callously refuses. Her punishment is a curse upon the castle and all who dwell there - seems a little extreme for the servant class never harboring any ill will toward her. Nevertheless, a curse is a curse. The years pass. The castle falls into disrepair. Each time a rose petal is shed from her magic flower in the Prince's possession – a painful reminder of his callousness – the servile occupants who cater to this hideously disfigured monarch, all of whom are presently transformed into various inanimate objects, develop just a bit more rigor mortis in their joints. Without a girl to break the spell they will soon cease to exist. A ray of hope derives from the nearby village: Belle (Emma Watson) – the headstrong 'odd' if comely lass, absolutely refusing to marry the most eligible bachelor in town: Gaston (Luke Evans). Despite her clear rejection of his advances, Gaston is determined to wed Belle.
But Belle is utterly devoted to her father, Maurice (Kevin Kline) – an inventor of elaborate clocks that depict secrets of his former life with Belle's mother (Zoe Rainey). As before, Maurice ventures off to a nearby market to peddle his wares (in the 1991 version, it was an inventor's convention and a wood-chopping device). And although Kline plays Maurice with far more dignity and infinitely less befuddlement than his portly animated incarnation, his 'inventor with a heart' still manages to get hopelessly lost in a nightmarish forest landscape instantly turned to chalk under an almost greyish volcanic ash meant to resemble snow – in June, no less. This becomes a woefully silly running gag in the movie. It is curious none of the other townsfolk recall they are living in a valley just beyond where the ancient palace endures. But we are told the enchantress wiped out all memory of its existence. So the town is under a spell too. Presumably, none have ever dared to venture beyond the town in search of their own happiness. Simple things for simple minds, I suppose. Maurice eventually finds his way to the Beast's castle and after stumbling upon several of its enchanted objects tries his best to escape. Delayed in his promise to Belle – to fetch a single rose – Maurice's 'theft' is witnessed by the Beast who imprisons him in the castle tower. Moving on: Gaston's right-hand, LeFou (Josh Gad) endeavors to make a diverting party for this nihilistic brute he hopelessly – and rather haplessly admires; drunken revelry interrupted when Maurice – newly freed, bursts in, claiming Belle has traded herself in kind for his release from the Beast's lair.
Gaston placates Maurice with a search party for Belle's safe return. But he quickly loses his temper with the doddering old man, whom he now senselessly pummels despite LeFou's call for restrain. Instead, Gaston elects to bind Maurice with rope to the stump of a nearby tree and leaving him for dead at the mercy of the wolves; a brutal end narrowly averted when Agathe rescues Maurice at the crack of dawn. Maurice returns to the village to accuse Gaston of attempted murder. While the town is momentarily on his side, they quickly revert to following the more imposing bully, despite Agathe's corroboration of Maurice's account of events. Back at the castle, the rough start to an affair du coeur between Beast and Belle has segued into a devotion of sorts, not yet true love on her part, but fueled by Belle's ability to see the lighter side of this creature who holds her hostage; a genuine sense of Stockholm Syndrome creeping into her appreciation. Recognizing her love of books, the Beast bequeaths Belle his formidable library. Asked by Belle if he has read all of the volumes stored within its walls, he sheepishly admits to have 'missed a few' and she, later reads Shakespearean sonnets to him across a snowy footbridge while he wistfully gazes onto the domain he openly confesses to 'seeing for the very first time'. Ah me…what one good woman can do.
Reality – of a sort – intrudes on this idyllic escape into improbable love. Having justly accused Gaston of attempted murder, Maurice is imprisoned in a paddy wagon for his 'delusions'; the town preparing to screw their courage to the sticking post and storm the Beast's fortress. Meanwhile, back at the castle, the Beast reveals a magic atlas to Belle that will allow her to travel to anywhere and seemingly any time in history. Shielded from the truth regarding her own mother, Belle now places her hands and the Beast's paws on the atlas, propelling them both to a desolate windmill in Paris where she witnesses her mother, riddled with the plague, begging Maurice to steal away with their young daughter while she quietly expires in the squalor of their confined bedroom. Returning in time and place to the castle, the Beast allows Belle to see what has become of her father through yet another clairvoyant device – the magic mirror. This reveals Maurice's present fate. The Beast releases Belle and she races with all speed to the town square, begging the peasant class for clemency. Since Gaston does not really love Belle he has absolutely zero compunction about tossing her into the back of the paddy wagon while he and the rest of the town march into the woods to kill the Beast and tear down his ramparts. The candelabra Lumiere (Ewan McGregor), tea pot, Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson), operatic wardrobe, Madame Garderobe (Audra McDonald), piano forte, Maestro Cadenza (Stanley Tucci), feather duster, Plumette (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and tea cup, Chip (Nathan Mack), along with the rest of the household staff, gird their resolve and launch a counteroffensive.
In the 1991 version, the unnamed wardrobe took into it one of the offending male commoners, releasing him from its bureau of drawers moments later wearing a conga dress, high heels and heavy rope of oversized beads. In this version, Garderobe spews endless miles of multicolored cloth from bolts of fabric concealed within, embroidering three butch peasants with their pitchforks drawn in a decadent display of hooped skirts, bustieres and powdered wigs, of which one of these fellows actually seems to have enjoyed his transgender reformation. Political correctness, again. Gaston confronts the Beast on his balcony. In the '91 version Gaston mortally stabs the Beast. Herein, he simply uses his twelve gauge shotgun to do his bloody business, repeatedly blasting into the hulking hairy mass. Progressive for the 1991 version, the wound inflicted by Gaston causes the Beast to loosen his grip, thus dropping the evildoer to his fatal plummet. Herein, Condon again delays our satisfaction for the 'just kill'; Gaston, allowed to indiscriminately riddle the Beast in bullet holes. As the last petal tumbles from the enchanted rose inside its crystal terrarium the castle's fragile precipices rupture, causing Gaston to do his fatal face-plant of his own accord. The Beast expires in Belle's arms and the animated objects experience a last hardening of their arteries – truly remade into inanimate objects. Ah, but now the near mute Agathe, who came to the castle with the town's folk, reveals herself to be the enchantress. Having witnessed the Beast's love for Belle reciprocated in her plea for him to remain at her side, the enchantress releases him from her spell. The castle is restored to its former glory and the house staff is resurrected in human form. All rejoice at their good fortune. The town folk are lifted from their collective amnesia and return to the castle in peace to aid in this celebration.
Generationally, Beauty and the Beast has been one of the most resilient and perennially revived fairy tales of all time. So it has taken Condon and company considerable effort to derail its lissome mystery, judicious precepts (learning to love without prejudice) and haunting parallels with life's infinite wisdom (never judge a book by its cover, lest ye be stuck with a mate outwardly as perfect as a paragon but harboring the heart of a gross pig) into this sort of lifeless Broadway-esque explosion of sound and fury…signifying nothing. The Beast's castle is not moodily magnificent with repositories of clandestine fascination lurking about every corner so much as it mimics some cruel and desolate Chernobyl-esque archive of self-angst and pity plunged into its own nuclear winter of discontent; the adjacent town, an unrealistically pristine 'Walt Disney threw up in here' Color Forms-styled enclave of simpletons denied any purpose beyond blindly following the first unoriginal thought to infest this poor provincial town.
I suppose production designer, Sarah Greenwood and senior art directors, James Foster and Nick Gottschalk have gleaned their aesthetic inspiration from a fanciful combination of Parisian Gothic and more contemporary deviant fantasy creature art work. We must tip our hats to this unusual design, as it remains the singularly 'all encompassing' part of the movie that never ceases to amaze. Too bad merely looking at pretty – even pretty odd – things does not – and cannot – act as a substitute for all of the other shortcomings woefully on display. One of the most endearing aspects of the 1991 animated feature was that the castle's seemingly inanimate objects were all gleaned from the ensconced Disney philosophy to be instantly lovable and attractive at a glance; particularly Jerry Orbach's wily candelabra, Lumiere: Orbach, cribbing inspired notions of the former grand boulevardier from a superb lampoon of the late and great Maurice Chevalier. Regrettably, from top to bottom, the characters repopulating this reincarnated version of Beauty and the Beast are more wooden than plywood and infinitely less charismatic, or even as convincing as their hand-drawn counterparts. Is it any wonder Emma Watson's first reaction to Ewan McGregor's weirdly insect-like Lumiere should be an attempt to crush it beneath a rather large paving stone?
