Seen on the side of a box of teabags, a picture of a cup of nice hot tea with the words underneath: "serving suggestion"
Well, thanks guys. I'd been wondering what I'd been doing wrong all these years, what with pouring scalding hot tea straight onto my groin.
Monday, 10 May 2010
How hard can a picture be to make?
You would not believe the work that goes into preparing the cover image for a book. It's just a simple image, right? Wrong! It's rather complicated, not least because the pictures that appear to look good on their own, suddenly look naff when put together in a composite. Then there is the added nark that upon printing with a Litho press, everything seems to get darker, so what looked really nice on the computer screen ends up drab and dull on paper.
Finally we seem to have managed to get a good cover together. It's only for the purposes of registering the ISBN - Neilson book data like to have a picture on the database of what the cover looks like, and it also helps with all the promotion and establishing a 'brand image' long before the book hits the shelves. Fingers crossed that all goes well.
Finally we seem to have managed to get a good cover together. It's only for the purposes of registering the ISBN - Neilson book data like to have a picture on the database of what the cover looks like, and it also helps with all the promotion and establishing a 'brand image' long before the book hits the shelves. Fingers crossed that all goes well.
It's coffee time people. Let's crunch some numbers.
I talked before about the stupidity of pushing for Proportional Representation. I standby those comments. Seen as electoral reform is on the cards (and no-one ever said it wasn't) I thought I would take this opportunity to postulate on a few things. Electoral reform in some degree is certainly needed; I said that before. There needs to be, at the very least, a system whereby Labour cannot poll third nationally yet get more seats. 13 years is a long time to fiddle election boundaries, and that certainly needs changing.
How to stop the boundaries being changed to just benefit a different party? Well, as outlined before, equal population figures for each constituency is a start. Doing this would certainly benefit the Liberal Democrats who are at a huge disadvantage thanks to meddling of constituency boundries. It would also, to a much lesser extent, help the Conservatives. The only losers would actually be Labour. Given a Con-Lib pact looks the most likely, this is certainly one thing that I would hope was on the table for electoral reform.
Britain's voting system is pretty archaic. Not FPTP; instead why do we still have paper ballots in this electronic age? Why can I check my emails easily from anywhere from Antarctica to Zaïre, yet cannot vote anywhere other than the church hall up the road from my house? Voting online opens too many options for fraud - a fraud which has raised its ugly head this time with the postal voting system being abused. However, if the voting at the pollint station was done electronically, that would speed up the vote counting, be more accurate (there is an issue when a recount can swing the votes back and forth over a margin of 100 or more - Bolton West was won with a majority of only 92). Also, then why can't I vote in any polling station, with my vote automatically being counted to my home constituency?
The postal vote has become totally abused. In parts of London around 50 (mostly Labour) activists were arrested for registering imaginary people or foreign nationals to vote. Elsewhere I've heard rumours of people's votes being stolen to be used via postal voting to give a person plural voting. This has got to stop. Why should a postal vote be so easy to get? Surely it should only be available to those who really do need it hand have no other option - armed forces personnel serving overseas, those in hospital or who are housebound because of illness or frailty. There should be an onus to proove that you do really need one to get one.
What of FPTP? It keeps out exrtremists and prevents them getting a disproportionate influence in government. One option that Zoë suggested to me earlier today was a sytem whereby a person votes for both their first and second preferences. They give two votes for their first preference and one for their second. The election is decided then not on single votes, but on this system of points. Coupled with equalising the population of constituencies, this could be something else on the cardfs? We have to be careful because - and I'll type this slowly for the benefit of the Lib-Dem clique who have been blindly demanding PR over everything else - most people did not vote for PR. We don't want it, because we've thought about the implications of it. We don't want perminant weak government and an easy route for Hitler Mk II to come to power. If we had wanted PR, we would have voted Lib-Dem and they would have been in poweer now. There is no mandate for PR, and the people baying for this nonsense should realise that it isn't on the cards and won't be until Lib-Dems win an overal majority.
So what's the likely outcome of the negotiations? Well, the Lib-Dems would be stupid to get into bed with Labour. That would merely associate them with the failures of the last Labour government. It would also not be enough, requiring a further coilition with most other minor parties. That would lead to failure, and another general election and more decreases in the Lib-Dem vote. Their only option is to form an alliance with the Conservatives. To all those who keep bleating about "Lib-Dems should never get into bed with the Conservatives" just who are you expecting them to work with? If they behave in such a way that no-one works with them, then the Tories - being 19 short of a majority, and historically able to work with the DUP (8 seats in NI) - will form a minority government and will work as such until such time as another general election can be called. Wake up and smell the coffee.
