Political Penguin

It’s been interesting in Walsall, and I’ll try to say a bit more about the matter than my young fresh faced and chipper mate Paul Mac.

I’ll start with a brief reflection on my own humble predictions that I made in the last post. Not far out but not spot on either which is always annoying as I’m usually quite good at this stuff. However it begs a few questions and perhaps a little more analysis of what was actually going on in specific wards.

I happily got it wrong on the positioning of the parties in Short Heath, the BNP didn’t come second as it seems for some reason their vote across the whole of the West Midlands seems to a petered out and fallen back. Hopefully this is a pattern that will continue ad perhaps the electorate have started to realise what they really are as a party.

I got the jitters on polling day about Blakenall, Darlaston South and Brownhills. Thankfully in the case Brownhills they were uncalled for and an excellent hard working local Labour Councillor was returned. Sadly in the case of Blakenall and Darlaston South those jitters turned out to be well founded.

In Blakenall we lost to the DLP (Democratic Labour Party) by 15 votes. The DLP have been targeting this ward for years. On paper Blakenall should be the safest Labour ward in the Borough, although it vies closely with a couple of other wards who should also be far safer than they actually are. All I can say is if anything it should have been last year that the DLP would have seemed likely to gain this seat, put off by a very good campaign then. Why this year? Well, I wasn’t involved in the campaign this year so I have no clue how well or badly it was run but the margin is of course very slim. I’ve been conveyed two versions of the events at the count, the first that a recount was not allowed because staff were tired and the second that the Labour candidate decided not to have a recount because he thought the staff were tired. If the former then I’m sorry, this is democracy and whether the staff are tired or not is irrelevant. If the second account is true then the Labour candidate is a complete and total tit. If it’s a case of only 15 votes then it’s a recount and tough if the staff are tired or not.

On Darlaston South which rightly did go to a recount the margin was even less at 11 votes where the Independent defeated the sitting local Councillor. It wouldn’t have been for any lack of trying on our part as the campaign there was probably the best run and organised in the Borough which the result shows given how far off the mark we were last year when the Independent was returned. This time it was his wife up and plain and simple, they won. Did they deserve it? Well no and Darlaston South is all the worse off for losing probably their most active and dedicated Councillor for someone who I’d have a good bet will do sod all for the area.

The one I missed was Pleck. This was the only loss by Labour to the Tories in Walsall and in some respects needs a little more explanation.

The Labour candidate was new in that the sitting Labour Councillor was stepping down. That sitting Labour Councillor was the Muslim Councillor who after winning in 2004 crossed the floor from the Tories. He’d got there on a communal vote as a Muslim and simply the Tories put up another Muslim and pulled in enough of that communal vote again to take the seat back. I won’t complain because we won the Palfrey Ward last year from the Tories on pretty much the same basis but from my own personal perspective, I’m not a lover of communal politics and although I could write a dissertation on the subject I’ll just note that I recognise that in so far as building strong local democracy, I believe that communal politics has the potential to do more harm than good.

So there you go, apart from that my predictions were pretty much on the money. It was particularly nice to see the LibDem Nadia Fazel get completely shafted in my own ward even if it was by a much higher margin than even I’d dare to commit to. All in all not really a lot changed in Walsall, we’re still in opposition, we stand next to no chance of winning the council back any soon and despite what a complete and utter shambles the Tories are making of the place they can sit pretty for a fair while yet.

I am thinking of another post regarding this issue, concentrating more on the broader view of strategy and interpretation of how the political dynamics are working in Walsall but I shall desist for now as I’ve been to two counts in the last 24 hours, not slept much, am overly tired to concentrate to the extent that the subject matter requires and simply can’t be bother right now, I’d rather do something not remotely linked to politics for the next few hours.

I’m going to stick my neck out here and do a bit of election result prediction. Feel free to shoot me down should I get things spectacularly wrong but give me credit that at least I’ve got the bottle to put myself up for a potential right drumming.

Just for information I penned this article on April 28th 2007 in the early hours of the morning. I’ll be releasing it around about the close of polls on election day. There may be an hours discrepancy in terms of the time stamp as I can’t be bothered to adjust my sites times to BST but you’ll see it definitely went up before the votes were counted and feel free to save it but I promise not to try and pull a fast one by retro-editing it simply to make myself look good or get out of the shit if I get it spectacularly wrong.

So here’s how I think the make-up of Walsall will look come next Friday.

Tories 32
Labour 21
Independent 1
LibDems 6

Which is actually how it stood before the election.

In fairness it could be anything between:

Tories 34
Labour 18
Independent 2
LibDems 6

and:

Tories 30
Labour 22
Independent 1
LibDems 6

So anyway, for you delectation I give you a quick run down on what’s going to happen in Walsall. It’s by no means exhaustive and of course there’s things I know and factors at work in some cases that I have no wish to put into the public domain for use by other parties against us but just for a bit of fun and for Paul Macmanomy to take the piss out of me when I get it spectacularly wrong here we go:

Birchills Leamore: Lab Hold

This on paper should be one of the safest Labour seats in the borough yet last year the majority over the Tories got down to 80 something (can’t be bothered to look it up). The reason for this was that the Labour Councillor at the time Carol Rose defected to the Tories, strangely enough she did this a week or so after she failed to get selected to stand for Stourbridge in the 2005 General election after she was flaunting her wares as a committed Labour person so she obviously thought the Tories were a better prospect for her future. She’s standing again but against Tim Oliver the current leader of the Labour group she doesn’t stand much of a chance.