Dan Stevens is an ineffectual and frankly, unprepossessing and scrawny Prince Charming; the Beast, his antithesis, transformed through clever CGI into a cross between a horned goat and lion-esque organism with little resemblance either to 'beasts' of yore or anything we might suppose has not escaped the bowels of hell. Mercifully, Emma Watson's Belle is a woman reincarnated with Paige O'Hara's spunk and foresight, the very embodiment of the 'new' Disney heroine who does not need, but desires a mate on her own – for her own. That makes this Belle and her predecessor in the '91 version, 'a very funny girl' as far as these countrified gentry are concerned. Emma Thompson's Mrs. Potts lacks Angela Lansbury's grand-maternal warmth. Only Ian McKellan's Cogsworth manages to recapture the stodgy good humor of David Ogden Stiers. In the original movie, the castle staff is transformed into inanimate objects befitting their appointments as humans in the castle. Hence, Cogsworth is the Prince's 'timely' advisor; Lumiere, the servant who lights the halls, and Mrs. Potts, the head mistress of the kitchen. This iconography makes perfect sense when extended to Stanley Tucci's Maestro (a newly created character for this version), reincarnated from the Prince's pianist into a piano forte. But it remains a bizarre mystery how and why the operatic Audra McDonald, as the Maestro's accomplice, should suddenly find herself remade as the portly 'clothes horse' bureau in Belle's bed chamber. Luke Evans is a credible Gaston, exuding equal portions of ego and menace, while Josh Gad's LeFou is impressively dimensional, even empathetic, especially for a character that, in the 1991 version, began life as mere comedic fop: the dumpy and frequent punching bag of his well-muscled cohort.
Beauty and the Beast ought to have been a tale as old as time. And yet, Condon and his cameraman, Tobias A. Schliessler have endeavored to add some decidedly 'of the moment' staging likely to date their adaptation in decades yet to follow; the frenetic, chop-shop way the action sequences are Ginsu-ed, the artificially created 'hand-held' look in complete juxtaposition to the high-styled formality of the period; the vignette-orchestrated fades to black that tediously occur whenever Condon cannot figure out more finessed connective tissue to string two scenes of emotional disparity together. In all, these willful decisions to transform a classic adventure/romance with a moral center into a careening roller coaster ride with glamorous, if anesthetizing special effects renders the storytelling a rather moot point. We know how this one ends. Hence, the focus herein ought to have been on getting to know these characters more intimately beyond a sound bite or the anticipated 'song'.
Like its predecessor, this Beauty and the Beast is a pop-operatic explosion of tunes gleaned from the grandest heritage of the Hollywood musical. Alas, it neither aspires to be more or better than its 1991 antecedent; but a retread and more of the same. There is a fine line of distinction between homage and copycatting and this movie crosses it on more than one occasion, regrettably to its own detriment. What is missing this time around is the joie de vivre and certain je ne sais quoi that only the animated retelling of Barbot de Villeneuve's timeless classic can completely satisfy. While no one can deny Condon's achievement (a co-production between Disney Inc. and Mandeville Films, shot almost entirely at Shepperton Studios in England employing an ingenious blend of full scale sets and green screen matte work) as technically robust and visually encompassing spectacle with scores of heavily pancaked and preening extras swirling about in lavish set pieces, the ambitiousness is all for not since we are deprived the story's tender core of a love, depressingly absent, constantly relegated to the back cupboard in favor of more grandiloquent production values. Pretty to look at, though deadly dull, this Beauty and the Beast cannot hold a candle to the 1991 version. I suspect, Orbach's Lumiere would wholeheartedly agree.
Beauty and the Beast looks predictably solid in 1080p, digitally pristine and with a consistently sharp image bathed in eye-popping brilliant colors. Contrast is bang-on accurate. It's nice to see a movie of more recent times where the overall spectrum of color design has not been tinted down to reflect that post-post modern exaggerated blue/teal tint for night scenes (there is, after all, a myriad of other ways to photograph them). Indeed, the hallmark of this visual presentation is an explosion of color; brilliant blue skies, lush emerald green summer foliage, and a plethora of intricately woven fabrics and hair styles that positively glisten in the dawn or full noonday sunshine, equally to impress when it twinkles under the pallor of romance-inducing moonlight. Blacks are very deep and absorbing and flesh tones, thoroughly accurate, with fine detail always brought to the forefront. No complaints here, nor with the 7.1 DTS audio, offering up clarity and spaciousness with a smoothly enveloping posture. Extras are confined to typical junkets we have come to expect from Disney: a music video, making-of featurette and some very brief snippets excised from the final cut (aside: I think these should have been more accurately labeled as 'outtakes' and/or 'trims' rather than 'scenes' as they barely play at a minute a piece and, in most cases, for far less). Bottom line: this Blu-ray disc presentation of Beauty and the Beast is flawless and satisfying. Were that the movie could boast as much!
FILM RATING (out of 5 – 5 being the best)


text:
Divrei Torah of lasting value that require some thought. Established Ellul 5766/September 2006
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
A Lesson for the Three Weeks– From Our Great Teachers, Ben Gurion and Achav
I asked Reb Moshe this question, and he said that it could be that tefilloh is incremental, and with the addition of our tefillos, we will reach the level needed to be zocheh to bi'as Moshiach.
I later thought about another answer to this question. Think about Medinas Yisroel. For thousands of years, the idea that we would create an independent state in the land of our forefathers was a fool's fantasy. We hoped, at best, to survive and live a decent life where we were, and if anyone would say that we would create our own state, with its own army, they would be seen as a delusional dreamer. But along came the Zionists, and whether we like to admit it or not, the majority of the really effective Zionists were kofrim be'ikor, sone'ei Torah, rotzchim, communists and socialists, and they made a stand, they had the chutzpa and courage to say that they will live and die for this dream, and they did it. They made what had been undreamt of for millenia into a reality. They acccomplished something unparalleled by any other ethnic group since the world was created, and they did it with a beaten, hopeless, bedraggled people for whom simple survival was taxing enough.
So why can't we learn from them? Why can't we do in ruchnius what they did in gashmius? If they were motivated by nationalism, by ethnic pride, by dreams of a socialist utopia for Jews, why can't we be equally motivated by our dream of Bi'as Hamoshiach? They brought us the Guf, why can't we bring the Neshomo? If we would lay our lives on the line, live our lives with laser-like focus on the one overarching purpose of bringing hashro'as hashechina back to Klal Yisroel, who says we couldn't do it? The gzeiras golus that prevented us from coming back to the land is no stronger than the gzeiras golus of ruchnius. If they could do it with kefira and retzicha and achzorius, we can do at least as well with ruchnius, and ahavoh, and emunoh and bitochon.
And don't think that there is a difference between conquering a land and bringing Moshiach. Just as the land is sitting there for the taking, if one is innovative and courageous and willing to sacrifice and unwilling to accept "the way things are," so, too Moshiach is here, waiting for us to deserve his disclosure. There is an individual in every generation that is worthy to be the moshiach and is ready to take that role if the generation merits. ( Chasam Sofer, in the Likutim printed in the Choshen Mishpot volume, DH Hareini Nozir, #98. See also S'dei Chemed, Pe'as HaSedeh, Ma'ereches Alef, principle 70.)
And Achav has a lesson for us as well. Reb Meir Simcha, in his pirush on Parshas Beshalach, tells us that the generation of Achav was blessed with peace and tranquility because, although they were idolators who violently suppressed the Torah, they never said lashon hara and they were open handed and open hearted to the downtrodden and the poor.
I have been told that there is something for everyone in the above words-- that it is guaranteed to offend everyone, from Meretz to Neturei Karta, from the Gush to Villyamsburg. But that's why essayists, from Thomas Paine to today, found it prudent to publish anonymously. You can dislike the manner of expression, but at least think about the underlying idea.
7 comments:
- nachumjJuly 11, 2007 at 4:39 AM
"the majority of the really effective Zionists were kofrim be'ikor, sone'ei Torah, rotzchim, communists and socialists"ReplyDelete
what exactly do you mean?