How to stop the boundaries being changed to just benefit a different party? Well, as outlined before, equal population figures for each constituency is a start. Doing this would certainly benefit the Liberal Democrats who are at a huge disadvantage thanks to meddling of constituency boundries. It would also, to a much lesser extent, help the Conservatives. The only losers would actually be Labour. Given a Con-Lib pact looks the most likely, this is certainly one thing that I would hope was on the table for electoral reform.
Britain's voting system is pretty archaic. Not FPTP; instead why do we still have paper ballots in this electronic age? Why can I check my emails easily from anywhere from Antarctica to Zaïre, yet cannot vote anywhere other than the church hall up the road from my house? Voting online opens too many options for fraud - a fraud which has raised its ugly head this time with the postal voting system being abused. However, if the voting at the pollint station was done electronically, that would speed up the vote counting, be more accurate (there is an issue when a recount can swing the votes back and forth over a margin of 100 or more - Bolton West was won with a majority of only 92). Also, then why can't I vote in any polling station, with my vote automatically being counted to my home constituency?
The postal vote has become totally abused. In parts of London around 50 (mostly Labour) activists were arrested for registering imaginary people or foreign nationals to vote. Elsewhere I've heard rumours of people's votes being stolen to be used via postal voting to give a person plural voting. This has got to stop. Why should a postal vote be so easy to get? Surely it should only be available to those who really do need it hand have no other option - armed forces personnel serving overseas, those in hospital or who are housebound because of illness or frailty. There should be an onus to proove that you do really need one to get one.
What of FPTP? It keeps out exrtremists and prevents them getting a disproportionate influence in government. One option that Zoë suggested to me earlier today was a sytem whereby a person votes for both their first and second preferences. They give two votes for their first preference and one for their second. The election is decided then not on single votes, but on this system of points. Coupled with equalising the population of constituencies, this could be something else on the cardfs? We have to be careful because - and I'll type this slowly for the benefit of the Lib-Dem clique who have been blindly demanding PR over everything else - most people did not vote for PR. We don't want it, because we've thought about the implications of it. We don't want perminant weak government and an easy route for Hitler Mk II to come to power. If we had wanted PR, we would have voted Lib-Dem and they would have been in poweer now. There is no mandate for PR, and the people baying for this nonsense should realise that it isn't on the cards and won't be until Lib-Dems win an overal majority.
So what's the likely outcome of the negotiations? Well, the Lib-Dems would be stupid to get into bed with Labour. That would merely associate them with the failures of the last Labour government. It would also not be enough, requiring a further coilition with most other minor parties. That would lead to failure, and another general election and more decreases in the Lib-Dem vote. Their only option is to form an alliance with the Conservatives. To all those who keep bleating about "Lib-Dems should never get into bed with the Conservatives" just who are you expecting them to work with? If they behave in such a way that no-one works with them, then the Tories - being 19 short of a majority, and historically able to work with the DUP (8 seats in NI) - will form a minority government and will work as such until such time as another general election can be called. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Election fever and misguided calls for PR.
I hear a lot these days about "A vote for Lib Dems is a vote for electoral reform". I have to say that the Lib Dems' desire for Porportional representation always annoys me. POR is a system that allowed too many undesireables into governemt in other countries (would you really want to guarentee BNP seats in government?).
Let's look at it sensibly. Any party that wants a particular type of electoral reform, usually wants it because the advantage to them are far more than to anyone else. Certainly the system within the UK at the moment is suspect to say the least. How is it that in theory Labour could still have more seats than any other party despite coming third with number of votes polled? That certainly smacks of reform being desperately needed. I saw that the Conservatives need something like 7% more votes just to theoretically get the same number of seats as Labour. For the Lib Dems the figures are far worse - no wonder they keep talking about electoral reform.
PR isn't the answer; not by a long way. Talking about PR is a red herring. It let in Hitler, and it allowed decades of Mafia corruption in Italy. A fairer system would be to keep First Past the Post (which stops extremeists getting influence in government off a small share of the vote) but change the constituencies so that they all cover roughly the same population. That way this would remove the descrepency of Labour seeming to have an unfair advantage and Lib Dems being at a massive disadvantage. Constituencies in dense urban areas would become quite small, whilst those in the wilds of Scotland would be huge. However, it would be argued that as each MP represents the same number of people, they should have the same workload.
Low turnout is also an issue. I say to anyone who does not bother to vote when they are entitled to: Shut the hell up. Keep your whinging to yourself, because you had your chance to vote for what mattered to you, and you blew it. Even spoiling your ballot is making a statement more than being too lazy to turn up. I don't want to hear your jaw flapping about anything political between now and the next election; it's as simple as that.