Blakenall: Lab Hold

Again another seat that should be one of Labour’s safest in the borough. Complicated by a very active Democratic Labour Party candidate but despite that Labour should hold it. If we don’t then there should be some very serious questions asked.

Bloxwich East: Tory Hold

Labour held this seat last year by seven votes if memory serves me correctly, anyway not more than ten. That was with a local candidate who’s well known. This year, not a chance of picking up this seat, Tories will walk it.

Bloxwich West: Tory Hold

Labour have an excellent local candidate here and former Councillor who works hard in the area. Despite that the Tories have a far superior organisational structure in terms of campaigning in Bloxwich which accounts for them holding five out of the six seats in a town that on paper should be completely Labour and as above, our one seat is very tenuous.

Short Heath: LibDem Hold

I’m going to really stick my neck out here and give the positions of the parties.

1.LibDem
2.BNP
3.Tory
4.Labour

I’m not going to go into the reasons but Labour will get slaughtered in this ward and the BNP will pick up a considerable amount of votes and clearly be second.

Willenhall North: LibDem Hold

Change of candidate for the LibDems here. They’ve put up the bloke who stood in Willenhall South last year who was so committed to us, so much so that he’s buggered off to a nice cushy safe LibDem seat.

Willenhall South: Lab Hold

Much to the contrary of Colin Ross and Paul Macmanomy saying this one’s too close to call I’ll go into numbers and predict at least a 200 Labour majority over the LibDems, Tories coming third and the Democratic Labour Party struggling to get over 100 votes if that. Simple analysis, Labour has the strong local candidate who lives in the ward, works very much on local issues and getting things done for people round here. The LibDems have put up that woman who used to be a member of the Labour Party, then joined Respect and has now ended up with them. Scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates is putting it mildly.

Aldridge Central South, Aldridge North and Walsall Wood, Streetly, Rushall Shelfield and Pelsall: Tory Hold.

I’ve done these wards together because they make up the constituency of Aldridge Brownhills. It’s plain and simple, the Labour Party is next to non-existent in this bit of the world, we stand no chance of winning anything however you’ll note I left the Brownhills ward out which I’ll do next. The only ward to watch would be Rushall Shelfield, one of the BNP’s two target wards in Walsall. They’ll do well here, almost certainly come second but overturn the Tories? Almost certainly not.

Brownhills: Lab Hold

This one’s very tricky. If I was to play it safe I’d say Tory gain but I think Labour might just hold on. Electorally Brownhills is a funny ward. In the all-up election in 2004 it returned two Tories and one Labour although it was narrow between the second Labour candidate and the second Tory. Labour failed to gain it last year by a very narrow margin despite having an excellent campaign and a hard working candidate. It is also complicated by being one of the two focus wards for the BNP in Walsall that has almost turned it into a three way tie between Tory, Labour and the BNP. The BNP might pick it up but I think that the combination of a well known local Labour candidate who works hard in the ward may just see her through with those extra few ‘personal’ votes that such candidates get.

Pheasey Park Farm: Tory Hold

Nothing much to say, the Tories will win.

Bentley Darlaston North: Lab Hold

A presumed safe Labour seat and with the candidate who both works and campaigns hard in the area there shouldn’t be a problem in winning it.

Darlaston South: Lab Hold

Another ward with a hard working Labour Councillor up for re-election. Probably has the best run campaign of any in the borough. There’s a threat from an Independent, the wife of the current Independent councillor for the ward who won last year for very special reasons but against the Labour candidate combined with her formidable campaigning approach (at least compared to the rest of the Labour campaign in Walsall) this should hopefully be a Labour Hold.

Paddock: Tory Hold

Not much to say. The Tories will hold it.

Palfrey: Tory Hold

Another funny ward. A lot of Muslim community politics goes down in this neck of the woods. Last year it was a Labour gain and potentially could be a gain this year but I doubt it.

Pleck: Labour Hold

Again a bit funny due to some Muslim politics which saw a Muslim Tory elected in the all-up election of 2005 who then defected to Labour and decided not to stand this year so it’s a fresh Labour candidate but someone who’s known very well locally and works hard so he’ll probably get through.

St. Matthews: Tory Hold

I’m biased on this one as the candidate is the one who stood last year in Brownhills. He’s an excellent campaigner and was prior to the 2005 all-up election, the Councillor for this ward. Following the boundary changes this ward changed considerably. To the cries of gerrymandering and such, a large area with a good thousand or so Tory voters got shifted into this ward and effectively wiped Labour out. Is it possible to regain the ward? Sadly probably not and the Labour Group would be all the worse for the lack of the presence of it’s candidate in this ward sitting on the benches.

So there you go. My prediction for Walsall despite all the bad press, investigations, auditors reports (nicely delayed until after the elections), referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service, the background of what amounts to a completely crap Tory run council and I doubt they’ll be any change whatsoever and if anything maybe a Tory gain of one or two.

feel free to take the piss out of me if I get it completely wrong though.