Bad writing on my part. What I meant was that these traits were very well represented in the Zionist leadership; I don't mean the Chovevei Tzion and the other religious groups, but rather the ones who truly were effective in realizing the dream of recapturing the land.ReplyDelete
As for the 'rotzchim':
Also, note that it was only the "rotzchim" part that elicited shock.ReplyDelete
See also
- AnonymousJuly 11, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Achav was certainly a kofer a rotzeiach and one of the most successful military leaders of malchus Yisroel.ReplyDelete
Apparantly Hashem chooses his agents and we can only stand and wonder
Strange, indeed, about Achav. Rav Meir Simcha, in his Meshech Chochmah on Parshas Beshalach, says that in Achav's time, the people were united and kind to each other, and this made them invulnerable to external threats, all this despite their Avodah Zarah and hatred for the Torah.ReplyDelete
The idea that we (religious jews) are the ruach that can elevate the guf created by the secularists is found in Rav Kook - nothing offensive about that. But I think you miss something, and I apologize for being a bit mystical - however the State was established, nothing can happen in this world which does not reflect a change in the olamos ha'elyonim. There would not be a possibility of a State unless somehow we had in ruchniyus earned the right to once again use the Land as a kli in avodas Hashem. And how much ruchniyus over 2000 years it must have taken to be zocheh to Yerushalayim again. You are looking at secularists as the root cause and asking where the ruchniyus is when it is right there behind the scenes making it all possible.ReplyDelete
Coincidentally, this morning, during shachris, I saw a letter from the Gerrer Rebbe printed in the Likutei Yehuda, in which he discusses Rav Kook. He says that he is a kodosh vo'tohor, maybe even a sonei betza (!), but his love for Eretz Yisroel blinds him to the faults of the secular Zionists.ReplyDelete
To your point: Maybe you're right, Chaim. But I feel that the truth is closer to the Achav model, as was brought up in earlier comments. Ovdei Avodah Zarah and Son'ei Das they can be, but if they are united and are working for what they see as the benefit of Klal Yisroel, they can turn the heavens upside down. To say that our ruchnius was the spark that gave power to their energy and will may be theologically correct, but it sure looks like wishful rationalization. They did it, our contribution was too little and too late, and basically we just came along for the ride, to reap the benefits and complain that it isn't the way we want it to be.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On the 15th October, as well as electing Senators and Deputies (and Constable if you're lucky enough to live in St Mary) we are apparently having a referendum!
I voted against holding this referendum and have played no part whatsoever in the 'No' campaign as I've been far too busy with helping to co-ordinate Reform Jersey's election campaign.
Some of us have to go through elections whilst others have been returned unopposed so they can dedicate their time to preserving this privilege for themselves.
So I wanted to take a look at the propaganda that has been issued by the 'Yes' campaign and try to dissect it.
I had always anticipated that the 'Yes' campaign would be entirely based on misinformation, scaremongering and, to put it bluntly, lies. Having read their leaflet they have been distributing at Senatorial hustings, it seems I wasn't wrong!
So here we go. I'll do it paragraph by paragraph -
The loss of the Constables will weaken opposition to the current proposals for a centralised property tax. This proposal will cost islanders more than the current rates system, and be set by the Treasury Minister, not Parishioners.
There is no evidence whatsoever to say that the opposition to the proposed property tax will be weakened if the Constables aren't in the States. This is just pure scaremongering - "Vote Yes, or your taxes will rise".
I am not a Constable and I oppose the property tax.
I am not a Constable and I oppose the property tax.
What will strengthen the opposition to the property tax is for the public to elect candidates who pledge to oppose it.
Fixing an electoral system based on what tax policies you want to see engineered out of the democratic process is just gerrymandering, pure and simple.
Parish rates have remained steady for 10 years. Without an effective Parish Administration the size of bureaucracy will increase, stifling business in Jersey, and increasing the burden on the individual ratepayer.
Completely agree. We all want an effective Parish administration. But only those who support the Constables being in the States seem to think it is logical that an effective Parish system necessitates having their head being locked up in the States Assembly for several days every fornight dealing with matters that are mostly nothing to do with the Parish.
If you want an effective Parish administration, surely it is logical to want the Parish head to exercise exclusive duties in their Parish and not be tied up with a second job?
If the Constables are removed from the States they will either have to be paid by their Parishes, or not at all. This creates imbalance and without pay, the only people who will stand will be those with time and money to afford it. It also risks destabilising the whole honorary system, should one office holder receive remuneration and the others not.
The first point here is complete rubbish. They have no basis at all for assuming that the States wouldn't volunteer to contribute remuneration to the heads of the Parishes if it is deemed important enough.
But the last part is just pure hypocrisy. How can they possibly claim that it will destabilise the honorary system by giving remuneration to one office holder and not the rest when that is what happens right now! You couldn't make it up.
It's also entirely illogical to say that it will only attract people with money to the job, when the same could now equally apply to the Procureurs, Chef de Police and Roads Committee members.
Ask yourself how effective is the administration of your Parish compared with the States of Jersey, and would you want to remove this efficiency from your Government?
This sentence doesn't even make sense.
Through their political role, the Constables can interact with parishioners and work as part of a support network. The loss of the Constables in the States will undoubtedly lead to a dramatic weakening of the Parish System – as has been the case in Guernsey for many years.
The Constables interaction with parishioners normally takes place in the Parish Halls and at Parish events and is therefore in their Parish role that that interaction takes place, not their States role.
As for Guernsey, they never had a Parish system like we do. Their honorary police system was abolished almost a hundred years ago despite having Parish representation in their States.
To say the removal of the Constables from the States will "undoubtedly" lead to the Parish system being weakened is entirely disingenuous. Of course there is doubt that that would be the case. There is even an argument to say it could improve the Parish system by allowing the Constables to focus on their Parishes.
Constables have been identified as the future for 'e-government' interaction as well as care and the community. This cannot happen if they are not in the States Assembly.
The idea that the Constables are beacons for e-government is just laughable when you consider that almost all of the Parishes don't even have their own websites.
The presence of the Constables in the States so they can vote on things like GST etc is entirely irrelevant for them carrying out their part of the implementation of e-government across Jersey administration.
Through the Parish Assembly, and being available at the Parish Hall, the Constable is uniquely placed in being able to understand the concerns of their parishioners. These concerns are taken into the States Assembly directly, through the political role of the Constable. This cannot be replaced.
Parishes are all filled with thousands of people who are all individuals with their own views and experiences. It is ludicrous to suggest that one individual can compound all of their views and represent them. Every vote a Constable casts will please some Parishioners and disappoint others. Let's not pretend that anything else is the case.
The Constables are continually accountable to the parishioners through the Parish Assembly as well as the ballot box. No other type of States Member is. Parishioners, by the ancient law of Requête can force a Parish Assembly to be called.
When 11 out of 12 Constables have just been elected unopposed, it is quite ridiculous to claim that they are accountable at the ballot box.
Constables may well be technically accountable at Parish Assemblies, but the turn out at them is normally pretty abysmal and unrepresentative of the Parish. The apathy we see in island-wide politics is definitely replicated in Parish politics too.
Requêtes do still exist (and I personally think they're a potentially really nifty tool) but how often do they happen? Virtually never. I only know of a couple of occasions recently where they have been initiated by Parishioners and the Constable has then gone on to completely ignore the verdict of the requête!
Most Deputies do not represent the Parishes in the States. They are elected in their own districts, on the basis of their political views. Each Parish, as a corporate body, is represented in the States by its Constable similar to the way each Department is represented by its Minister.
Democracy is about people being represented, not corporate entities.
If there is a need for the Parishes to have a direct line of communication to States bodies, it is entirely possible to do that without the Constables being members of the States.
This is a lie.
Every expert opinion that has been given on Jersey's electoral system has confirmed that this is not true.
Our system does not comply with the Venice Commission and the proposed Option B last year (which kept the Constables) was still deemed by the Electoral Commission's advisers to be non-compliant, despite the exemptions that the Yes campaign have cited.
The purpose of the Venice Commission is to try to keep a degree of proportionality in electoral systems, whilst still respecting local custom. The Constable of St Helier has an electorate that is 20 times as great as the electorate for the Constable of St Mary. That is unjustifiable.
So there we have it. I've written this in a bit of a rush, so it's not as in depth as it could be, but you should get the idea.
The 'Yes' campaign has been incapable of producing an honest argument as to why the Constables should remain automatically in the States. That unwillingness to engage properly on the future of our municipal government system is to blame for why so many islanders feel so distant from these institutions and have no interest in taking part in them.
If you agree - vote Non Mercie in the referendum on the 15th October.
The removal of the Constables has the potential to de-stabilise Jersey's Government. Offshore business requires confidence in government. Radical changes in the structure of government could damage this at a time of economic uncertainty.
This is what it is really all about.
It isn't about protecting our honorary system or promoting government efficiency, it is about making sure that every States Assembly is stacked to make sure that the ruling block in Jersey always has an inbuilt majority, no matter what the people of Jersey want.
Keeping the Constables in the States means the conservative rural Parishes are over-represented at the expense of the more liberal urban Parishes. That is anti-democratic and there is no escaping that point.
There is a suggestion that Constables have a "block vote". While they may vote the same way, they do so as individuals bringing Parish concerns to the assembly. Statistics show that Senators vote the same way as often as Constables do, but this goes unremarked. It is worth noting that a Party System would be one in which Party members had to vote the same way and take the agreed Party line. That would be a real "block vote".
I've already addressed the illogical assertion that a Constable can bring Parish concerns to the States, but at least they have admitted the Constables have a block vote.
But it's funny to see them criticise an alleged party block vote as somehow being bad, whilst justifying the Constable block vote. At least a party has the good decency to actually be honest about it's aims and intentions and put it to the voters before an election, rather than the Constables who pretend they aren't and have no democratic legitimacy to act like a party.
Constables have proven they are reforming States Members. They led the way towards a single election day, a four year term and spring elections. They also removed their own policing powers. Without them reform becomes more difficult to achieve.
