Wednesday, February 20, 2008
As far as the airport design goes, while I find it so very very odd, and liable to send arriving visitors the message that there's a message here which they don't get, my opposition is tempered by the following observation:
Architecture that looks inexpicably, controversially bizzare, at least as far as public buildings goes, at least make an impression. It is, I think, less likely to become despised and much more likely to become loved than something that offends nobody when it comes out of the committee. My default position is that major public works should offend the sensibilities of most people. Myself included.
So the pumpkins have that in their favour.
Speaking of UnitedFuture, my reader might be intrigued by, and may possibly have missed, this from the other week: New Group Wants Income Splitting For Parents.
It's a press release from "Parents Choice '08", whose chairman is one Roger Ellis. Is that the former member of the United Future executive board Roger Ellis, forming a lobby group to campaign for a United Future policy in election year? I assume it is [in searching around the topic I find Whale Oil noticed this at the time].
Now, I wouldn't think that UF had enough cash to need to make soft money arrangements in view of the Electoral Finance Act.