PETITION - ESTABLISHING ESTABLISHMENT STANDS

These days it seems a lot gets done in our names by our 'representatives' and other 'leaders'.

Fair enough. Often we are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, which is why we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to get up to stuff in our name. Approving and disapproving. Asking and taking to task.

However, often there seem these days to be powerful forces at work that can skew what happens in our name away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to the rather unattractive, if to some degree understandable notion that what might be right, specially for later on (when out of office and either in comfortable index-linked retirement or 6' under) might not attract votes, as such, now.

Worse still, I am sensing some voting on key issues is not so much on the issue themselves, to to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.

Again, by the time all this happens those who instituted/scuppered the deal might well be long gone.

It might exist already, but I propose a simple chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads and even business leaders, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legalisation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.

At the very least I want these fine chaps and chapesses to be confronted with the consequences of their actions and, even if they are long gone, in an archived way their descendants can appreciate their legacies (good... and bad).

Perhaps it could be called 'The Parapet Post'? And for some, maybe it become, with cause, a pillory?

ADDENDUM - Bit of fun: as there seemed to be nothing like it, I have submitted a petition:

'The Parapet Post' – a simple online, constantly updated, archived chart/record of our leaders’ voting records on topics, with possible and actual outcomes listed.

We are too busy, or lazy, to get involved in the minutiae of governance, so we trust elected, and often not quite so elected folk to act in our name. Approving/disapproving. Asking/taking to task.

However, these days powerful forces can skew away from courses that we might hope for, and even approve of. Everything from lobby groups to vote-driven self interest.

Voting on key issues can not be so much on the issues themselves, but to removing checks and balances that might at first glance seem innocuous, but actually are there to address more controversial topics at a later stage.

I request a simple online chart (with key headings - Nuclear, Planning, etc) of those in power, predominantly MPs, Ministers, MEPs, etc, but also quango heads, who are on record as being 'pro' or 'con' an action/piece of legislation/etc, especially with their voting record along with a brief, comprehensible summary (this is key, so every voter can understand the issues, at least as well as they are capable of being expressed) of what the consequences of their voting might be and, if and when proven, has/is/will come to pass.

BBC - Poll finds AMs back more powers

Guardian - NEW - How many MPs are climate change sceptics? - LED burning crosses at the ready?

Addendum - 17/07/08 - Oh, wo..e is me. And boy, was it quick:

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected.

Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel

Further information: Sites containing this requested
information already exist e.g. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow
the following link:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/TheParapetPost/BCfF51CgkEwAEDq1PTALogg

You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your
petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions.

Hmn. While the cited site is very good, it really doesn't do what I was asking, at least in the easy to assess, tabular, evolving manner I was suggesting.

Still, I still have Pols Porkies or the Wall of sLime to develop.

CATEGORY - Wall of sLime

Hall of sHame = Wall of sLime - Not the nicest shade of green

nPower

Marketing Week - NEW - 'Irresponsible companies' face the Corporate Hall of Shame - Ahead of my time, me. Note why Toyota is in there, all you Prius owners.

Why am I not suprised? There'll be more. Count on it.

FP- 2/10/07

Trust me, I'm in (green) advertising

'False' green ad complaints rise

I cannot for the life of me understand why it gets done or what is in the heads of those who think they can get away with it.,

Do they not realise that by creating a near automatic aura of doubt on anything conveying a green message by such actions, far from leading us (the public, authorities and commercial world) towards a mutually rewarding era of environmentally (and financially) rewarding relationships, these cynical efforts are simply making it more difficult and stealing time that is already precious to effect changes in public behaviour?

There are clear guidelines out there, but a weekly read of the ASA adjudications makes depressing reading as to the motives and/or competence of those involved.

I'm not big on negativity, but I'm seriously thinking of creating a 'wall of sLime' on Junkk.com where these examples get hung up for all to see, along with the names of those involved in their creation.

Joel Makover - The Greening of P.R.: Read All About It

'The world of public relations has discovered green with a vengeance, and the big global firms seem locked, loaded, and ready to fire up their drum beating.'

Consider a just-released survey by Ipsos Reid, which found that "Consumers appear to be wary of companies who label their products as being 'green', or environmentally friendly." The study found that seven in ten (70%) Americans either "strongly" (12%) or "somewhat" agree (58%) that "when companies call a product 'green' (meaning better for the environment), it is usually just a marketing tactic."

These P.R. firms will have their work cut out for them.

I'm not the only one with a watching brief, it seems.

ASA

Indy - Innocent found guilty of making false health claims - Why on earth would they do it? Great product. Great brand. Great reputation. But then they have grown to a size where there are scores of levels of munchkins vying for their place in the corporate pie. I had high hopes of getting something meaningful going with both Junkk.com and RE:tie vis a vis their commitment to re-everything, but hit a wall of trendy young things in the 'marketing' dept. who seemed unable to take a message let alone pass it on. Sad.

Brand republic - Smoothies ad pulled up over detox claims

Guardian - Innocent found guilty over smoothie health claims - well, there's no such thing as ...

Indy - Can you not know that you are using forced labour? - Not really my usual cuppa this guy, but he kinda nails it. And OK, it isn't really right for this post, either.

Mad - Lost innocence

I think all it does is show how size can create all sorts of problems.

It is hard to imagine that in leaner times those running the show would not be on top of such things. But now there will be layer upon layer of departmental munchkins (just try getting past the bananaphone to talk to a sensible decision maker without getting all sorts of folk running turf interference these days) jockeying to make their mark, so such things creep in.

As to the McDonalds hook up... what is the problem? Surely getting something healthy...ier in there is better than nothing? And if one is of a campaigning bent, better to work from within than standing outside shouting all or nothing impracticalities. And who, beyond the media, are these excitable folk who can get so turned off by such commercial decisions? I felt the same way over the hoo-haa that Anita Roddick had flogged off Body Shop. It was hers to do with as she felt. And if feeling generous (if change was her aim) was the risk of comprising the Body Shop brand not worth elevated the aspirations of the parent ?

Mind you, it can create some fun. I suspect those who bought out Ben & Jerry's haven't a clue what is going on sometimes: link

Brand Republic - NOT SO INNOCENT


I was going to post but it was more question so forgive me taking the more direct route.

Having had a rather frustrating time of late with innocent (there are aspects of our businesses that suggest(ed) synergy), which I have pretty much identified with their growth curve out-stripping their original (and, I believe, sincerely held) stated desire to not be like the rest, your comment resonated.

However, as I blogged (link above), I laid this more at the door corporate B*****cks and gatekeeper culture. But you seem to be suggesting that there is something more predictable than even this. You would not have written what you did had you not believed it, but I must say I am surprised that marketing gurus, much less those whose hunger has pushed them to darker places, could simply feel the risk of such a strategy could be worth it.

Look how much damage this one small thing has created for the brand, versus what minute % increase they may have generated overstated the benefits of this product.

I truly hope you are wrong. But fear you may be right.

Guardian - Hot air

I'm holding my breath.

Just as a precaution, mind.