I wonder if anyone will believe this claim that Constables are reforming States Members. Their record shows that they are the complete opposite. They are the biggest stumbling block to any meaningful reform in the States.
A vote to keep them in the States is a vote for no immediate change, and therefore it takes us back to the drawing board again to determine any future reform.
But isn't it ironic for them to claim that removing the Constables from the States will weaken the Parish system, yet for them to stay in the States they have had to give up powers it's considered in appropriate for a parliamentarian to have?
But now here is the real whopper -
The retention of the Constables IS compliant with the Venice Commission, which makes allowances for different jurisdictions: "The geographical criterion and administrative, or possibly even historical, boundaries may be taken into consideration." Our Parish boundaries are both administrative and historical and thus meet these requirements.
This is a lie.
Every expert opinion that has been given on Jersey's electoral system has confirmed that this is not true.
Our system does not comply with the Venice Commission and the proposed Option B last year (which kept the Constables) was still deemed by the Electoral Commission's advisers to be non-compliant, despite the exemptions that the Yes campaign have cited.
The purpose of the Venice Commission is to try to keep a degree of proportionality in electoral systems, whilst still respecting local custom. The Constable of St Helier has an electorate that is 20 times as great as the electorate for the Constable of St Mary. That is unjustifiable.
So there we have it. I've written this in a bit of a rush, so it's not as in depth as it could be, but you should get the idea.
The 'Yes' campaign has been incapable of producing an honest argument as to why the Constables should remain automatically in the States. That unwillingness to engage properly on the future of our municipal government system is to blame for why so many islanders feel so distant from these institutions and have no interest in taking part in them.
If you agree - vote Non Mercie in the referendum on the 15th October.


text:
- Self-fabric tie to nip you in waist
- Short turn-back sleeves with tab and button detail
- Made from a lovely lightweight fabric
- Length from approx. 99cm/39"
- 100% Viscose
- Machine washable
- Model is 5"9/175cm and size UK 16/EU 44
Plus Sizes: 16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26-28
Fit & Fashion Notes:
This super flattering shirt dress is made from a lovely lightweight fabric and features a self-fabric tie that nips you in at the waist. This is a great spring-summer dress that can be worn in and out of the office.
Why We Love It:
This is a great value classic shape with a bold print.
Read more...Read more...
Standard Australia delivery
$18 AUD delivery (8-10 working days)
Click here to find out more
Returns policy
Local return address in Keysborough, Victoria
Return items within 21 days
Click here to read our international returns policy


text:
Ballet Themed Wedding Orange County Engagement
Rentals: Classic Party Rentals
Bride's Dress: Jenny Yoo
Venue: In The Now Studio
Cake: Erica O'Brien
Latin American Museum of Art Wedding–Los Angeles Wedding Flowers
Loved this wedding at the Latin American Museum of Art in Long Beach, CA! Congratulations to Alex and Hochan, an amazing couple. Thanks Jovanni Photograph for the gorgeous photos!
Thanks for letting Bride and Bloom be a part of your big day!
Santa Monica Wedding Flowers: Casa Del Mar Florist
I know, I know it's embarrassing to admit–I haven't blogged in almost two months. I have been so busy….so, so busy. You know–the holidays, shopping, events, consultations, weddings. My weddings are now completed for 2011. I have three weeks before my first 2012 wedding so I had better get blogging now!
Want to know something magical about Southern California? You can have a gorgeous beach wedding any month of the year. It's true. This wedding was in October and it was so warm and sunny. The venue was in Santa Monica at Casa Del Mar. The couple, Caroline and Matt, are super sweet! Just a really, really nice couple and I was so happy to work with them. Congrats Caroline and Matt!
Orange County Wedding Flowers Old Ranch Country Club, Seal Beach
Are these two cute, or what? Such a wonderful couple and super fun to work with. This wedding took place at the Old Ranch Country Club in Seal Beach. My father used to work here on the golf course when he was in high school, funny right?
The bride shared some of the beautiful photos with me taken by Happy Photos.
The Seal Beach Country Club is a great venue in Orange County and it is centrally located next to Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, and Long Beach.
Again, thanks Amy for sharing these photos with my by Happy Photos.
Beautiful wedding flowers don't happen by themselves–call us or email us email@example.com to make it happen.
Long Beach Museum of Art Wedding Flowers: LBMA Florist
Yep, this is one of the prettiest color schemes EVER!! Yellow and cornflower blue–love it! Jessica and Roger were married at the Long Beach Museum of Art. This gorgeous photo was taken by Jordana Hazelnut who did an amazing job with all of these photos.
Congratulations Jessica and Roger! It was a beautiful wedding and you are an amazing couple. Thanks again Jordana for the beautiful photos and Liz Coopersmith for your help in coordinating the big day! You can see more photos at our website Bride and Bloom Flowers.
South Bay Wedding Florist LA: Long Beach Museum of Art
The Long Beach Museum of Art is always one of my favorite venues. If you read the blog on a regular basis, you probably already know that. I love this shot of Katherine and Brian, taken by the talented Andy Seo, because it captures the great view of the ocean right behind the beautiful couple.
I just loved the soft pinks and ivory tones of this wedding. It was just gorgeous!
Don't you just love this shot with the sun behind them? Thanks again Andy for the photo!
You can see more photos on our website Bride and Bloom Flowers. You can also see more of Andy Seo's work on his website!
One of my favorite trends currently is bouquets using antique and vintage jewels. It is a totally unique and fresh look! Here are two of my favorites that I created recently for Ceremony Magazine.
These jeweled bouquets require some serious skill and I usually spend several weeks or months finding the rhinestones and then I spend hours putting it together. In the end, the result is something that is not only gorgeous but a keepsake that lasts for generations. You can see more photos on our website Bride and Bloom Flowers.


text: Japanese car maker Toyota is exploring the possibility of setting up a research and development facility and engine plant in India, the head of its joint venture said today. Managing Director of Toyota Kirloskar Motor (TKM) Hiroshi Nakagawa said Toyota currently undertakes R&D in Japan and Thailand, among other places. He said one of the options being considered now is to set up a R&D facility in India. The proposal is at the discussion stage and it is his "wish and hope" that it would be established in future. Asked if the company has plans to set up an engine plant in India, Nakagawa told reporters on the sidelines of Karnataka government-organised Global Investors' Meet here: "If we have a chance, we should establish engine facility here in India also". But he indicated that the company would look at setting up an engine plant only when its annual sales in India reaches 200,000 units-plus. Nakagawa said TKM is hiring 2,000 employees for its second plant, coming up at a cost of Rs 3,200 crore here. For the current calendar year, TKM is targeting sales of 70,000 units from 55,000 in 2009. He said TKM would start production of its compact car Etios, being developed exclusively for the Indian market, at the end of the current calendar year. Once this product is "accepted" in India, the company would look at export opportunities of this car. In the first year, TKM is looking at manufacturing 70,000 units of Etios, Nakagawa said.


text:
|Shiny toy which is sucking up most of my free time (including anime time too!)
If you follow me on Twitter you may have noticed that almost 2 weekends ago (around the 11th June) I tweeted to let you know that a new shiny toy had arrived! It is the reason for the introduction of a new type of post. I've got a Japanese Nintendo 3DS, not an English one. This is because I adore music idol themed Aikatsu! anime, and there are Aikatsu! 3DS games which are only in Japanese. I understand enough Japanese to play the Aikatsu games, and since it is my top anime and a major obsession I decided against the English version just so I can experience what players in Japan do. I bought some Animal Crossing Games too.
|My back cover - Ichigo & Mizuki from Aikatsu!
|My front cover with the girls from Aikatsu: from the left there's Yurika, Aoi, Ichigo, Mizuki, Ran, Kaede, Sakura, and Otome. I decorated mine with stickers instead of ordering a pretty cover for it!
This new type of post will be all about my experiences of the games, particularly from the view of a not fluent in Japanese gamer, as there seem to be very few English reviews/thoughts on the Aikatsu! series. I've stumbled across one, Joeker Straight Flush (which has nothing to do with card games as far as I can tell)
who does have an imported Japanese 3DS and adores Aikatsu! I am getting in touch with them to see if I can a) have tips on the parts of games I struggle with & b) fangirl over Aikatsu with someone who speaks English.
I've got heaps to say already, with some useful game tips as well as how to access and buy from the Japanese Nintendo eshop, but for now I'll show you the games I've got and extremely condensed initial first reactions. I got my Japanese 3DS from Amazon UK, and found loads of bargain games on Ebay UK too.
Aiktasu 3DS games
There are a total of 4 games, which I ordered, and these are the ones that have arrived so far. Both are in Japanese, use the card system in the arcade game too.
