It’s that time of the political cycle again, and the dreadful charade of a General Election is upon us. We’re one week into the campaign and already I’ve had enough of listening to an endless stream of soothing platitudes from potential MPs, eager to recite the party manifesto.

I’ve come across this, [...]]]> Sent via: http://emailyourcandidates.heroku.com

Dear Candidates

It’s that time of the political cycle again, and the dreadful charade of a General Election is upon us. We’re one week into the campaign and already I’ve had enough of listening to an endless stream of soothing platitudes from potential MPs, eager to recite the party manifesto.

I’ve come across this, most excellent, service that allows me to email you all with a couple of questions. Miles: we’ve met before on the street, Menzies: we’ve also met, though in the quad at St Andrews – you’ve also received letters and emails from me, though your office failed to return a telephone call on the issue of the DE Bill (which I note you failed to vote on). Mike: we’ve never had the pleasure.

Allow me to state from the off that I am a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. I come from a position of libertarian ideals and, were LPUK big enough at this time, I’d be voting for them. However, in this un-ideal world, I have you, my local hopefuls, to vote for, and my vote is up-for-grabs.

There are a couple of issues I would like answers to. I trust that you can find the time to answer them, rather than an office member. I’m not voting for them. These are simple questions, and I’d appreciate an honest response. Remember why you entered politics in the first place. Tell me what you believe in. Show me some passion for your constituency and your country.

1) Where do you stand on the issue of shrinking the state. At present, and under Labour, the state has grown and grown. The legislature has swollen 50% faster than under Thatcher, and many of these acts form an extreme erosion of our civil liberties. Do you agree that government should be shrunk in size, unneccessary laws repealed, and laws infringing on civil liberties repealed?

2) Economy and the EU. It’s a biggie. As things currently stand, our deficit is racking up at £5,000 per second. Our membership of the EU costs us £55bn per year. It’s a pretty simple looking calculation to me, though I’m not an economist, but why are we in the EU? I’ve failed to have a good, sound, solid argument put to me by anyone as to why we should remain in the EU. What are your views on membership of the EU?

3) Local government. As per point (1), I’d welcome a shrinking of central government; actually, let’s get central government as small as it possibly can be, and move budgets and decision making to local authorities. The tory party have made overtones towards this, but in a very paternalistic ‘the state still needs to look after you all’ way. Let Fife fix its problems, the problems it needs to fix (flooding anyone?) rather than arbitrarily set government targets/plans. What are your views on localisation?

4) Welfare reform. Living in Cupar, I am acutely aware, and welcome, the EU immigrants who work in the surrounding area. I am fed up hearing the argument that they are ‘taking british jobs’, since british workers now seem to be afraid of hard work and wouldn’t take these jobs, in fact didn’t take these jobs, when offered. I argue that this is because the welfare state has made it far too easy for those unemployed to enjoy a good standard of living without having to go out and actually do hard work. Welfare should be a safety net for the most needy, not a lifestyle choice. The labour model of making things ‘fair for everyone’ actually is deeply unfair to everyone, and removes the motivation for hard work by everyone. Where do you stand on welfare reform?

I could go on, but to be honest I’m dubious that I’m going to get a reply from anyone, and I’ve not even started on healthcare or education. However, should you feel up to responding and having a chat about these and other issue, please do. If you’d like to pop in for a chat and a cup of tea, you’ll find me at home most evenings from 5.30pm at <my address>. I look forward to speaking with you in the coming weeks.

Yours sincerely
Gary Thompson

<address block>

This [...]]]> One of the things I frequently come up against, and ended up coding what I consider to be a nice little workaround for, is processing a large form with many elements, and preparing the insert statement to follow.  The following method allows you to continue to add elements onto your form and the database table.

This works for everything except radio buttons or SELECT statements passed as an array, which would need some extra processing.

Hope this helps someone else.

Originally posted at Experts Exchange

Huzzah, huzzah, huzzah.

We put them into power, we can just as easily remove them again; if only the majority of the public would wake up and realise that they are [...]]]> Had to get that off my chest.  Why is it that these worthless cretins seem to have spectacularly failed to understand that THEY REPRESENT US, THE VOTING PUBLIC.

We put them into power, we can just as easily remove them again; if only the majority of the public would wake up and realise that they are being herded like sheep by their government (and I lump Tories, Labour and LibDem together for this) to do what they want, and not what we want.