[Update] As it’s polling day I’m going to stick pretty much with the predictions above but with some rather dodgy feelings regarding the Blakenall, Brownhills and Darlaston South wards.

It’s been a strange week in comparison to normal. My enforced housebound status due to having my toenail removed on Monday has meant I haven’t got out. This has meant I’ve completed lots of jobs (mainly techie) that I’ve been meaning to do for a while and I’ve completely exhausted every one of my RSS feeds in terms of my media consumption.

Every blog I read has been read, every media feed I have has been read, I’ve polished off Zelda the Twilight Princess and gone back through it to find all the hidden stuff, built my Lego Star Destroyer and have found myself at a loose end.

This led me to hunt out some new stuff to consume. I rarely get round to reading the online sections of newspapers, save for the dear old Express and Swastiki for pure frustration at how bad journalism can get but I found myself at the Guardian’s comment is free section. More precisely at this article by Polly Toynbee.

Haven’t read anything by her for years, which may sound odd being a leftie politico type but it’s true. However it made me remember that I’d been planning to write a piece about the impact of consumer society values on expectations of public services. I wasn’t planning on concentrating on the health service in particular but it is a very good example.

I’m not going to reiterate what Polly Toynbee has written, just read her article to get the jist but what struck me most was the comments to her article. I managed to get about half way through before I gave up in despair at the number of people slagging off the NHS, moaning about how much taxes they pay for it or doing down what we have in the UK and comparing it to other countries that have ‘better’ health services.

So I thought I’d share a bit of my own personal experience of the NHS.

I don’t use the health service much, I’ve only ever had one procedure done and short of a few trips to the GP for a bit of professional opinion and the odd bottle of jollop that’s about it. The only procedure I’ve had is the one that took place on Monday to remove my ingrowing big toenail. I visited my GP about five weeks ago because it was painful, he diagnosed it, referred me for the operation that should have been in about four to six weeks so five weeks is pretty much on the money and I had it done. I went back today as the operations are carried out at my local clinic in the town, a walk of about 200 yards to have my dressing changed and that was it. I don’t know how much this procedure cost the NHS nor the cumulative cost of my few visits to the GP over the years but I’d hazard a guess hardly anything compared to the proportion of the taxes that I’ve paid into the system to pay for its running.

The strange thing about this, at least if you are to believe some of the comments on Toynbee’s article is that I’m quite happy about this situation. I am quite happy to pay taxes to run a service that I do not wish to use. I’m happy because I’m not able to predict and control everything in my life. I do not know that one day one the arseholes who speed past my house isn’t going to knock me over and I end up in A&E with the requirement for a lot of treatment. I don’t know if I may suffer from an illness like cancer or suddenly have a heart attack but I do know that I quite like the idea that if I do, then I don’t have to worry too much about it because I won’t have to suddenly fork over thousands of pounds to cover the cost or find out suddenly there’s a clause in my health insurance that “doesn’t cover that condition or illness”. Such as I don’t mind that from my own perspective up till now I’ve paid thousands into the system for other people’s care and treatment, because come the day I may need treatment for something serious, those very same people may be the ones paying in to cover for my treatment. Personally however, I’d be quite happy to pay into the system for the whole of my working life and never have to have had another procedure done other than the one I’ve just had.

There were also numerous comments about waiting times for procedures and of course of a negative nature so I thought I’d add a few examples. I waiting five weeks to have a minor bit of surgery done relating to a condition that caused me minor discomfort but nothing agonising. I’m reminded back to about 16 years ago when a relative of mine had the same condition. He waited over six months for his operation and apparently that was a reasonable time to expect to wait in those days to have an ingrowing toenail removed. I think I quite like the way things are now because despite my condition being a minor discomfort for the period of five weeks, I don’t think I would have fancied it for six months, not even taking into account how the condition can get progressively more painful the longer it is left.

Second example. My mother had a problem with her ear a few months back. She went to the GP who referred her to a specialist at New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton which took about a fortnight. He saw her and asked her if she’d like to come back the following day to have the procedure done. Not sure about how other people might see that, but having the procedure done the next day seems rather a good service by my standards.

I’ll touch on a bit of comparative health provision which always comes up in these arguments usually about why our health service isn’t ‘as good’ as for example the French, German or Nordic ones. I won’t go into the old debate of comparing it to the US system of individual health insurance as it’s been done to death apart from noting that purely from an administrative cost analysis our system wins hands down in terms of efficiency. It’s simple, one form to fill in, if you’re registered as living at an address in the UK you can get an NHS number and that’s about it. You don’t have to pay for treatment at the point of need and whether you’re taken sick in Wolverhampton, Edinburgh or Machynlleth you can get treatment at the nearest hospital without any hassle. I use that example deliberately as you will see in a minute.