Aikatsu! 365 Idol Days
3rd game to be released,
2nd game I played,
Dance rhythm game
In a nutshell you create your own character and get to train as an idol alongside all the main characters in Aikatsu! series. It's super fun, was the 2nd game I played, and currently doesn't quite have full marks since I'm struggling with 2 types of audition. More on that soon!
Aikatsu! My No. 1 Stage
4th game to be released,
1st game I played.
Dance Rhythm Game
Absolutely amazing! No deadlines like Aikatsu! 365 Idol Days, you can level up loads without playing the main story, you can download lots of songs for free play, you can combie outfits, team up with the main Aikatsu! characters for auditions (once you've become friends with them) - this is living the the Aikatsu! dream! Both gam
Animal Crossing 3DS games
Animal Crossing New Leaf
|Japanese version
Newest AC game
2nd AC game I've played
Life simulation/slice of life game
I have played previous versions so know what it's about. However, so much more has been added to it! You can play with friends which is hilarious, do all the usual fruit picking/fishing/shaking trees and hitting rocks for money. It helps knowing the main actions in the game, because there's a fair amount of text and a lot of words I don't know, but use my Japanese dictionary when I need to (sometimes just ignore what people say unless I have to do something!)
Animal Crossing Happy Home Designer
|Japanese version
Newest AC game (joint with ACNL)
3rd AC game I've played
Life simulation/slice of life game
This is a new spin-off, focusing on designing rooms/buildings for the villagers. There's a huge amount of Japanese I don't know at the beginning, but I'm getting by slowly (have to be quite alert when I play it, so it hasn't had much game play). However, designing my home in ACNL & previous versions was always my favourite part, so being able to do soley this is amazing! You don't have your own home, it's quite different from ACNL but very cool all the same!
I'd love to hear if you like this new range of posts, and obviously if you have played the games I chat about please get in touch!


text:
Driving Miss Josie–3 Months!
Josie has been making the rounds again, and catching a lot of live music. Highlights of the past few weeks include a Mother Banjo/ Carrie Elkin house concert at Ellen's, cousin Mason's christening, (which included a huge schmeckle-fest with Noona, who visited for several days), Josie's first trip to the Minnesota State Fair and a Mother Banjo/ Jaspar Lepak concert at the Lake Harriet Bandshell. At the fair Josie caught the Brass Kings, Becky Schlegel, and the first three songs of Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings. I have some video on my phone of Josie kicking her feet in delight at the Brass Kings show, but it's pretty poorly lit, so I don't think it will get posted here. Enjoy, instead, these pix of Josie and her adoring public.
Josie with Mother Banjo and Carrie Elkin. Operation "Universal Adoration" is go. Avoiding rickets at Minnehaha Falls. Admiring Tamar's lovely summer frock at the Lake Harriet bandshell.


text:
Looking ahead
Congratulations, first, to those who've just received medals. They exemplify excellence and originality—qualities that the Society has fostered throughout its history.
At the Society's early meetings, Boyle, Hooke and their colleagues peered through newly invented telescopes and microscopes; they heard travellers' tales, and dissected weird animals; they viewed experiments on explosives, blood transfusions and the like.
'Health and safety' regulations render our meetings blander than they were in the seventeenth century. But our horizons have hugely expanded. No new continents remain to be discovered. Our Earth no longer offers an open frontier, but seems constricted and crowded, a 'pale blue dot' in the immense cosmos. Just today we've launched a booklet and Web site entitled Science sees further (http://royalsociety.org/further/), which summarizes the Discussion Meetings held during 2010. Their topics offer exciting pointers to what we'll know, and how we'll live, when the Society celebrates its 400th anniversary. So, at the end of a year when we've celebrated our past, I want briefly to look forward.
The first Discussion Meeting of 2010 had a truly cosmic theme: the realization that billions of stars in our Galaxy are orbited by planetary systems. In the coming decades we'll learn how 'typical' our Solar System is. We'll discover planets like the Earth orbiting Sun-like stars. We'll be able to image many of them, inferring whether they have oceans and continents, and what their atmosphere is made of. We may learn whether biological evolution is unique to the Earth, or whether Darwin's writ runs through a wider universe that teems with life. Were our biosphere unique, it would disappoint some; but, in compensation, we need then be less 'cosmically modest'. Our Earth, tiny though it is, could be uniquely important in the Galaxy.
Questions like this—and about our Universe's mysterious beginning—are surely among science's great 'open frontiers'. The controversies of my youth have been mainly settled. Today we're tackling questions that couldn't have been posed, even conceived, back then. Likewise, we have no idea what the focus will be a half-century hence. Were I not constrained by the nature of this occasion and this audience I'd have gladly speculated further. Instead, a self-deprecatory comment is more appropriate. Our everyday world presents intellectual challenges just as daunting as those of the cosmos and the quantum. Even the smallest insect, with its layer upon layer of intricate structure, is more complex than an atom or a star.
So it's fitting that the other Discussion Meetings this year addressed phenomena nearer to home. That's where 99% of scientists focus their efforts and of course where the consequences for society are most direct: vaccines and stem cells; climate and biodiversity; ageing; the evolution of society; and the impact of the Web. And one meeting dealt with cognition and the brain—the most complicated thing in the known universe.
All these 'big themes' interest a wide public, and this year we've made special efforts to expand our reach. Science should be part of everyone's culture; moreover, all citizens need some feel for science if they are to have an effective voice in discussing how it's applied. Colleagues sometimes moan that the public is especially apathetic and ill-informed about science. It's indeed sad that many citizens can't distinguish a proton from a protein; but it's equally sad when they can't find Korea or Syria on a map—and many can't. I actually find it gratifying that there's such interest in topics remote from practical concerns, like dinosaurs, the Large Hadron Collider, or alien life.
But, as we know, much public interest in science is tinged with anxiety that its applications could 'run away' too fast. For instance, if brain-scanning techniques can reveal when we are sincere, and when we are bluffing, that's the ultimate invasion of our privacy and opens debates about personal responsibility and freedom. And another fast-advancing field, synthetic biology, offers huge potential for medicine and agriculture. But when expertise in such techniques becomes widespread, there's a manifest risk of 'bio error' or 'bio terror'.
One can readily list other concerns. Who should access the 'readout' of our personal genetic code? How will lengthening life spans affect society? How will robotics impact on our lives? Should we expand nuclear power or wind farms if we want to keep the lights on? Should we use more insecticides, or plant GM crops? How much should we invest in precautions against climate change and environmental degradation?
Such questions didn't feature much in the 2010 general election campaign. That's partly because they transcend party politics. But it's more that they're long-term: they involve planning decades ahead. And as such they tend to be trumped by more urgent items.
It's surely the role of bodies such as the Royal Society to keep these matters firmly on the agenda, and ensure that they are addressed on the basis of the best available science. And it's our responsibility, as an independent body, to provide such input to governments (whether requested or not) and, via the media, to the public. Indeed, at a time when the government's Public Bodies Bill threatens the perceived independence of many advisory bodies (and even their continued existence) our role has never been more crucial. That's why it has been a priority for the Society to expand its Policy Centre, drawing on the scientific expertise of our Fellows and other external experts.
It's a welcome step, incidentally, that there are now well-qualified Chief Scientific Advisors within most government departments. Not yet, however, in the Treasury—though I can't help thinking this would be worthwhile, even at the sacrifice of one economist.
Crises emerge unexpectedly that require scientific advice. For instance, back in April, the eruption in Iceland raised urgent questions about vulcanology, about wind patterns, and about how dust affects jet engines. In that instance, the knowledge was basically there: what was lacking was coordination, and an agreement on the acceptable level of risk.
Incidentally, there's a mismatch between public perception of very different risks and their actual seriousness. We fret unduly about carcinogens in food and low-level radiation. But we are in denial about 'low-probability, high-consequence' events that should concern us more. The recent financial crash was one such; but others that haven't yet happened should loom higher on the agenda (lethal pandemics, for instance, on which we ran a 'fast track' Discussion Meeting earlier this year). Global society is precariously dependent on elaborate networks—electricity grids, air traffic control, international finance, just-in-time delivery and so forth. It's crucial to ensure maximal resilience of all such systems. Otherwise their manifest benefits could be outweighed by catastrophic (albeit rare) breakdowns cascading through the system.
Among the 'big questions' we're now studying, I'd like to highlight the distinguished panel chaired by Sir John Sulston, which is taking a fresh look at world population trends, and their links with consumption and the environment. In many parts of the world, including much of Europe, fertility is well below replacement level. But India's population is projected to overtake China's, and could reach 1.6 billion by 2050. And by then there could then be a billion more people in Africa than there are today. Most of those in the developing world who are alive today are less than 25 years old; that's why a continuing population rise to around 9 billion by mid-century seems almost inevitable. But the trends beyond 2050 will depend on what people now in their teens and twenties decide about the number and spacing of their children. In Africa there are around 200 million women who are denied such a choice. Enhancing the life-chances of Africa's poorest people by providing clean water, primary education and other basics should be a humanitarian imperative. But it would seem also a precondition for achieving throughout that continent the demographic transition that has occurred elsewhere.