Example: I recently wrote to my MP (Menzies Campbell) to ask that he not support the digital economy bill as it stands, for the gross violations of individual liberty that it represents: I’m talking here more about the loss of automatic copyright of photographs, though the bill (dreamt up by the Dark Lord Mandelson during one of his wet dreams) also poses draconian measures on households with shared broadband, unless you all behave like nice little Hitler Youth and report your kids for filesharing.  Did he answer?  Did he f*ck. Yes he did, but the reply was “lost in the post”.  Well, that’s [still] a potential voter gone.  Next step is for me to pop round to his surgery, and have it out there. My principal question will be: Why did he not answer my letter? Followed by the continued request that he block this bill until it has been considered with due care, and suitable amendments added/scrap the bill in its entirety*. [EDIT: Turns out that due to the imminent general election (not yet called), Ming won't be holding any more surgeries.  Seems an odd position to adopt when the GE could yet be up to two months away.]

Probably best not to say much more about the money grabbing shits as exposed by Dispatches the other night. Other than to say, I hope as well as their suspension from the party, they are kicked out of the party and lose all party support for the up-coming election.  Let’s see how they fare as independents, answerable to their constituents.I see that Old Holborn is standing in the up-coming general election as an independent candidate.  Good luck to him.  I hope that he generates enough support to embarrass the main parties, and to show them that we need change.  With any luck, he’ll win his seat, though with too many of the population voting on partisan lines, rather than with their heads, I can’t see wins anywhere for candidates who stand for truth, justice, and individual liberty.

*that’s another argument altogether.

[update] THIS IS WHAT I MEAN! http://www.theonion.com/content/video/breaking_news_some_bullshit?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

Do you think these are the right principles?

Yes.

Should the BBC have any other strategic principles?

To work to regain public confidence, to state that the BBC should act as a [...]]]> The BBC have their public consultation document on change available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/bbc-strategy-review/consultation/intro
Go on – have your say too.

[update] THIS IS WHAT I MEAN! http://www.theonion.com/content/video/breaking_news_some_bullshit?utm_source=onion_rss_daily

The BBC’s strategic principles

Do you think these are the right principles?

Yes.

Should the BBC have any other strategic principles?

To work to regain public confidence, to state that the BBC should act as a global centre of excellence.

Proposed principle: Putting Quality First

Which BBC output do you think could be higher quality?

News. Currently I am continually dismayed by the quality of news programming. Listening to reports it is clear that the BBC now feels that it is speaking to a nation of idiots who will not understand a word being said to them, unless it is accompanied by a large flash graphic which the presenter walks through, and overly-simplistic analogies. I also dismay at the lack of transparency over facts and figures which only leads me to believe that the BBC now seek to mislead the public, and to use editorial ’slant’ to drive public opinion.

To be told that eating x leads to a y% increase in heart attack is, frankly, misleading and alarmist, and these tactics are used in almost every news story. Give base figures. Tell viewers instead what the y% increase takes you from and to. Assume that most users are intelligent enough to understand proportionality. Balance the output so that all sides of an argument can be heard. The television reporting (bar a few isolated examples) is far and away the worse, but radio 4 output is also now going in this direction.

Offering you something special

Which areas should the BBC make more distinctive from other broadcasters and media?

The BBC should not try to ‘compete’ for my viewing in this way. It is this mistaken assumption that has led to a deterioration in standards – especially in the news. The need to get ‘in on the act’, to jump into the feeding frenzy of the 24 hour news cycle has let to a serious deterioration in quality. What would make the BBC more distinctive would be to walk away from the meaningless drivel of 24 hour news-that-isn’t-really-news and concentrate on hourly or bi-hourly bulletins of good value.

The Five Editorial Priorities

Do these priorities fit with your expectations of BBC TV, radio and online services?

Number 5 is unattainable. How would you even go about ‘measuring’ (though the act itself is so nu-Labour that it is offensive). How can the BBC run an event that ‘brings the nation together’. Should the BBC sponsor a war? After all, there’s nothing like a good war to’bring the nation together’. This is a preposterous statement made from a politician, to suit the ears of politicians, and means nothing to the average user.

Proposed principle: Doing fewer things and doing them better

We welcome your views on these areas.

Go ahead and cut it to the bone. I don’t want my fee to be used to pay for services for a diminishing minority. The BBC simply cannot, and should not try to be, all things to all people.

Proposed principle: Guaranteeing access to BBC services

If you have particular views on how you expect BBC services to be available to you, please letus know.

The current formats are fine, and I probably pick up as much content through the iPlayer as I do through live television.

The BBC archive

Please tell us if you have views on this area.

If archived programming is already available in a format that can be delivered online then it should be made available as a public archive, for access on demand.

Proposed principle: Making the licence fee work harder

If you are concerned about the BBC’s value for money, please tell us why.