Now I will admit to not knowing much about the French health service apart from it’s based on a combined system of people paying for it through taxation and private health insurance. Germany is pretty much the same which I do know a bit more about for obvious reasons. Is it better? Well yes if your measurement of comparison is in terms of the potential wait you may have for things to get done. Perhaps this is part of the national psyche of the Germans? They don’t tend to like to wait for things, something very evident in Mrs Penguin and with their combined state funded and private health insurance system they get a faster service than we do. Of course they pay for it, not only through higher taxes but also having to afford private health policies on top and we are back to the old adage of getting what you pay for. Whatever rubbish is spouted by the right of British politics we have it fairly good in the UK in terms of taxation, both personal and business. What we have is a health service that is effectively done on the cheap because of the conditions under which it is expected to run. Despite its detractors it’s a pretty damn efficient organisation, of course more could be done but given how we pay comparably less for our health service than our near neighbours on the continent we get a pretty good deal.

Moving on to the Nordic model of which I know more about, in particular of the Finnish system having lived there. Theirs is in essence more comparable to ours in that it’s a directly funded for by the tax-payer system unless things have radically changed since I last lived there.

However here’s why I used the example of our own where it doesn’t matter if you’re in Wolverhampton, Edinburgh or Machynlleth when you need treatment. Much as the Finnish health system could be considered better than our own, less waiting times, better facilities etc etc, it’s not a ‘national’ health service. It’s funding comes through local taxation which on one hand is good in terms of being able to tailor treatments to more specific local areas but if for example you live and pay taxes in Tampere and just happen to be visiting Helsinki when your appendix starts to burst and there have been some examples of this. The doctors in Helsinki have been known to ship the patient 120 miles north back to Tampere so that they pick up the cost.

Personally if I happen to be in Sheffield and my appendix starts to burst I’d quite like to be taken to the local hospital and it done as quickly as possible there than be shipped back to Wolverhampton and that of course raises the issue of what is the overriding priority? As much as the Nordic system is very good, it doesn’t preclude the possibility of costs and funding overruling clinical patient care. I’ll just add that there’s actually another type of health service structure in Finland that I haven’t mentioned, that for students which is completely different and funded through membership of the local student union which is compulsory and has to be paid for. I won’t go into too much detail but over there students unions are very much a part of the social welfare structure as opposed to the organisers of piss-ups at universities over here. (that is a deliberately flippant remark for humorous value, yes I know they do some very important student welfare stuff here too before someone complains but in comparison it is nothing to the extent that they do in Finland)

What’s the conclusion? Well much as we would all want our treatment done the next day, it’s quite clear that in Britain people are not willing to fork over the extra money in taxation to pay for it. We have a pretty good and efficient health service that operates on significantly less money than those in France, Germany and the Nordic countries so we can’t really complain that much. We are spending more on the NHS now than we were under the Tories and the improvements in service and significantly lower waiting times are there to see but for some reason people seem not to understand this expecting everything to be done yesterday and of course not willing to cough up the extra cash to achieve this aim. Something for nothing I think that is called and it’s a very childish perspective to take which perhaps is a sad reflection on the society in which we live.

[note] I’d originally titled this article “In pursuit of happiness” and intended to go on to other areas but I’ve decided to keep it more focused on health issues. I’ll do the more general theme another time.

I did mention as I got caught up in all this Tory attack nonsense that I was planning on writing an article that was critical of my own side. It’s a bit long-winded and requires some explanation, particularly that of a techie nature but bear with me there’s some interesting and important points to be made.

The genesis of this topic started when I received an e-mail encouraging me to sign a petition on No.10′s website. I don’t sign petitions as a rule and in all fairness this particular petition was poorly worded. However the good intention was there, it was something dear to my heart and I thought very valid to be raised.

Basically it was to encourage the Government to use Linux operating systems in Departments and the public sector in general.

Here’s why it wasn’t a particularly well phrased petition. It pretty much only mentioned Linux which to be fair is only one part of a wider use of Open Source Software (OSS) and I would agree that if the objective is to encourage the use of OSS in the public sector then there are far better places to start than simply trying to adopt Linux as an operating system.

Anyway as I’ve never signed one of these Downing Street petitions before I wasn’t aware that they send out responses but I was interested by the one that I got. Here it is:

“Government policy on Open Source Software (OSS) is available in the document “Open Source Software, Use within UK Government, Version 2.0, 28 October 2004″. This is available from www.govtalk.gov.uk. The policy is set out on page 4 of the document. In particular the Government will:

The UK Government champions open standards and interoperability through the e-government interoperability framework (e-gif). This framework is available from the ‘govtalk’ web site. The ability to substitute one component for another removes the dependency on a single supplier and encourages competition – an essential for Transformational Government. Many authors of software embrace open standards and interoperability but do not wish to make their source code freely available; they should not be penalised.”

Me being the curious Penguin that I am decided to read through all the various documentation referred to and a few others as well.

Now on to a side issue where this becomes less an administrative issue and more a political issue.

The other day I was browsing through my site stats and picked up a referral from Technorati which looked interesting. Can’t remember what it was but I came up on the same page as Guido AKA Paul Delaire Staines.

As I don’t read his site I wouldn’t normally have picked up on it but had a little look. It was an interesting piece about George Osbourne talking up the benefits of OSS and to go with it Guido provided nice little graphical representations implying that the Labour Party was in some way in league with the evil empire of Microsoft compared of course to the open and wonderfully modern and forward thinking Tories.