Of course many people feel that MPs are all as bad as each other. With expenses scandals, cash for honours and an illegal war in Iraq based on lies and bullshit, who wouldn't feel agrieved. I've heard mutterings from time to time about compulsary voting. I really hate that idea if applied as-is to the present system. If all the candidates are equally as stoogey, why should I be forced to chose one of them? Far better to have a 'None of the above' box if voting is made mandatory. If you don't like any of the candidates, vote none of the above. And if none of the above wins, the election in that constituency in re-run with all original candidates who were beaten by none of the above being barred from standing during that parliamentary term.
There may be issues with none of the above repeatedly winning, so maybe a second round without none of the above running, but voting no longer mandatory? That would certainly throw a spanner in the works for career politicians thinking they had a safe seat. It's a good thought.
In summery, PR is evil. Those blindly shouting for it haven't thought the implications through. First past the post stops extremists, but it certainly needs overhaul to be more representative. The points I've outlined above would be a simple way to do just that.
Let's look at it sensibly. Any party that wants a particular type of electoral reform, usually wants it because the advantage to them are far more than to anyone else. Certainly the system within the UK at the moment is suspect to say the least. How is it that in theory Labour could still have more seats than any other party despite coming third with number of votes polled? That certainly smacks of reform being desperately needed. I saw that the Conservatives need something like 7% more votes just to theoretically get the same number of seats as Labour. For the Lib Dems the figures are far worse - no wonder they keep talking about electoral reform.
PR isn't the answer; not by a long way. Talking about PR is a red herring. It let in Hitler, and it allowed decades of Mafia corruption in Italy. A fairer system would be to keep First Past the Post (which stops extremeists getting influence in government off a small share of the vote) but change the constituencies so that they all cover roughly the same population. That way this would remove the descrepency of Labour seeming to have an unfair advantage and Lib Dems being at a massive disadvantage. Constituencies in dense urban areas would become quite small, whilst those in the wilds of Scotland would be huge. However, it would be argued that as each MP represents the same number of people, they should have the same workload.
Low turnout is also an issue. I say to anyone who does not bother to vote when they are entitled to: Shut the hell up. Keep your whinging to yourself, because you had your chance to vote for what mattered to you, and you blew it. Even spoiling your ballot is making a statement more than being too lazy to turn up. I don't want to hear your jaw flapping about anything political between now and the next election; it's as simple as that.
Of course many people feel that MPs are all as bad as each other. With expenses scandals, cash for honours and an illegal war in Iraq based on lies and bullshit, who wouldn't feel agrieved. I've heard mutterings from time to time about compulsary voting. I really hate that idea if applied as-is to the present system. If all the candidates are equally as stoogey, why should I be forced to chose one of them? Far better to have a 'None of the above' box if voting is made mandatory. If you don't like any of the candidates, vote none of the above. And if none of the above wins, the election in that constituency in re-run with all original candidates who were beaten by none of the above being barred from standing during that parliamentary term.
There may be issues with none of the above repeatedly winning, so maybe a second round without none of the above running, but voting no longer mandatory? That would certainly throw a spanner in the works for career politicians thinking they had a safe seat. It's a good thought.
In summery, PR is evil. Those blindly shouting for it haven't thought the implications through. First past the post stops extremists, but it certainly needs overhaul to be more representative. The points I've outlined above would be a simple way to do just that.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
The place where submissions go to die.
I received a nice email today, harking back to when I was sending 'Bringing home the stars' to agents. It was around eight months ago, and as is inevitable some of the agents never got back to me, despite a prepaid envelope being enclosed. It's one of those things that writers just accept happens in the publishing world.
It seems that one of the agents whose address was on a list online just doesn't exist. I suppose it is the natural cycle of any business world that companies come and go, and agents are no exception. The email, however, enlightened what is happening with all those manuscripts that are being sent to one agent's address in London. It's a shame that so many struggling new writers are sending hopeful submissions, never to know that it never reached the recipiant, let alone got read and considered. Such is life. The email, because it was interesting to get closure for that one submission's fate:
Dear Jennifer
I have some rather strange news for you. Quite some time ago now you sent your manuscript Bringing Home the Stars to an agency called Walker Associates. Well, I'm afraid to tell you there is no Walker Associates. Their address is just a townhouse in Camden Town divided into flats. Soon after I moved in here I noticed these large envelopes accumulating in the communal hallway which, every so often, someone would throw out. I became intrigued and began 'rescuing' what proved to be literary manuscripts. I didn't want to just leave them as I'm a(n amateur) writer myself and I know about the mixture of hope and trepidation involved in sending off your work. Presumably Michael Walker was running an agency out of one of the flats, or purporting to, but I've been living here since the end of 2006 so he hasn't been here for at least three years. The word 'associates' was a misleading one at any event. I took the liberty of reading your submission - I thought you really succeeded in creating something suspenseful and dark. The thing now is that I'm soon to be married, so naturally I'll be moving out, and any new manuscripts that arrive will probably go unopened. Could I ask you to contact whoever gave you the address and let them know that Walker Associates is no longer operating?
