A lot of people slag off Jamie Oliver.
Oh, I can see what it is about him that gets on their thru'pennies. The voice for a start. The cliché-ridden blokeyness and the fact that despite advocating the critical importance of small quality producers, he doesn't seem to have any problem at all being the big supermarket's poster boy. All starters for at least 10.
But the thing is, Jamie's a communicator. He's everywhere, because he's good. Not a good chef, not in the Gordon Ramsay class - not according to Gordon himself, unsurprisingly, though Jamie's no mug; much more importantly, he gets the message across.
Everybody knows what Jamie stands for. Getting people to eat better food, be more discerning and maybe, possibly even paying something more than desultory attention to what it is we're stuffing down our gullets three times a day.
Personally, regardless of the obviously massive ego, the apparent limitless self-confidence and of course that voice, I'm firmly of the opinion that what Jamie is trying to do, is a good thing. And he does it well.
But, would you vote for Jamie? Is he someone who could enliven Government, be somewhere he possesses real pull and power and what's more the opportunity to use it? Somewhere he could drive forward his apparently genuine vision for national - international - better health and nutrition?
No, of course you wouldn't. What's more, I bet you anything he wouldn't even want to stand.
Governments don't get things done any more, they don't have 'visions'. Governments have focus groups and sub-committees. Governments have soundbites and meaningless slogans: 'a better tomorrow', 'an aspiration nation', 'getting the tone right'.
All utterly empty and vapid. Which is kind of the point. If no one knows what you're on about, they're hardly in a position to criticise it, are they?
You might not like Jamie Oliver. You might not like what he's trying to do or at any rate be wholly cynical about it, but at least you know what it is.
Politicians are getting beige-r by the year. Safe, predictable, uninspiring and utterly charisma by-passed. More or less to a man and woman.
It's the same here in Australia. As Victoria prepares to vote in the upcoming State elections, the personalities of all of the party leaders combined equal precisely zero. Plus zero.
You can always tell when a political party has no discernible policies. They attack the other lot. We're better than them because… well we just are. You've gotta believe it. We might be crap, but hey, they're crapper.
It doesn't have to be this way. But it is. Think of the Westminster Parliament or the Scottish Parliament or any other Parliament in the world that you've taken as much as a passing interest in.
Can you think of a single person in there with genuine charisma, brilliant communication skills and the ability to make coherent, sharp speeches worth listening to? Me neither.
The thing is, we in Scotland actually have someone who possesses all these skills. He's not a TV chef either. In fact, he's a politician, albeit one who's no longer in any kind of office.
He used to be. Till it all went tits up, as it were. And his name is Tommy Sheridan.
Tommy is good. Watching the online stream of the election results on 19th September, as the BBC invited politician after politician into the studio to discuss the result, Tommy was the only one who impressed.
He was passionate in his disappointment. Heartbroken, he said, and I for one believed him.
What a contrast to all the other talking heads, none of whom captured the imagination for even a nano-second. Boring, insipid and totally uninspiring. Even those representing the No vote failed to impress in their triumph.
Politically, we're being led by the bland. Tommy Sheridan isn't bland. He's got an energy about him, a rage; dare I say it, a vision.
And even if you don't agree with it - and there are plenty who don't - at least you know what it is.
I'm not of a mind to go too deeply into Tommy's recent travails: I don't know enough about them, and there are legal minefields to negotiate. I do know however that he paid the price. A big prize including jail time, loss of reputation and - no doubt - the ability to make a livelihood.
Tommy's done his porridge. Paid his dues. And still, somehow retains a conviction for change. What's more, politics, more than ever needs people like him.
A fantastic speaker, a rabble-rouser for sure, but a damn good one. A communicator and let's face it, can we really afford to disregard one of those?
Tommy has spent enough time in the political shadows, overlooked and - by some, most of whom never liked what he was saying anyway - ridiculed.
It's time for a comeback. Politics and Scotland needs Tam. I think it's time.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article