Another side issue. I wanted to link to that post so dropped back the Paul Delaire Staine’s site tonight but couldn’t find it. There’s a simple reason. His site is complete and utter shite from a design/functional perspective. No category listings that aren’t present in posts on the front page, no hierarchical archives section to search by date and I didn’t spot a search function either. Purely from the perspective of a techie who designs websites with functionality as the core objective, I would be ashamed to put such a shoddy pisspoor site on the net but hey ho, back to the issue.

So Paul Delaire Staines did a piece talking up the Tories and doing down Labour, no surprise there then. However and this is why the ‘sort of…’ bit appears in the title of this post. I’d originally planned on giving my own side a bit of a drumming on this issue but it’s a bit more complicated than a straight fight against the evil empire of Microsoft, not that I would expect such a complex issue to be handled on Paul Delaire Staines site, he does afterall appeal to the Janet and John end of the political spectrum.

I’ve touched on a lot of the various issues before in this post so please refer to it if there’s any concepts you’re not familiar with.

Let’s run with the Tories good on OSS and Labour bad and we’ll split this into two categories. Use by the parties and use in Government when in power.

Use in Government first, that’s the easiest. Now OSS has been around for many years but it’s only been the last 5 or so years that it’s been hitting the mainstream for regular users. Prior to this any use of OSS has been determined by the techie bods behind the scenes and uses have been more concentrated on various server structures, e-mail systems etc, not your average desktop application that people actually use from day to day. Now because of this it’s hard to criticise the Tories for not implementing it when they were in power.

However, this was the period when a lot of the civil service used a particular Word Processor called WordPerfect which was systematically replaced by the Microsoft Office package throughout virtually every level of government departments so with all due respect to Paul Delaire Staines on this one, it’s a bit rich to accuse Labour as being under the power of the evil Microsoft when it’s those same Tories who he’s now espousing as the radical proponents of OSS who stuck the shit in the public sector to start with when there were perfectly acceptable and as most techies would probably agree, a far superior product being used to start with although it too was not OSS.

Labour have been in power for almost a decade and in fairness have done very little to either alter the situation as regards implementation of OSS solutions or promote it. However in October 2004 at least the Government published a paper on it’s use which is far more than the Tories ever did. Has anything been done about it, well I haven’t spotted anything particular from national level but there is some shift in local services. The most interesting is implementations in schools which as far as I can tell is being driven less from actual policy by individual local authorities and more from simple practical cost/benefit perspectives of individual schools where the onus on the change often comes down to the particular techie in question who’s been tasked with the implementation of IT systems.

The irony of this is that implementation in the public sector isn’t coming from top-down diktat but more from grassroots practical implementation on a local level to deal with the specific challenges and needs of the services in question.

The problem with implementation in the public sector is twofold. Firstly, large organisations invariably tend towards slow change over time, radical overhauls, particularly IT systems in the public sector tend not to be a good thing. People are happy with what they’ve been using for years, were trained on and have a suspicion of using new systems. Secondly what exactly are we talking about when we refer to using OSS in the public sector?

It’s not about sticking Linux on every desktop in every government department and local authority. There are a plethora of OSS applications out there that happily sit on Windows operating systems and I would be more inclined to agree that change there is where it is needed.

There’s only a few applications required for use in most aspects of the public sector, an office suite, e-mail client and web browser, not really that hard. Of these well the web browser isn’t of great significance from a cost perspective because it comes bundled with the operating system. However e-mail client and office suites are. A simple switch to openoffice.org and say Mozilla Thunderbird e-mail client would save millions and unlike many switches of software, retraining costs are negligible. To be honest if any member of staff in the public sector can’t work out how to use openoffice.org after having used Microsoft Office then they have serious problems. The functionality, layout, style of the two applications are near on identical. Same is true for Thunderbird compared to Microsoft Outlook, looks a bit different but how hard is it to send an e-mail?

So there you go, a bit of criticism of the Labour Government for not pushing implementation where it could easily be done, but equally the Tories are to blame for many of the problems in the first place and I haven’t spotted a single Tory controlled local authority in the country about to embark down the road to IT enlightenment so we’ll put the George Osbourne thing down to a crap publicity stunt.

On to the parties actual usage then. After all if you’re going to espouse the use of OSS then one would assume you use it yourself. It’s a bit like telling people not to fly and then taking short haul trips that could easily be done by road. Or banging on about energy saving while burning shitloads of halogen bulb spots in your kitchen, that sort of thing.

Now one thing that came out of that Webcameron thing last week was a few hits from Tory Party HQ and please note, I’m going to say something complimentary about the Tories here. They use Firefox, an OSS web browser. Actually, all I know is that maybe one person in Tory HQ uses it but at least that’s one so for the record they get a tick box of approval on that one. Not sure what Labour or the LibDems use so can’t really offer an opinion there. Equally when it comes to operating systems and e-mail clients I really don’t know either but I’m going to hazard a guess they all use Windows with the odd Mac lying around for specific graphical and publishing work.