Thank you, and with apologies,
It seems that one of the agents whose address was on a list online just doesn't exist. I suppose it is the natural cycle of any business world that companies come and go, and agents are no exception. The email, however, enlightened what is happening with all those manuscripts that are being sent to one agent's address in London. It's a shame that so many struggling new writers are sending hopeful submissions, never to know that it never reached the recipiant, let alone got read and considered. Such is life. The email, because it was interesting to get closure for that one submission's fate:
Dear Jennifer
I have some rather strange news for you. Quite some time ago now you sent your manuscript Bringing Home the Stars to an agency called Walker Associates. Well, I'm afraid to tell you there is no Walker Associates. Their address is just a townhouse in Camden Town divided into flats. Soon after I moved in here I noticed these large envelopes accumulating in the communal hallway which, every so often, someone would throw out. I became intrigued and began 'rescuing' what proved to be literary manuscripts. I didn't want to just leave them as I'm a(n amateur) writer myself and I know about the mixture of hope and trepidation involved in sending off your work. Presumably Michael Walker was running an agency out of one of the flats, or purporting to, but I've been living here since the end of 2006 so he hasn't been here for at least three years. The word 'associates' was a misleading one at any event. I took the liberty of reading your submission - I thought you really succeeded in creating something suspenseful and dark. The thing now is that I'm soon to be married, so naturally I'll be moving out, and any new manuscripts that arrive will probably go unopened. Could I ask you to contact whoever gave you the address and let them know that Walker Associates is no longer operating?
Thank you, and with apologies,
Monday, 3 May 2010
On the campaign trail.
Zoë is out on the campaign trail again tonight. It's amazing how many people I know are getting involved in politics - I have friends from at least four political parties.
We're in a marginal Labour held seat here. Zoë wants to go into politics, and has been helping diligently with the Conservative capaign for a long time now. She writes the constituency newsletter, does a lot of the mailing list stuff and helps out in any way she can. Tonight she is doing the unloved task of telephone canvassing.
With news of a bigot being uncovered standing for parliament for the Conservatives, it is saddening news. It really does bug me that these religious bigots think it is acceptable to stamp on minorities. If this had been known about sooner, that candidate would almost certainly have been deselected one hopes. It is not a Conservative exclusive nark - there are bigots in all the parties, unfortunately. I suppose it is everyone's job to expose the bigots so that people know what they are voting for. The Conservatives are certainly not anti-LGBT. There are quite a few LGBT people in this constituency alone actively working within the Conservative party.
Perhaps in five years time Zoë might be able to persuade the Conservatives to select her as a prospective candidate? She tried to be selected as an MP candidate, but the Conservatives were overwhelmed by applications. I've told her that she should push for standing as a councillor first, to gain experience. However, there are a lot of other people wanting to stand too. I guess it is a case of waiting in the queue.
We're in a marginal Labour held seat here. Zoë wants to go into politics, and has been helping diligently with the Conservative capaign for a long time now. She writes the constituency newsletter, does a lot of the mailing list stuff and helps out in any way she can. Tonight she is doing the unloved task of telephone canvassing.
With news of a bigot being uncovered standing for parliament for the Conservatives, it is saddening news. It really does bug me that these religious bigots think it is acceptable to stamp on minorities. If this had been known about sooner, that candidate would almost certainly have been deselected one hopes. It is not a Conservative exclusive nark - there are bigots in all the parties, unfortunately. I suppose it is everyone's job to expose the bigots so that people know what they are voting for. The Conservatives are certainly not anti-LGBT. There are quite a few LGBT people in this constituency alone actively working within the Conservative party.
Perhaps in five years time Zoë might be able to persuade the Conservatives to select her as a prospective candidate? She tried to be selected as an MP candidate, but the Conservatives were overwhelmed by applications. I've told her that she should push for standing as a councillor first, to gain experience. However, there are a lot of other people wanting to stand too. I guess it is a case of waiting in the queue.
Cover designing
We've just been playing around with some cover artwork for 'Bringing home the stars'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