Can we specify an 'optimum population'? I don't think so. What matters is not just the number of people on the planet, but how they live. The world couldn't sustain anywhere near its present population if everyone lived like present-day Americans. But we can't predict 50 years ahead what people's lifestyle, diet, travel patterns and energy needs will be. Consider, for example, how unpredictably rapidly our lives have been transformed by the Web, mobile phones and suchlike. An iPhone would have seemed magical even just 20 years ago. And spin-offs from genetics could soon be as pervasive as those from the microchip have already been.
I'm glad the Society is highlighting global population. It's deemed by some a taboo subject—tainted by association with eugenics in the 1920s and 1930s, with Indian policies under Indira Gandhi, and more recently with China's effective but hard-line one-child policy.
Another firm prediction about the post-2050 world is that, as well as being more crowded, it will be warmer. By how much is still uncertain. We've had major meetings on climate science this year—exploring how to reduce current uncertainties by better data and better modelling. But here, as in other contexts where scientists offer advice, it's best to keep 'clear water' between the science on the one hand, and the policy response on the other. Risk assessment should be separate from risk management.
Despite the range of uncertainty in the models, our current understanding (summarized recently in an accessible Royal Society document1) firmly suggests that disruptive climate change is a serious enough threat to justify its priority on the agenda of this country and others. However, it's important to bear in mind that even if there were minimal uncertainty in how the world's weather might change, there would still be legitimately divergent views on the policy response—on the best balance between mitigating climate change and adapting to it; the appropriate discount rate; the subsidy level from the rich world, whose fossil fuel emissions have mostly caused the problem, to the developing nations; and on how much we should incentivize clean energy, or gamble on a technical fix.
The strongest motive for urgent action is that the worst-case climatic scenarios predict really serious stresses within 50 years. If effective mitigation is too long postponed, a recent special issue of Philosophical Transactions A entitled 'Four degrees and beyond',2 emphasizes what could be in store. 'Emergency' remedies may some day become imperative. That's why the Society is following up last year's influential report on geoengineering,3 another taboo subject, as well as urging expanded R&D on carbon-free power generation.
Energy security, food supplies and climate change are the prime long-term 'threats without enemies' that confront us, all aggravated by rising populations. But there are others: 2010 is the 'year of biodiversity'. The Royal Society hosted a conference on this theme, which brought together over 60 academies from around the world. Biodiversity (manifested in forests, coral reefs, deep oceans and all Earth's other ecosystems) is threatened by collective human actions. We're clearly harmed if fish stocks dwindle to extinction; there are plants whose gene pool might be useful to us. And massive destruction of the rain forests could accelerate global warming.
Across all of science, there is now less demarcation between experts and laypersons. Blogs and wikis may sometimes confuse the debate, but they enrich it too. More people want to access data and weigh up evidence for themselves. Current practice in responding to such demands is not uniform across all fields, nor across all countries. What are the best protocols for storing and managing large databases? What are the appropriate guidelines for making information available? It's not obviously right that anyone, whether a UK taxpayer or not, whether they have good reason or not, can impose burdensome demands on researchers by repeated requests. On the other hand, we surely need to facilitate open debate, to ensure that scientific claims are robust and firmly grounded. This is another topic that the Society plans to report on.
Incidentally, enhanced communication and computer networks are doing more than transforming how information is spread and shared. Our recent Discussion Meeting on 'Web Science' highlighted how data mining, mashing, and so on, are opening up new styles of research. Large datasets in astronomy, genetics or particle physics can be accessed anywhere. And a wide public can join in. For example, in the Galaxy Zoo project 3 million galaxies are being viewed on the Web, and classified by keen amateur astronomers. And in biology, 40 000 Playstation 3 enthusiasts are exploring the combinatorial options for protein folding, via the Folding@home Web site (http://folding.stanford.edu/). More surprisingly, wiki-style activity may catch on in mathematics. On the Web site of my Cambridge colleague Tim Gowers, theorems have been proved via a genuine collective effort, like completing a jigsaw, or the development of open-source software.
The UK this year
The year 2010 has been a turbulent political year, and I turn briefly to some of the fall-out for science.
The lead-up to the Spending Review was an anxious time. Would the UK follow the USA, France, and Germany (and the emerging economies of the Far East) and prioritize scientific research as part of its economic recovery and growth strategy? Or would it align with Spain and the Czech Republic, where these areas were cut? The outcome was better than many had feared, and one for which David Willetts and Vince Cable deserve our thanks, as do Adrian Smith, John Beddington and other officials. But the scientific community cooperated on a persuasive campaign, and our 'Scientific Century' report4 helped to frame the debate.
The UK has a fighting chance of preserving its science base. But major concerns remain. First, 'flat cash' means a real-terms cut, over four years, of at least 8%. Second, capital expenditure is being cut. It's welcome that the Diamond Light Source synchrotron, and the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation at St Pancras (the UK's 'Biopolis'), are protected. But there will be pressure on other facilities and on international subscriptions. And third, cuts to departmental research budgets, those of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs especially, could be damaging.
Science is a UK success story: we are, by most measures, second only to the USA in the quality and impact of our research. And this success has been achieved despite a smaller investment—public and private—than our competitors. We're perhaps number one in 'brain per buck'. Even after a period of sustained real-terms growth under the Labour government we are still investing only 1.79% of GDP on research and development. This is below Germany (2.54%) and the USA (2.68%), not to mention fast-developing countries such as South Korea (3%) and of course China.
There's global competition for the most talented individuals, the most innovative firms, and leadership in high-tech sectors. There are tectonic shifts in the international balance of science. Asia may, within the coming decades, end 400 years of Western hegemony. So, even to maintain the UK's relative standing, we should actually be raising our game. And it's crucial that our brightest young people, savvy about trends and anxiously choosing a career, should perceive the UK as a place where cutting-edge science can be done. They need a sustained positive signal that the UK is staying in the premier league.
In lively research groups it's exhilarating when coffee-time conversation tosses out new ideas, and debates the latest discoveries. But all too often my colleagues are preoccupied with grant cuts, proposal writing, job security, and suchlike. Prospects of breakthroughs will plummet if such concerns prey unduly on the minds of even the very best young researchers. Confidence and high morale drive creativity, innovation and risk-taking, whether in science, the arts, or entrepreneurial activity.
The difference in cost-effectiveness between the very best research and the merely good is, by any measure, thousands of percent. So what's most crucial in giving taxpayers enhanced value for money isn't the few percent savings that might be scooped up by improving efficiency in the 'office management' sense. It's maximizing the chance of the big breakthroughs by attracting and supporting the right people, and backing the judgement of those with the best credentials.
This year's winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Andre Geim and Konstatin Novoselov, are important exemplars. Their work on graphene didn't need major equipment. But they staked several years of their lives, and their reputation, on their choice of topic. And Manchester University (with Royal Society support) offered the supportive environment and intellectual freedom they needed. (Had the current immigration 'cap' applied 10 years ago, incidentally, these two Russian scientists might not have been let in to the UK. At a time when there are economic stresses that are harder to alleviate, these burdensome and ill-judged new regulations are a manifest 'own goal'.)
Even in these straitened times, support should be available to really excellent researchers irrespective of their subject. It would be ironic if a government traditionally unwilling to 'pick winners' in industrial policy were to attempt such judgments 'upstream', at the less predictable research level. We need breadth, to provide 'absorptive capacity' so that the UK can seize on ideas from the rest of the world, and to sustain top-rate university education across the board. But when it comes to the development phase, prioritization is appropriate, and the government has a role in improving the weak link in our system—the translation from research to commercial exploitation. It's good that there may be action, albeit on a limited scale, after the recent reports by Hermann Hauser and James Dyson.5
The UK's research universities are major national assets, because of their attraction for global talent, the collective expertise of their faculty, and the consequent quality of the graduates they feed into all walks of life. High-tech industries cluster around them. Cambridge, for instance, is the base for billion-pound companies such as ARM, Autonomy and CSR, as well as hundreds of smaller start-ups.
But the most serious concerns in all universities today stem from the imminent drastic reform of student fees—a reform based on faith that market-driven student choice will lead to an optimum system (which, incidentally, puts social science and humanities under special pressure).