Here’s where we can get a picture of things though. Websites. Now I have no time to check out every single MP’s/Cllr’s/MEP’s website but from a bit of sampling here’s my conclusions. As regards elected members higher than Councillors I didn’t find a single one from the Tories or LibDems using an open source web system. I could be wrong, I’ll be happy to accept examples but from my mouch around the net I didn’t pick up on any. I found a fair few being used by Labour members, mainly it has to be said WordPress blogs although Harriet Harman has a Typo 3 front end with a WordPress blog tagged on to the back. When we get down to the Councillor level there’s a lot more Tories using open source stuff, again mainly WordPress but I didn’t spot a LibDem as they seem to often use some strange system that I’m assuming the party nationally set up for them.

On to the three main parties home websites. LibDems, looks like a bespoke system as does the Tories. Now of course I can only surmise from my own knowledge of scripting by looking at their source code but one usually finds that if a generator of some sort has been used it appears in the code. If however they have used OSS solutions or the companies they’ve employed to do their sites for them have and deliberately omitted it then that’s a big no no in the techiquette book. Labour on the other hand use a system called Typo 3 which is OSS, it clearly states it in the source code of the site and although I’m personally of the opinion that if you use OSS web solutions then you should also put it somewhere on your site, I won’t be too critical as it’s not a set requirement.

So there you go, Labour not so bad after all when it comes to the old OSS. I will qualify my statements above by saying that I used sample to derive these conclusions. I could quite easily have picked the wrong sites out and I’m happy to receive corrections or pointers in the direction of examples. I’m also really interested as I get a fair few hits from those working in the public sector of what you’re using at work. I’d like to do a bit more on this if I get enough responses to derive some serious data from so here’s what I would like to know. Here’s a few likely examples but please add others:
What operating system you’re using? Windows, Mac OS, Linux
What office package do you use? Microsoft, openoffice.org, Corel, Lotus
What web browser do you use? Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Netscape
What e-mail client do you use? Outlook, Thunderbird, Lotus

Feel free to post in the comments section although I know that people from political parties or the public sector might not wish to be identified then feel free to use the contact section and mail me. On this occasion all messages will be treated in strictest confidence and I won’t reveal anyone’s identity. If you could give indications like which party, which governmental department/local authority then that would help immensely. This for me isn’t really a party political issue, it’s more a personal campaign for better use of software in the public sector so I shan’t be using any of the data to have a pop at any party.

Well if we are to believe Gerry Sutcliffe in this article in the Times then it would appear so.

Few days old but wanted to cover it. This little bit reported by the BBC.

At first glance I instinctively thought not another bit of sideways privatisation of public services but then I realised something. There’s not actually anything that new about this announcement, in fact it’s almost identical to announcements made in January and last December so what’s the story here?

Well as far as these proposals go I’m not too overly keen on what Hutton is saying. I’m just getting the vibes that it’s another bit of state organisation bashing and how wonderful the private/voluntary sector could run things, which having worked in all these three sectors I know exactly which two I would certainly not trust with the job, one in particular.

However if that is the way things are going, or if some smart arse in the civil service has pointed to a way of ‘cutting’ the cost of the civil service by outsourcing services therefore them not being classed as a cost of the civil service, yes that one was in Yes Minister and it’s still used today then so be it.

Equally, if John Hutton is serious about improving services then he need look no further than his own department. From personal experience I’ve dealt with a wide range of governmental and local governmental departments over the years and up there as probably the most pisspoor would be the DWP. I’ve had so much trouble with them fucking up this that or the other that I am personally sick of the sight of their envelopes when they drop through my door.

So if John’s up for a challenge, I suggest sorting out his department first before going off in pursuit of all those naughty single parents who just, might just wish to be around in their child’s lives post 12 years old because sadly, much as it may be the case that in some sectors of the economy that family friendly working hours are available, for many of those single parents in our country, who it’s fair to say often inhabit the lower end of the social spectrum, it ain’t such a rosy picture.

We’re not talking about well educated middle class single mothers who can do a bit of work from home, run an internet e-bay store, we’re talking about those who do the shit end of the job market where if you’re not available to work when the employer wants you then you can piss off and if your kid is sick and has to take time off school then you ain’t gonna get paid for the time you take off which for those on low incomes is a big fucking deal.

Oh, and on a personal note, yes John should do something about the DWP because they are sodding useless, don’t listen, don’t read the things you send them, give factually incorrect advice, process claims on the basis of evidence and then change their mind without even informing people, cut off people’s benefit without telling them and as the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible, ie if you take them to tribunal it’s you vs him, then I can personally claim to have taken John to tribunal and given him a thorough arse kicking, not that anyone from his department had the guts to turn up to argue their side because they were simply wrong.

So this brings me back from my little rant about the ineptitude of the DWP. What’s John up to repeating what is old news? Equally us Labour Party members all had an e-mail from John the other day laying out these new plans so why’s his profile suddenly jumped?

Anyone would think he was mounting a bid for the leadership of the Labour Party or something….

Nope, not attending to pests with a well known brand of weed killer, I’m doing a bit of an overview and catch-up of the days events.

I’ve been out most of the day and busy with fatherly duties and attending to a visitor from Germany most of the evening so I’ve been a bit slow to catch up on what’s been going down in the wider world today.

So first up is the launch of a ‘new’ website by tweedle dee and tweedle dumber. My first impression was what’s the point? If the objective of the exercise is to encourage debate through the use of t’internet then someone might have told them it’s already been going on for years and they obviously just missed it.