If the BBC wanted to ensure value for money, then it should move out of central London. Why should such a large proportion of the income the BBC receives be spend on locations that cost so much, when alternative accommodation is available elsewhere in the country for less. It is, after all, the BBC, not the LBC, and the country is not London-centric.

Proposed principle: Setting new boundaries for the BBC

Do you think that the BBC should limit its activities in these areas?

Yes – for reasons already outlined.

Should any other areas be on this list?

News 24 should be removed in favour of periodic quality bulletins. Should ‘breaking’ news occur I can catch the initial headlines wherever, but would switch on to the BBC to receive proper ‘news’. It is lamentable, how 24 hour news stations attempt to cope with ‘breaking’ news: trying to make a story up that doesn’t yet exist; running to be first on the scene to show us images from 10 miles away and tell us what the reporters don’t know. All it shows is soulless news reporting for its own sake – and it costs money.

ED    …the Child Poverty Ligislation is simply going to ensrine the target, which we already have, to eradicate child poverty by 2020 while you’re missing the target to halve child poverty by 2010.  Can you say that any child as a result of the bill you’ll be trying to present to [...]]]> Evan Davis questions Peter Mandelson.

ED    …the Child Poverty Ligislation is simply going to ensrine the target, which we already have, to eradicate child poverty by 2020 while you’re missing the target to halve child poverty by 2010.  Can you say that any child as a result of the bill you’ll be trying to present to parliament, which is not about politics but is simply about real government, can you say that any child will be saved from poverty by that bill?

PM    We’ve saved, as you say, er, tens of thousands, er, and more of children from poverty…

ED    but by this bill, you’ve done that without a bill, now what are you going to achieve more, what can you do with a bill that is more important that you’ve achieved without a bill?

PM    We have lifted tens of thousands and more of children out of poverty as a result of our social policies, our welfare policies over the last decade and more; we’re not going to abandon those policies nor are we going to abandon that commitment; we’re going to strengthen our social policies, our public services, our welfare policies precisely to do that amongst other things, and I think it’s very important, er, that the government benchmarks itself; only by benchmarking itself and challenging itself in this way will the public be able to decide whether we’ve succeeded or not.

OK Peter, you’ve still not answered the bloody question. Answer it, please?

ED    But you’ve given us the target, we’ve got the benchmark, we’ve had measures, you say they’re succeeding [mumbled interruptions] it almost seems as though you’re just trying to, having failed to meet the intermediate target for 2010, want to, go from the politics of delivery to the politics of intent, by strengthening the future aspiration without achieving the immediate one; I mean: what is the point of the bill, what’s the point of the bill?

PM    And very important too to strengthen that aspiration by which we are prepared to be judged both by our aspiration and by our delivery, by the public; but if you take the other example that you offered to me, er, halving the, er, public financial deficit, by half over four years, I think it’s very important that that discipline, that framework be put in place and be binding on this and future governments; and this is the Queen’s speech, it’s about legislation, er, shortly, before the end of the year, you’ll have the pre-budget report in which there are a combination of measures, including taxation and public spending measures the chancellor will set out how we intend to re-balance the public finances, er, over that period… [interrupted by ED]

Aaaaarrrggghhhhhh

ED    …what is the point of the bill; the question is why you would actually have a bill to do that? Willem Buiter, whom you guys appointed as a member of the Monetary Policy Committee, has written in the FT that Fiscal Responsibility Acts are the instruments of the fiscally irresponsible to con the public; you don’t need a bill to halve the deficit, you can just halve the deficit, you’re in government, that’s what you do.

PM    I think the public want a rather stronger and more robust demonstration, both of our will, our determination, and the discipline that we will put in place, in order to do that; you can’t have it both ways you know Evan.  I’ve come on your programme and you’ve sort of, taken a, you know, a stick to beat me about the government [ED laughing in background] needing to show greater responsib…fiscal responsibility…

Is this some sort of innuendo by Mandelson?

ED    …but that’s about measures, not about an act, isn’t it?

PM    …and and and, and about how we need to demonstrate to the public – heaven knows how many interviews you and I have had on this subject [ED still chuckling] – about how we need to demonstrate more convincingly to the public the discipline that we’re going to create, well we’re doing so, so don’t, please, complain now, and you won’t have too much time to wait for the pre-budget report to see the measures, but I can…[interrupted by ED]

ED    …but the point is that it’s the measures that count and the delivery that counts, not the statements of intent…[interrupted by PM]

PM    …let me ask you then: do you really think it’s irrelevant that the government states that it’s going to provide guarantees and other educational entitlements to young people, including the right to an educational training…[interrupted by ED]

Yes, actually.