Some restructuring is needed; indeed, it's overdue. Total enrolment in full-time higher education has risen from less than 10% in the 1960s to around 40% today. But this welcome expansion hasn't yet led to sufficient diversity. We can learn here from the USA, which is home to several thousand institutions of higher education: junior and regional colleges, top-quality liberal arts colleges, huge 'state universities' (many world-class) and the Ivy League private universities. Our system needs to evolve in that way. Our traditional specialized three-year or four-year honours degree is not appropriate for all present-day students. It is therefore welcome that both David Willetts and Vince Cable have advocated a wider variety of courses, and indeed a blurring between 'higher' and 'further' education. Students who leave university after two years should be given 'credit', and the chance to return later, rather than being typecast as 'wastage'. In a world where we are living longer in a faster-changing environment, the importance of mature students and distance learning will surely grow.
But concentration of research resources should go further—not just as an economy measure. A student aspiring to a PhD needs more than just a good supervisor. He or she needs to be in a graduate school where courses are offered over a wider range. Without this second component, a newly minted British PhD won't necessarily have the flexibility and range that are needed for their later career, whether or not that's in academia. In this context one should surely welcome the formation of groupings of departments (as Scottish physics departments have done, for instance) that collaborate on PhD-level education.
Collaboration is growing, anyway: bibliometric data show that more and more papers have authors from several institutions. Indeed, one-third of them involve international collaborations. And in the 'big sciences' we in the UK benefit from the unrivalled shared facilities of Europe-wide consortia such as CERN, the European Space Agency and the European Southern Observatory.
There are all too few areas where this country is as high as number two in the world; we surely shouldn't jeopardize any that remain. In the context of total cuts amounting to £83 billion per annum, and a bail-out of the banks that cost £117 billion, it wouldn't seem prudent or necessary to squeeze the £4.7 billion per annum science budget—which should be a springboard to the nation's long-term prosperity.
Retaining our scientific standing, with all the economic and social benefits that this brings, is crucial. We need a 10-year road map, offering hope that, after four years of declining real-terms funding, science can share the fruits of the recovery that it will help to generate.
The US National Academies recently published a report that emphasized the need to sustain R&D even in hard times, and offered a neat metaphor: 'You can't make an overweight aircraft more flightworthy by removing an engine.' This message is even more vital for the UK, which must rebalance its economy away from overdependence on the financial sector. The government must acknowledge science and innovation as essential 'engines' for long-term prosperity and confronting global challenges.
The Royal Society
Let me now focus on the Society. Perhaps the most important development was the opening of the Kavli Royal Society International Centre, a lasting legacy of this Anniversary Year.
The Foreign Office has Wilton Park; and there's Ditchley Park, specializing in international relations. But there hasn't hitherto been any such residential retreat with a focus on science. Several people, above all Stephen Cox and Ian Cooper, had the vision that the Society, and indeed UK science, would benefit from a residential centre. Their browsings through Country Life led them to Chicheley Hall, a Grade I listed property that ticked all the boxes, in terms of size, location and conversion potential. But there was of course a second prerequisite. Our Council wouldn't have been happy to go ahead without some major new donation specifically for the purpose. We approached the Kavli Foundation, and were overwhelmingly fortunate to receive a lead gift sufficient to cover most of the purchase price.
So the Royal Society has this year expanded its territory in a literal sense. But it has done this metaphorically as well: not only in scientific research itself, but through expanded science policy activity, the extension of our education work and increased international activity.
Our 350th Anniversary Appeal reached its target of £100 million almost one year ahead of schedule, with the support of many Fellows. The campaign was led by a board superbly chaired by Lord (David) Sainsbury. But we've identified three unmet needs: support for the Policy Centre, for the Enterprise Fund, and for endowing the Kavli Centre (which wasn't on the radar screen at all when the campaign aims were formulated). To this end, we have extended our fundraising target by £25 million. There is still much to do. Independent bodies have an ever-growing importance—none more than those concerned with science, technology and education.
We are a smaller organization, in staffing terms, than several specialized learned societies, but our remit is far broader, covering policy, publications, grants, public affairs, meetings, education, library and archives, and so forth. We are especially fortunate in the commitment and quality of our staff in all these areas and of course in the pro bono input from Fellows, University Research Fellows and others. I'd mention especially Peter Collins, a fount of knowledge about the Society; and Peter Cotgreave, James Wilsdon and Stuart Taylor—relative newcomers, who joined during my years as President. And Ian Cooper—sadly not well enough to be here today. But above all we owe a huge debt to Stephen Cox. He has overseen, with a sure touch, the developments over the last 13 years, not least, of course, the events of 2010.
Special thanks are due to Dominic Reid and his team for overseeing the 350th anniversary programme and to Melvyn Bragg for his guidance and energetic involvement. Through their efforts, we've undoubtedly raised our profile. When the Society is mentioned, fewer respond by asking 'Royal Society of what?' There has been a 'step change' in our activities that we must sustain. We don't overindulge in ceremonial, but a clone of Dominic will surely be needed in 50 years' time.
But one feature of the Royal Society has a timescale that's not 50 years but merely five—the rotation and renewal of its officers. This year it's my turn to leave the stage, after a stint that has been a privilege, as well as immensely stimulating. My main regret is of the opportunities missed, and things there wasn't time to do. But I want to acclaim the present honorary officers, whose activities I've seen at close range: they shoulder an immense load, and nonetheless maintain an atmosphere of convivial collegiality. But I also thank those who were there when I began but who have left the stage in successive years—Julia Higgins, David Wallace, David Read and Martin Taylor.
In a few minutes I'll formally hand over to Paul Nurse, who I'm delighted to have as my successor. He's a good friend, and someone I hugely admire. He ticks all boxes: he's a great scientist, he inspires others, he's a fine organizer and leader, and he's a progressive idealist. But before closing let me briefly return to the theme with which I began: prospects for the next 50 years.
Despite the potential 'downsides', I'm actually an optimist, at least a techno-optimist. There seems no scientific impediment to achieving a sustainable world beyond 2050, one in which the developing countries have narrowed the gap with the developed, and all benefit from further advances that could have as great and benign an impact as information technology has had in the past decade. It's the political constraints, and public attitudes, that pose the deepest concerns. People tend to downplay what's happening even now in impoverished far-away countries—the lives and life-chances of the world's 'bottom billion'. And they give too little thought to what kind of world we'll leave for future generations.
We need a change in priorities and perspective—and soon, if the world's people are to benefit from our present knowledge and the further breakthroughs that the coming decades will bring. It's urgent to stem the risk of environmental degradation, and to develop clean energy and sustainable agriculture.
The Royal Society should be at the forefront of this 'consciousness raising'—our Fellowship spans the Commonwealth; our distinguished Foreign Members hail from all over the world. We must join forces with all the world's academies to raise the global scientific issues on the international agenda. Our Society's role has never been more important. Let us build on our achievements and be worthy of our past. But academies themselves are apolitical, and the campaigning must be leveraged by individuals acting as 'scientific citizens'—engaging, from all ideological perspectives, with politicians, with the media and with a public attuned to the scope and limit of science.
Finally, let me quote Bill Bryson, another good friend of the Society: 'If we have an Earth worth living on a hundred years from now, the Royal Society will be one of the organizations that our grandchildren will wish to thank.'
↵1 Climate change: a summary of the science (The Royal Society, September 2010). See http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/.
↵2 Mark G. New, Diana M. Liverman, Richard A. Betts, Kevin L. Anderson and Chris C. West (eds), 'Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications', Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 369, 1–241 (2011).
↵3 Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty (The Royal Society, September 2009).
↵4 The Scientific Century: securing our future prosperity (The Royal Society, March 2010). See http://royalsociety.org/The-scientific-century/.
↵5 Hermann Hauser, The current and future role of technology and innovation centres in the UK (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, London, 2010) (see http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/innovation/docs/10-843-role-of-technology-innovation-centres-hauser-review); James Dyson, Ingenious Britain: making the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe (2010) (see http://www.dyson.co.uk/insidedyson/article.asp?aID=IngeniousBritain).
- This Journal is © 2011 The Royal Society


text:
Jacqui Lambie says she has no plans of running for the Tasmanian parliament "at this stage" as doubts about her eligibility for the Senate persist.
Jacqui Lambie would certainly be a spanner in the works nobody would relish.Bill Bonde
The Tasmanian crossbencher is one of the latest federal politicians caught up in the dual citizenship saga.
She has spoken of resigning from the Senate if documents do not remove doubt about her citizenship status.
Her Jacqui Lambie Network plans to run in the upcoming state election and Liberal and Labor figures both expect she would win a state seat in Braddon if she ran herself.
A Lambie win might stop the Liberals or Labor achieving the majority government they both want.
Depending on how the numbers fell, one of the two big parties could possibly govern with her cooperation, sidelining the Greens.
There is also a school of thought she might stand for the House of Representatives in a Braddon by-election if Labor MHR Justine Keay is forced out because of dual citizenship.
A spokesperson for Senator Lambie on Friday said: "She has no plans to run at a state level at this stage."
Ex-Tasmanian Liberal minister Bill Bonde expected she would have a very strong chance of winning one of the five state seats in Braddon.