Of course after a quick squiz through their comments section they have it appears successfully managed to attract a large number of the usual have a go at the Government brigade and Tory trolls which then begs the question, so what has this site achieved apart from becoming another forum for attack by those who do not like either the Government or the Labour Party?

For me it shows that an idea has been hatched by people who truly do not understand the online medium and were they to follow anything that is actually going on in recent online political discourse, one would assume they wouldn’t be so daft as to put a link to the Tory, sorry independent thinktank Policy Exchange. If by their claim that they wish to debate policy and direction within the Labour Party then by all means link to organisations that broadly share our common values. If their position is to entertain the views of a North American Neo-Conservative dominated organisation who’s aims are the antithesis of everything that any right-minded member of the Labour Party should believe then personally they can fuck right off.

So in summary, pair of losers launch pointless website that will achieve nothing other than more daft headlines and media speculation about the state of the Labour Party and foister claims of challenges and infighting which are pretty much in the wishful imagination of the Daily Mail et al.

Next up, and we’re on to Policy Exchange again. This one sort of took me aback slightly. Having a reasonable knowledge of the kind of right-wing rubbish that comes out of the charity status think tank I wasn’t quite aware that this was their sort of thing.

However reading the Metro on the bus today I came across an article based on research done by Policy Exchange. I’m assuming there’s only one thinktank in the country called Policy Exchange so here we go. Was it a study of the impending impact of mans activities on the future of our planet? Was it an evaluation on the proliferation of nuclear technology to states that may wish to support terrorism? Was it even a nice bit of we should privatise everything and leave the free market to sort things out? Nope, it was an investigation which revealed that Britons are the most unfaithful [to their partners/spoues] in Europe.

Well that’s nice to know, that Policy Exchange’s contribution to the discourse on British society is that we’re the most likely to shag someone else while in a relationship. (I’m using the “we’re” term there to include myself as a Briton but certainly not in relation to my own practices towards fidelity just in case you were wondering). For some strange reason this little piece doesn’t appear on their website amongst all the other titbits where they’ve been featured in the more high-brow end of the media. Of course to know Policy Exchange turns out this drivel for the tat end of the printed press market makes you wonder why Iain Dales resigned in the first place.

Finally there’s this story in the Guardian from last week that I meant to write on but didn’t. LibDem Councillors back a BNP Councillor to be on a committee. Brief outline, they did this, their group decided not to take action because like good little children they promised not to do it again, they then expressed no regrets about it and the party suspends them. In all fairness the LibDems are doing the right thing in suspending them while it’s investigated and of course were they found to be supporting a far-right party in such a way they deserve nothing more than to be booted out of the party.

I only mention this because I’m sure this is one of those situations where myself and my old friend LibDem Colin Ross would put our party allegiances aside and stand up for our principles as Colin so eloquently put it in this post a while back.

You know it’s strange though, because there’s not been one little squeak from Colin over this matter or a call for these two Councillors to be thrown out of his party. Strange that isn’t it?

Finally, finally, word reaches the Penguin that Walsall Council has been receiving enquiries from various people regarding the nature of Colin’s employment paid for by the hard-pressed tax payers of Walsall, sorry Colin, just to let you know, it wasn’t me, I never got round to it, another one of those jobs on my long list of things to do.

Spotted this article over at Paul Linford’s site about how different bloggers are lining up in regard to their support for one candidate or the other.

I’ve been thinking about who I’m going to vote for for a while now and just for your amusement, here’s my deliberations on each of the candidates. just to note, I’ve personally only met two of those people who have declared for the position, but I’m sure as you’ll see below, this hasn’t in any way skewed my views. The two in question are Harriet Harman and Jack Straw.

So lets do the easy ones first.

Harriet Harman – Cannot stand the woman, I thought she was a useless minister and my views have not altered on her since. Equally and I apologise if anyone is offended by this view, but her main selling point seems to be that the deputy leader shouldn’t have a penis and therefore she should get it – not a strong argument there.

Jack Straw – Again, can’t stand the bloke, thought he was an awful Home Secretary and equally as useless at the Foreign Office, currently fucking up the reform of the upper chamber, nope sorry, my vote does not go his way.

Hazel Blears – Not voting for her, she’s ginger. Nah, only kidding, got nothing against people with ginger hair. To be frank, other candidates have got a lot of previous form, things you can look back on, judge how well they dealt with things, Hazel’s just sort of appeared for me. I honestly don’t know much about what she thinks on any issue. I spotted a pisspoor performance on newsnight of her once and seen various interviews where she simply didn’t come over well, much as I hate to admit it, style is also important in politics. In all honesty, she just seems a bit lightweight to be up for it, nothing personal mind you.

Alan Johnson – Again for me, I seem to have missed his rise through the ranks to where he is in Education today. I appreciate that to lead one must be a bit of a hard-nosed bastard at times. Put simply, I was a bit disappointed at how he caved in over faith schools so for pretty much that one reason I won’t be voting for him.

Now things get a bit more tricky.