ED    …it might be irrelevant if you don’t achieve it; the point is, let me give you an example [talking over each other]

PM    …that is for the public to judge; they judge us by our values, they judge us by our policies, they will then, in due course, judge by whether we’ve our delivered on those things.

In other words, piss off and leave me alone, please? I know we’re beaten, just don’t point it out, will you?

ED    Right. Well as you are trying to make, gain political credance and capital by expressing intent very strongly, it is important that we go back and look at previous expressions of intent and whether they have been delivered.  You had a bill to – you passed an act – to eradicate fuel poverty among vulnerable households by 2010, vulnerable households in England…[interrupted by PM]

PM    Are you saying that we’ve made no progress at all in doing that?

What he wants to say is: no

ED    I think you’ve made planty of progress; are you going to, are you going to eradicate fuel poverty among households, vulnerable households, in England by 2010?

PM    We will certainly continue to do everything we can to…

Umm – pass. Next question?

ED    …but that’s not a yes!  So what is the point of the bill, what is the point of the act that says you have to do that, if you don’t do it?  Who’s going to go to jail for not achieving it?

PM    Well, take NHS guarantees for patients…

Ahh – I know about the NHS, good news to be found here, everyone loves a cripple…

ED    …no, let’s take the one I mentioned which is the one you got credit for doing all those years ago, when you passed the act, you said it was about enshrining and making important…

PM    …Evan…

Pleeeease leave me alone…

ED    …and you’re probably not going to achieve it and you’re not taking measures to achieve it, what’s the point?

PM    Evan, with the greatest love and respect, I think I’m going to have to take some time to answer your questions, would you mind?

When PM gives you his greatest love and respect, it’s time to really worry

ED    Go ahead

PM    Thank you very much indeed.  I think it’s very important that the government, where appropriate enacts targets, benchmarks, by which it judges itself, but more importantly, by which the public judges its delivery.  That’s why we are providing guarantees for educational entitlements that’s why we’re putting in place national health service guarantees for patients, including the right to see a cancer specialist within two weeks if their GP suspects that they have cancer, that’s why we’re going to lay the foundations for the national care service for the elderly, now, the point I’m trying to make to you is that politics is about spelling out your policies, it’s about spelling out policy differences: what they mean for the public, what they say about the party’s values and beliefs, now that may be all too detailed and too policy wonkish [sic] for the taste and appetite of the BBC, certainly Today, but this is what is important for the public, and whether it be fuel poverty and our ability and determination to drive on and meet our 2010 targets, how we want to enshrine clearer individual guarantees and entitlements, both in our schools and in the national health service, the debate, the very important provision that we have got to talk about in this country, about supporting families who are looking after elderly parents or relatives who need that care, all these things are about politics, they are about policies [ED over: but not about electioneering], they are about what the public is interested in [ED over: of course they are], Even, and what in time they will judge us, and the other parties, by when the election comes.

Blah blah blah, hopefully no one’s listening any more. La la la I don’t care…

ED    As you’ve said.  [rest on social care...]

OK. So, other than Mandelson being PWND by Evan Davis, what he spectacularly failed to do was answer the question: why do we need this bill.

This is just yet another example of the government raising a bill simply because it can. It’s not needed, not wanted, and it’s not actually going to do anything other than weigh down the statute books even further.

Full interview available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8365000/8365766.stm

Ponders: are they, in fact, infringing my trademark…?

The position is that I’m trying to write email addresses to a file for a bulk mailing; the mail client particularly likes the local part of the email addresses in a comma delimited [...]]]> Aargh.  Came across an old problem with a spreadsheet today; trying to create and then write values to a dynamic array in VBA.

The position is that I’m trying to write email addresses to a file for a bulk mailing; the mail client particularly likes the local part of the email addresses in a comma delimited list, and the mailing lists are dynamic in nature – I might have 10 on one occasion and 1000 on another.

Problem:

• Excel doesn’t like one dimensional dynamic arrays
• Once you have 1000 rows in a spreadsheet of unique email addresses you need to concatenate them with a comma
  •  This is difficult to do in a single cell as you can quite quickly exceed the char limit for one cell
  • It can be done by splitting the concatted addresses across multiple cells, but this isn’t a sure-fire winner
• Would be much easier to stuff all the values into an array and then simply join the array with a comma.

Found a work-around in amongst google code etc which goes like this:

This may not be the most elegant solution in the world, but it works for me (and it’s fast).

By declaring addr as a Variant type it can become a dynamic TWO dimension array, which is then populated with the values of the addresses.  i can then step through the dynamically created array to create a single array of known size, and then join it with the comma.

There’s probably a way to do this without creating the two dimension array first, but I couldn’t find it, or get one to work, so this’ll do for me :)