He expected Braddon would split two-two between the Liberals and Labor if Senator Lambie ran, and she would take the other spot.
"Jacqui Lambie would certainly be a spanner in the works nobody (political party) would relish," Mr Bonde said.
"There's a better than even chance there would be a fair sympathy vote as well."
Liberal state director Sam McQuestin said: "If Ms Lambie was to run, it would be interesting to see how the people of Braddon respond to the facts that Senator Lambie has a history of voting with the Greens in the Senate and has previously called for the Mersey Hospital to be closed."
"The real question is what will Justine Keay and Labor do if Ms Lambie steps down from the Senate and contests a possible by-election for the federal seat of Braddon."
Tasmanian Labor Shadow Treasurer Scott Bacon said: "Until the citizenship mess is resolved, Jacqui Lambie running for state parliament is a big hypothetical."
"Jacqui Lambie would certainly make a state campaign more colourful, but Labor's focus is on winning majority government."
Dual citizenship is not an issue in the Tasmanian parliament.


text:
Matchmaker.com provides great new features for contact single Chinook Valley men. Use our icebreaker feature to let Chinook Valley guys know you are interested in getting to know them a little better. There are thousands of Chinook Valley men in your area so create a free profile today.
Chinook ValleyJoin Now Free!
Chinook Valley | Chinook Valley Girls | Chinook Valley Gay | Chinook Valley Lesbians
1 2
More Chinook Valley Links:
Senior Dating | Catholic Dating | Christian Dating | Muslim Dating
Black Singles | Asian Singles | Latin Dating
While Chinook Valley men and women in Chinook Valley might find dating to be more annoying than nice, it'simportant to get past this by breaking the ice. Write an introductory email that's worthy of a response, you probably find that it's easier than delivering a tired line in a darkened bar. After taking a good look at a number of local Chinook Valley guys, you'll know that the person you are attempting to get to know will have plenty in common with you.


text:
Thus closes my notes for the month of December and also for the year just passed and gone and now numbered with the things that were. Whether the Almighty will spare me to chronicle the daily events of the incoming year is more than I know but trusting in Him I shall enter upon the pleasing task, which is useful as a reference and may be profitable to those who have an interest in me.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Monday, August 12th, 1861
To day I went up to the mills and assisted Mr. Harwell in fixing on the new bands. we put the Gutta Percha band on the grist and the leather band on the wheat Mill after which I returned to Father's. weather clear & hot.
Posted by BeNotForgot at Friday, August 12, 2011
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
|Mike Hurwitz of Alta joins fellow Wyoming performer Andy Nelson of Pinedale at the 22nd annual Colorado Cowboy Poetry Gathering in Denver. Get tix at http://www.coloradocowboygathering.com/ . Both Mike and Andy are on the Wyoming Arts Council artist roster. Bring them to your community through a WAC Arts Across Wyoming grant. Go to the home page and click on "grants" on the left sidebar.
Friday, December 30, 2011
WAC roster artists Mike Hurwitz and Andy Nelson featured at Colorado Cowboy Poetry Gathering
Posted by Wyoming Arts at 11:37 AM
Labels: artist roster, arts, buckaroo culture, Colorado, country-western, cowboy music, cowboy poetry, cowboys, Wyoming
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Web Mission doesn't like its hotel at all - user generated content in action
There is a tour this week in Silicon Valley by a group of 20 UK start-ups, under the rather grand title of banner Web Mission 08.
Peter Ward from WAYN is on it.
The idea that a group of bright young things is running amok in Techland, California, has created a fair bit of debate and an equal number of angry responses.
Anyway, a reader emailed this morning to point us in the direction of the blogs of two of the participants, Paul Carr and Paul Walsh.
This is what happens when you fill a hotel with web entrepreneurs who have no qualms about sharing their experiences of the, er, accommodation.
How I learned to stop tipping and hate The Clift.
The hostile Clift or Hotel Clift.
One doubts if The Clift Hotel in San Francisco will ever be a favoured haunt of budding start-uppers after these seemingly well connected people have spread their ire though the blogosphere.
Kevin May, editor, Travolution
Technorati tags: web mission clift webmission


text:
This is a personal response from the Chairman
of the Strategic Rail Authority to the Sub-Committee's invitation
in late July to submit memoranda.
In the last week of June I announced that I
would "neither seek nor accept" continuation of my appointment
as Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority after its expiry on
31 March 2002. My decision was consistent with a conversation
with the Deputy Prime Minister on 10 April and my letter to him
of 8 May.
When the new Secretary of State, Mr Byers, thereupon
suggested to me that my successor ought to take my place in time
to launch the SRA's Strategic Plan by the end of November, I agreed
that would be a good idea if achievable. No date or terms for
my departure having yet been discussed and no information having
come from the Department on progress towards appointing a successor,
I have today given the Secretary of State the three months' notice
of my departure required of my by my terms of appointment.
Accordingly, I expect to be still in post when
(and if) the Committee holds hearings in late October or November.
I have taken this step because the process of
selecting and seating an NDPB chairperson is usually slow and
more so when, as in this case, any invitee will need to negotiate
positive, viable and satisfactory terms of reference. I have advised
the Secretary of State not to "require my successor to accept
the unworkable Instructions and Guidance in the draft" (Draft
I&G for the SRA issued for consultation on 27 June). Life
moves on, and I wish to do so toobut not before I have
done what I can to maintain the capability and the momentum developed
under my leadership despite the differences between Ministers,
officials and me that began to develop in the latter part of last
Currently, at my behest, the Chief Executive
and Board of the SRA are submitting a memorandum composed by the
Executive team here in response to the Committee's invitation.
My very capable Chief Executive, Mike Grant, can be questioned
on that memorandum by the Committee without my presence being
necessary. This procedure is consistent with my decision, notified
to the Secretary of State on 24 July and ratified by the Board
of the SRA on 2 August, to assign supervision of the preparation
of the SRA's Strategic Plan to a non-executive colleague approved
by the Board. The Strategic Plan to be published by the SRA at
the end of November will not be written or directed by meunlike
the Strategic Agenda published last March. This is appropriate,
since it will comply with the unworkable requirement that it plans
to use only the resources currently available to the SRA. I told
the Committee last May those are inadequate for the SRA's purpose.
I have some brief comments to make under the
headings in the notice of this new inquiry, after which I will
expand very briefly on the principal features of a useful Strategic
Plan as I would see it. I am willing to appear before Mrs Dunwoody
and the Committee to discuss the situation in the rail industry.
The notice asked if the Government's new approach,
notably tightening the departmental grip on this NDPB established
by the Transport Act 2000 and turning away from my policy of refranchising
despite its positioning last year as the cornerstone of the rail
segment of the 10 Year Plan for Transport, would:
To move on to my personal view of a useful Strategic
Plan from the SRA, for the 15 months since the Government published
its 10 Year Plan I have been working my way towards a Plan based
As I see it that Plan would focus on duly prioritised,
value-for-money capital upgrades of (a) the major hubs; (b) the
major inter-city routes; (c) key freight routes; and (d) a careful
selection of other identified routes of particular value; as well
as rolling stock, stations, access and information. Proper but
not absurd safety provision would be a given throughout. I put
major hubs (most notably London, also but not only Birmingham,
Manchester and Leeds) first because so many of the network's problems
are rooted in getting into and through those hubs. "Through"
London means particular attention over more than a decade to what
I call an "RER" strategyEast London Line, Crossrail,
Thameslink 2000, Hackney-Southwest, etcavoiding the need
to build both new tube lines and main line termini.
It will be noted that I aspire to a Plan that
meets Britain's needs, rather than one restricted as directly
by Mr Byers to the inadequate resources available. Time to completion
should be the variable, not moneysubject always to value
for money, the public sector calculation of which needs modernising
with positive intent.
I am perfectly well aware frustration may be
expressed that during my two and a half years to date as Chairman
of the SRA I have not done more to detail and publicise any such
Plan. I invite critics to describe to me a Strategic Plan for
the SRA prepared after the 10 Year Plan and five year Regulatory
Review (both July 2000) but before Hatfield (October 2000)
which would have survived the collapse of Railtrack and the withdrawal
of government commitment to the principle of refranchising. The
long tussle between Government and SRA over franchising strategy
and cost was an added, severe complication, which has gravely
damaged our credibility.
I am at the Committee's disposal if it wishes
to ask for clarification of this memorandum.
Sir Alastair Morton
13 September 2001


text:
Welcome! I enjoy capturing the moments and beauty of life through photography and sharing them. My hope is that your visit here will add a little beauty to your day!
Sunday, May 8, 2011
2 comments:
- Chrystal Susut, May 8, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Amazing pictures !! You captured Nate so wonderfully, thank you !!
- Gary M., May 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Beautiful Boy, my great grandson, Can't wait to meet him...olve oma
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)