Shane Greer

It’s a great shame that news of Prince Harry’s deployment in Afghanistan has become public.  Although now that it has become public it’s worth noting that Prince Harry has acted as we should expect a Royal to; with bravery and outstanding commitment to the United Kingdom.  Those who refer to him as the ‘Playboy Prince’ have some serious reflecting to do.

[I am naturally be against any law restricting the media from reporting deployments such as Prince Harry’s, however one would have hoped such reporting would have been prevented by journalistic ethics (or indeed ethics of any kind)]

I was pleased to read this morning that Kiera Coultas, who ran over and killed 19 year old Jordan Wickington whilst she texted on he mobile phone, has been sentenced to four years in jail. Sentences like this are needed to remind people just how dangerous mobile phone use whilst driving is.

Had Coultas waited until she reached her destination to reply to a text message (which one assumes wasn’t of earth-shattering importance) Jordan Wickington would still be alive.

After dinner with friends last night I walked past parliament on my way home.  As I passed the main gates a short rotund figure emerged listening to an MP3 player.  Who was the man?  None other than the fat-fella, John Prescott.

I wonder what he was listening to.  My vote is Cindy Lauper, Girls Just Want To Have Fun…

A lot has been made of the fact the latest Conservative campaign video was made by Matthew Vaughn, the director of Layer Cake.  But that got me thinking, what would a political campaign video made by Quentin Tarantino look like?  And which party would be most likely to commission him?

I guess it would be remiss of me not to comment on the new Conservative campaign encouraging people to become ‘friends’ of the party by donating as little as £1 (given my interest in political campaign technique). So what you might say? What difference will £1 make? Indeed what difference would 1,000 people donating £1 make? After all £1,000 isn’t a great deal of money in the greater scheme of things.

The importance of the new campaign though isn’t in the amount asked for, but rather the fact that it acts as a departure from traditional approaches to fundraising and an embrace of the kind of web-based campaigning we’ve seen in American politics post-Howard Dean (a style of campaigning that has come into its own under Obama).

There are many who argue the campaigns of the future will centre around the internet and that traditional campaign techniques such as door-to-door leafletting, canvassing, and direct mail will fade from view and become instead the subject of history books. Of course such a view of future campaigning is misguided; the web, just like direct mail in its heyday, is simply another (albeit incredibly effective) tool in the campaigner’s box of tricks.

The web allows political campaigners to bring vast numbers of people together at relatively low cost for a common purpose. It implicitly acknowledges the power of numbers; the force of many small voices combined. £1 might not be a lot, but those that give £1 will likely give more when asked again in the future. The £1 donation isn’t simply a donation, it’s a symbol of an individuals commitment to the cause they’re donating to (in this case the Conservative Party). And a carefully nurtured commitment can last a lifetime.

£1 might not seem like a lot, but make no mistake, with this request for ‘friends’ the Conservative Party is changing the face of political campaigning as it is understood in the UK.

Words are important (oddly enough).  They’re important because they’re the mechanism through which we communicate.  But in order for that mechanism to work each word has to have a commonly understood meaning (although that naturally doesn’t prevent the meaning of words evolving over time).  For example, if I told a friend that I was going to meet him at a particular time today it’s important that we both have the same understanding of the word meet.  It wouldn’t work out too well for example if he understood it to mean “to join at an agreed or designated place or time”, and I understood it to mean “cook a large sea bass.”

It’s important therefore that we all understand the radical evolution the word hypocrisy has undergone in the past few months thanks to Labour.  Previously hypocrisy meant:

“The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.”

Now though after several senior cabinet ministers have been found campaigning against the closure of post offices in their constituencies and denied hypocrisy despite the cabinet having made the decision to last May to go ahead with those closures it would seem the word means something else entirely, perhaps:

“The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one holds or possess.”

New Labour, New Definitions.

I’m doing the Sky News paper review this evening at 11.30 with Ned Temko from the Observer.  I wonder whether the protesters on the roof of parliament will make tomorrow’s papers?  Hmm…

Patrick Ruffini has a great post on the genius of Obama’s marketing campaign, characterising it quite rightly as corporate brand marketing:

“Watching Obamamania unfold over the last few days, I have gradually come to the realization that we are living through the first Presidential campaign that is being marketed like a high-end consumer brand…

…Most campaigns never get beyond talking issues. The sophisticated ones run on attributes in the foreground (cares about people like me) tied to issues in the background (a health care plan). The Obama effort seems to be something wholly different. The campaign and its marketing seems designed to evoke aspirational feelings that have virtually no political meaning whatsoever. This is what great brands do. They evoke feelings that have virtually zero connection to product attributes and specifications.“

Am I starting to re-evaluate my position on the democratic race?  Yeah, just a bit…

For some time now I’ve been arguing that security at parliament is utterly inadequate, and the point has once more been proven with yet another breach.  As I rounded the corner leading to the main gates at parliament this morning I was confronted with an army of cameramen with their lenses pointing toward parliament’s roof.  My immediate thought was that perhaps the earthquake had done some damage to the roof (as unlikely as that seemed).  As I reached the cameramen I followed their collective line of sight to the protesters who had gained access to the roof and draped banners over the wall.  My reaction?  Completely unsurprised.

Parliamentary security is a joke precisely because the screening (for those who are screened) is shoddy at best.  You go through the metal detector and your bag (if you haven’t simply passed it to a friend with a pass) goes through the x-ray machine.  A guard then gives you the most superficial of frisks (completely ignoring the soles of your shoes, your lower back, and lower legs).

If you have a pass though things are even more ridiculous.  No metal detector, no frisk, no x-ray of your bag (not even somebody taking a cursory look inside your bag).  End result, a disgruntled researcher could do a lot of damage.

Now the argument against more rigorous security is that it would slow everything down, the business of parliament would be impeded.  To that I would simply say the following; they manage it in Congress in the States.

It’s high times we learned from our mistakes (before something truely terrible happens) and actually took the security of parliament seriously.

I’m on 5 Live at 11.15 this evening debating David Blunkett’s involvement with a new reality TV show (Banged Up With Blunkett… no really, it’s honestly called that).
——————