Crash Bang Wallace
Libertarian political blog from Mark Wallace; political opinion, breaking news and exclusivesProfiling Ed Balls’ personality through his pig doodle
Posted on June 12, 2011There’s a simple personality profiling test called the Pig Test. You draw a doodle of a pig, and the way you do so is used to give a sketch outline of your personality type. (If you want to take the test yourself, please draw a pig now, because the details in the rest of this post will otherwise influence your results). It’s not perfect, but it’s an amusing little way to give a broadbrush insight into what you or your friends are like.
How convenient, then, that the Ed Balls Files released by the Telegraph this week feature a doodle of a pig drawn by Ed Balls himself:
So according to the rules of the Pig Test, what does it tell us about Ed Balls’ personality?
First, the doodle is located at the top of the page, which apparently should mean “you are perceived as a positive
and optimistic person by others.” (I did say it wasn’t perfect).
Next, we look at the direction the pig is facing – Ed’s piggywig is looking out of the page directly at us, indicating “you are a direct person; [you] neither fear nor avoid discussion and enjoy “stirring the pot” to promote change.”
The doodle also has more detail than you would normally expect in a picture of a cartoon pig, which means “you see yourself as analytical and cautious. Others must work hard to earn your trust and to keep it.”
The fact the pig has two rather than four legs indicates a sense of insecurity, that “you are living through a period of major change in your life”.
The pig’s ears aren’t unusually large or unusually small, so far as I can see that means Ed is a fairly good listener.
Finally, and most tellingly, there’s the tail. According to the rules of the Pig Test, “the longer the pig’s tail that you have drawn (including loops) the more satisfied you are with the quality of your personal relationships”.
It speaks for itself that Ed Balls’ pig has no tail at all.
Crime mapping – power to the people
Posted on February 03, 2011Finally – after years of arguments, promises and u-turns on the part of both Labour and the Conservatives – the Government has introduced crime mapping right across the country at www.police.uk.
Anyone who doubted that there was an interest among the public in finding out what crimes are committed in their neighbourhoods was immediately given a firm slap round the chops by the fact that the site received so much traffic it has at times struggled to deal with it all. At its peak it was getting 18 million hits an hour – a remarkable number.
Obviously, the Guardian chose to lead on the fact it crashed without reflecting on the fact that this proved what huge demand there is out there for this kind of transparency.
I’m personally delighted about crime mapping coming to the UK because it has been a massive hobby horse of mine in recent years. I first wrote about it for the TPA almost 3 years ago and since then I’ve met ministers, spoken at the Police Federation conference, addressed the Association of Chief Police Officers and generally banged the drum for this idea endlessly – not always making myself popular, it must be said.
This is a genuinely exciting reform. For the first time, everyone has the right to know what the real picture is of reported crime in a given area. That helps people moving house, scrutinising police performance and communicating with their MP.
It’s still just the start of the transparency and accountability revolution, though.
Giving people this information is a great start, but there’s plenty more to give. Other police forces are apparently experimenting with ways to provide even more data in greater accuracy and more informative formats. Yvette Cooper has called for full transparency on police numbers, which I can’t see a problem with. Ideally in my view each crime on the map would also be updated when it is either solved and prosecuted or shelved into a cold file. The possibilities are myriad.
Once you’ve given people information, you should also give them the power to do something with it, too. Now people are being given some data about how effective or ineffective their local police are, it is high time they were given the right to elect, scrutinise and – if necessary – sack the people in charge of the force.
The internet makes it possible for us to be given access to all that state data which our public employees compile about all of us in our name and at our expense. The digital revolution, if properly applied, can be a real revolution – handing power from hidden officials in back offices to the people. Crime mapping is an early and crucial step on that road to empowerment.
Sluggish Peers threaten the future of direct democracy
Posted on January 13, 2011The AV referendum is incredibly important for British democracy – not so much because of the actual question on the table but because the way it runs will heavily influence the future of direct democracy in this country.
