Tom Richmond: Grumpy old Ken gives call to arms on mobiles
GOOD old Ken Clarke. He spoke for many – particularly the more mature generations or the technophobe brigade – when he talked about the "curse of the mobile phone" the other day.
"It is one of my foibles as a grumpy old man," said the Shadow Business Secretary with typical candour. "I actually do think it's an inefficient way of operating and that I do find it easier to manage things without people expecting to be able to pester me by mobile phone and BlackBerry and everything else. I do live surrounded by people who are never off the blasted mobile phone and I do think it's a distraction."
Hear, hear.
And, presumably, as the man bringing a touch of common sense to Tory economic policy, Clarke will ban the "whiz kid" aides in a Tory government from using mobiles at all times.
As he intimated, there's no substitute for talking face-to-face rather than "twittering" or whatever the bright young things do these days.
Past generations had no difficulties whatsoever surviving without a mobile phone. If they had to make an urgent call, they would find a telephone kiosk – and hope that it hadn't been vandalised.
Despite this, the country still ticked over. Yet, while the "convenience" factor of pocket phones cannot be dismissed, I do agree with Clarke that they are rapidly becoming status symbols.
People, and particularly those working for politicians, have to be seen using their mobile or BlackBerry – whether it be on the train – or waiting for a meeting, even if they are talking gibberish. The key – as one prominent Tory from this region told me this week – is ensuring that the Conservatives can make a difference when they come to power. And, judging by the inexperience of Team Cameron, that means lots of preparatory meetings, and the cultivation of contacts within the Civil Service, rather than developing policy by text message or twitter.
They're right, but will the Tories listen to old sages like Clarke or dismiss him as an "old buffer" simply because they don't like his pro-EU stance?
I fear the latter.
WHAT does it say about Westminster when it can bill taxpayers more than 1,500 for the cost of the inaugural meeting of the Yorkshire Select Committee in this region – even though the gathering in Leeds did not take place because one MP could not attend? The authorities say the money had to be spent on staff travel, accommodation and room hire. I say that it could have been done for far cheaper in a community hall, and at lunchtime (to avoid the need for a hotel stay).
Do you agree?
JOHN Prescott spoke about the importance of clear language last week, a lesson that James Purnell has still to learn following his Cabinet resignation.
Talking about the renewal of Labour values, Purnell said that "equality of capability" would be key. It doesn't sound like an electoral winner to me. I'm not even sure what the former Work and Pensions Secretary even means.
BOB Ainsworth – Gordon Brown's second-choice Defence Secretary in the recent reshuffle – has ordered his underlings to stop briefing against General Sir Richard Dannatt, the outgoing head of the UK Army, after he told the Government some uncomfortable truths about the Afghanistan war.
I'd go further. The Armed Forces depend on loyalty. This is its core value. As such, Ainsworth should not hesitate to sack the Minister who was bad-mouthing General Dannatt.
As well as showing that such conduct is unacceptable, it might – just – help Ainsworth earn his stripes and show that the Ministry of Defence is, after all, on the side of the Army.
MUCH was made of the remarks by Lord Malloch-Brown, the outgoing Foreign Office Minister, when he said this week in reference to the Afghanistan war: "We definitely don't have enough helicopters."
He should know. His political brief includes Afghanistan. But what disappoints me is that Malloch-Brown chose to wait until his last days in office before speaking out, thereby giving the Government an excuse to dismiss
his comments.
Why didn't he speak up earlier – or was it a deliberately timed parting shot aimed at Gordon Brown? We deserve to be told. So, too, do the Armed Forces.
IT'S not just authors who need to be "security vetted" by the Criminal Records Bureau before visiting schools for literacy lessons.
Evidently, the same applies to our not-so-esteemed MPs, according to John Battle, the Leeds West MP.
Requesting that the applications of MPs are fast-tracked – just like those of local councillors – Commons leader Harriet Harman said the policy of vetting had to be based on "common sense". So why, therefore, are elected representatives having to jump through such hoops?
THERE is a political parallel to the England cricket team's historic Ashes win at Lord's this week – its first against Australia at the home of the cricket since 1934. Back then, the then Labour government was deeply unpopular because of the recession. The England cricket team helped lighten the gloom by winning at Lords.
A year later, and Labour were turfed out as Stanley Baldwin's Conservative administration came to power.
Tory MPs clearly believe history will repeat itself. They said as much in the Commons when they questioned Bradford MP Gerry Sutcliife, the Sports Minister. But, just as the Australian batsmen were bowled out by Freddie Flintoff's searing deliveries on Monday, so were the crowing Conservatives when it was pointed out to them that England went on to lose the 1934
Ashes series.
- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 20 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: East