Hilary Benn – Once again, missed his rise to where he is. Seems to say some good stuff from what I’ve picked up and comes across well and authoritative on his brief. However he seemed to jump the gun on his campaign and is falling back in terms of momentum. Politics is a fickle world where keeping going constantly is an important trait as is timing. So for me, although there’s an outside possibility my vote might go his way if he turns up with some interesting goods, I think we’re down to the last two. (at least those who have declared anyway)

I’m going to introduce some criteria here, what exactly are we voting for and why. The problem I have with the whole situation is what is the role of the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and that of the Deputy Prime Minister. You see, they’re not a defacto twinned role. The problem being there is no set down constitutional position as to how this all plays out. With the Prime Minister it’s simple, leader of the party with the most seats in the House of Commons gets a cup of tea from the Queen and is asked to form a Government. Leader = Prime Minister, simple, we all know that one. However Deputy Leader = Deputy Prime Minister, well that’s a bit different. Some Government haven’t bothered with the whole Deputy Prime Minister role, some have been appointed by the Prime Minister, there’s nothing really to say that one role should equal the other and in terms of the job description, the two roles can be very different.

A bit of an example, John Prescott, current Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I’ve met him a number of times and as a person we’ve got on, I like his style. However these situations were wholly party political. He’s got that touch for rousing the troops that few have and I respect him for that ability. Marked against that, when he had his own governmental department I would on balance say he didn’t do a particularly excellent job. Now this may be because in the context of managing a department he was crap at the job, it might equally be that his department never really found itself in terms of the work it did and I wouldn’t wish to comment either way on such things but there was a clear difference in both the roles and effectiveness that he achieved in both of them.

This is where I have a problem with who to vote for out of the last two although Hilary isn’t completely out of it yet but a long way behind. So let’s dip into the last two protagonists.

Jon Cruddas – He seems to be picking up a lot of support from Labour bloggers. I’ve heard good things about him from people who’s views I respect and I’m happy to take on board those recommendations. From what I’ve seen that he’s said I quite like and he comes across well. Whether intentionally or it is simply who he is, he’s been playing the grassroots card in garnering support from members. I know he’s been to visit Wolverhampton and Sandwell recently, not Walsall I might add but I wouldn’t wish a visit to Walsall on any of the candidates, not even the ones I don’t like.

The only problem I have is a lack of previous form, he’s saying the right things but I don’t know how he would deal with things in different situations. Equally, we’re back to the whole question of what the role is. Probably for me, if we’re talking about motivating members, doing the party stuff then he’s looking quite good. Running the country while the PM’s on holiday and or maybe a government department that’s a bit different and I simply don’t know about him.

One last thing, I tried to contact him on something and got no reply, wasn’t too happy about that.

Peter Hain – I know Bob might disagree with me on the orange candidate but I will qualify my thoughts here. Bear in mind I’m of a generation who although thankfully were born under a Labour Government, sadly grew up during the reign of the bitch queen from Finchley. The issues that formed my political beliefs stemmed from that era and of those apartheid was a biggy. I can’t discount the work that people like Peter Hain did during that era and whatever comes, I will always hold a great deal of respect for his involvement in the anti-apartheid movement.

In Government he’s got quite a lot of form in terms of various positions and I’m trying to think of a situation where he’s done something I truly disagreed with but can’t really. He seems a competent manager in the sense of government and indeed has promoted things through his various roles which don’t hit the headines but are of great value. His campaigning on the environment give him a tick from my perspective as does (and this is completely irrelevant in a political context) his passion for motorsport that I share. He’s someone who I’d be quite comfortable in trusting to run the country in the absence of the Prime Minister should such a situation arise.

Is he a motivator of people? Not entirely sure, never met him. He could be a complete twat in person but no one’s ever conveyed that view to me. Is he’s what’s needed to rouse the troops, again, I’m undecided especially as the sounds from Jon Cruddas seem to be quite strong in this area. Equally I thought his performance on the BBC during the openign of Parliament was awful. He truly came across like a lapdog to the leadership, not that loyalty isn’t important in politics but I’ve also always appreciated his more independent thoughts and views on issues that thankfully he seems to be going back to after that one hiccup.

So there you go, my musings on the Deputy Leadership contest. Still deliberating between Cruddas and Hain with Benn as a rank outsider but probably unlikely. It does all come down to what the role is, a party role or a governmental role, if it’s a governmental role then Hain is ahead, party role, then Cruddas is looking quite good.

I’ll end on the outcome of a conversation with my father today on the subject. He’s a party member and I asked him who he’d vote for. He said Hain. His reasoning being pretty much what I outlined above in terms of his past record. His views of Cruddas, never heard of him. I won’t mention his views on Harman and Straw, you never know, children might be reading.

I think that makes an interesting point. Cruddas has done a lot of work on his internet strategy and fair play to him for that, his website/blog is quite well put together and in comparison Peter Hain’s is absolute rubbish (perhaps I should give him a call and offer my services). However, although these debates may be going on in the blogosphere, it’s important to note that not everyone’s got a net connection, like my soon to be retired parents. Their information source and ultimately how they judge the candidates will be through more traditional media sources and we must not forget that a large number of party members fall into that category.

From the Birmingham Labour Students Blog comes this comment from George Edwards:

“What I do remember though circa mid to late 1990s was a bunch of tory type students and airhead careerists suddenly realising they were about to lose their influence, and coming across to us in the hope of establishing themselves as mp