I, like many others, want to see a lot more referenda in Britain. We deserve votes on the EU, on any constitutional changes and on local tax rises, to name but a few. Ideally citizens should be able to initiate a referendum on any issue of their choosing via a right of initiative.
The chance of that happening rests largely, though unofficially, on the AV referendum. If it becomes a farce with a tiny turnout, then there is a risk that it will discredit the idea of asking the people about anything – the defenders of the Westminster elite will crow at any and every opportunity that people just aren’t bothered.
But if the AV vote does turn out to be an absurd waste of time, it will not be because the people aren’t interested in being consulted on things.
For a start, AV is in itself a boring and obscure system which is a peculiar choice of referendum topic. That puts this referendum at a disadvantage in terms of turnout.
To counteract that, campaigners and politicians have a serious responsibility. The Yes and No camps must run active, interesting and exciting campaigns to ensure that people are exercised about the topic (difficult as that may be). I think they have both got off to a pretty good start on that front.
The real weak link in the chain at the minute is in Parliament. The BBC today reports that Labour Peers are blocking the Bill to such an extent that it may not go through in time to actually hold the referendum on the planned date of May 5th.
If they persist in their delaying tactics and the date does have to be moved, it would be a disgraceful disservice to democracy. Allowing campaigns to get up and running only to delay the vote will turn this referendum into a farce and further confuse and alienate the public.
I don’t like AV, so I don’t think it would be a missed opportunity on that front, but if this harms the prospect of future referenda on things that actually do matter, there should be hell to pay.
Kevin Brennan MP’s violent language
Posted on January 11, 2011I’m at an absolute loss as to how the appalling attack on Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents has somehow become a debate about political semantics. People suddenly seem to have noticed the existence of military metaphors – which are inevitably part of the English language, particularly in a combative (see, there’s the military creeeping in) environment like politics.
Obviously this is mainly a debate in the US, but now some in the UK have started posturing about it, too.
Kevin Brennan, MP for Cardiff West tweeted this:
“Let’s all give our thoughts to #GabrielleGiffords and eliminate the crosshairs mentality from our democratic discourse online or anywhere”
That all sounds very nice, but perhaps Kevin should have given some thought to his own record before jumping on this bandwagon. He has used some pretty violent language himself:
“It is important to dispose of the ACT argument—the argument that the shortfall has been caused by the removal of advance corporation tax. I shall kill that stone dead once and for all” 25th March 2004
“I just reminded him that there were such creatures as Liberal Democrat special advisers and perhaps fired a shot across his bows” 8th May 2003
I don’t think that Kevin Brennan is a violent person, or that at any stage he intended to incite violence or even to create a hostile environment with these terms. Nor do I think these terms actually did contribute in any way to any violent culture. That’s because I think military terms and metaphors are an embedded element of our rich and beautiful language – like it or not we are a species which has been at war since time began and these terms have been around since time immemorial.
If you look at any politician’s record I am certain they will have used terms like “shot down in flames”, “blow up in your face”, “destroy the opposition”, “turn your fire”, “set your sights”, “strike a blow” and so on. Given that, it’s probably best that all of us resist any temptation to jump on bandwagons by criticising others for doing the same.
Has Ed been hitting the (hair dye) bottle?
Posted on December 22, 2010It’s a Miliband family trait to have a tuft of white hair – both David and Ed have one. Or at least Ed did, prior to today’s speech. Compare and contrast his thatch at a recent PMQs and at today’s speech:
Has Ed been at the hair dye? If not, he’s the only man in history to have a new baby in the house and yet get fewer grey hairs…
UPDATE: Over at PoliticsHome the inestimable Paul Waugh has succeeded in getting an official statement on the issue from the Labour Party Leader’s Press Office…
“No, he does not dye his hair. He had a haircut recently and the grey is less visible. After careful checking, I’m confident the grey bit is still there.”
The image of a press officer carrying out “careful checking” on the Rt Honourable scalp is a memorable one.