Over at Labour Uncut (yes I do read the left wing blogs – sometimes to have a laugh, but also to see how the other half thinks or attempts to think), Jim Murphy who is Labour MP for East Renfrewshire and shadow secretary of state for defence has come up with a great scheme to get his name in the papers and make out like Labour is the party that looks after the armed services. Like many other such schemes and ideas, it sounds great until you think about it, something those in authority don’t tend to do.
He wants to have streets named after those who died in conflict. He calls them heroes. And he wants them to be remembered.
There are so many things wrong with his attempt at grandstanding. Skipping quickly over the simple fact that he is imposing this even though families of the “heros” might not want it, or the residents of the streets might not want it, or the tax payers in the council don’t want their money spent on political publicity acts, there are also other real life factors that complicate it and make it an impossible job and something that will quickly degenerate into a laughing stock.
In real life not everyone is a hero just because they died in some conflict is some dusty corner of the world. Some are killed by their own side, others are killed when not on active duty. But calling these people who died heroes denigrates those who actually do heroic acts like saving the lives of their comrades whilst under fire.
In real life the families of those who died might want to keep things private because they don’t like to have a public display of their grief. In real life, some of the people killed might not have whiter than white pasts. In real life some of those who die might not have names that are suitable for naming a street.
So after all these factors, what else could go wrong. Well, I heard Jim Murphy on Radio 4 on my way back home after work give his reasons why it was a good idea. As to why he came up with this gimmick, he said that they had done this in America and that it worked. As a counter argument the Beeb got someone in America on the line. I bet Jim was expecting someone to agree with him. In fact, the American bloke pretty much ripped into Jim’s claims and said that such schemes have become a laughing stock in America. Straight off the American bloke said that they don’t name their streets, they co-name them because they don’t force people to use these alternative names. It would become a bureaucratic nightmare with streets changing names requiring everyone on the street to update their address with the authorities. Here in the UK you could end up being sent to prison for not telling the DVLA of your new address even though you haven’t actually moved house and probably not even aware that you street changed name.
The American bloke also said that because politicians got involved in deciding who was a “hero” there was the danger that they wouldn’t be able to say no to requests. No politician or councillor would refuse a request because it would lose them votes. And they will get requests for heroes to have streets named after them even though they might not have died in conflict. In real life there will be exceptional people who commit great acts of bravery saving the lives of others whilst losing their own. So already there are exceptions. And because there are exceptions there will be requests for more, some of whom might not actually have died. Would a politician refuse such requests when the public consider these to be real heroes. So you eventually end up with the case in New York where living people have streets named after them because they are local heroes. Not real heroes, but those who do the equivalent of being a lollipop lady for 50 years.
Jim Murphy’s reply to this was they we have a different view on heroes to Americans. Yeh, right.
Jim said that if these were the reasons not to name streets then there is probably not many things politicians could do because someone would come up reasons why it wouldn’t be a good thing. Politicians would be pretty much useless. Well, duh! That’s the whole point of why politicians should never ever do things – because they always and without fail get it wrong. They’ll be things like laws that make it illegal, they’ll be Murphy’s (not Jim) law, they’ll be the law of unintended consequences, and so on. So yes, it should be a very high barrier for any scheme devised by a politician before it gets implemented.
What about fallen heroes? We, the great unwashed, want to know when they’re going to rename Savile Row.
Sad, you just gave me a BRILLIANT idea!
Instead of politicians making brownie points for themselves by naming streets after people, why don’t we look at a reverse sort of proposition… something that highly reputable organizations like Action on Smoking and Health could get behind! PP4P! Plain Packaging For Politicians!
Under my PP4P plan, if a person wants to run for office, they would be assigned a plain packaging code, perhaps a five digit one (to handle all the politicians of various stripes) with three alpha characters and two numerics. Thus, someone like Cameron might only be known publicly as XQZ69. Any statements by him or references to him in the media would simply be by that code.
Additionally, for televised events, all the politicians could wear plain brown suits or dresses and one of those Guy Fawkes type masks. Their alphanumeric designations could be displayed by discreet signs hanging around their neck. The public would have to pay more attention to political candidates and active politicians so that they could remember that they liked what QJB17 said and did not like what AMW43 said. There’d be no more prejudice based on color (I guess they’d need gloves as well as masks), a Churchill would have no natural advantage over a Dingbat, and children would be less tempted to be attracted to wasting their lives in political pursuits! It would be a Win-Win-Win all the way around!!
Hmm…. I guess to stay truly in spirit with plain packaging, the backs of their plain brown outfits could be 75% covered with full-color pictures of various horrors that are created by their votes, and the fronts could bear large black-and-white Plain Print Warnings (PPWs) with scientifically proven and noncontroversial statements like “War May Be Hazardous To Your Health” or “Taxes Are Expensive.”
Gee, I never thought I’d be in favor of plain packaging, but I’m beginning to see its virtues! PP4P 4EVER!
- MJM
LOL!
Plain packaging for pollies – like it.