The Mid-Atlantic Blog

Judicial Smackdown

2006-03-08T07:10:00.000Z

A lovely ruling by the Supreme Court, saying that the fact that a law school may lose federal funding if they don't give the military the same ability to recruit on their campus that they give the private sector doesn't breach their first amendment rights.

The key line, by the new Chief Justice...

"Nothing about recruiting," Roberts wrote, "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters." Besides, "We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy." Then, Roberts's tartness: "Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school."

A great piece about this by George Will this morning. The fight back of rationality and good sense in the legal system continues.

Honesty In The Church Of England

2006-03-08T06:42:00.000Z

A terribly sad story last night about Julie Nicholson, the vicar who lost her daughter in the 7/7 bombings, and who has now resigned her parish because of the effect on her faith, and in particular her inability to forgive.

A short piece on this story on BBC Online, but the segment on the news at 10 last night went into the story in more detail.

Three things jump out at me on this.

First, as her bishop said, this lady has shown great courage in admitting her feelings. Her reaction is terribly human, and very understandable, and her insight that it might damage her ministry is sobering.

Second, (and oddly enough not covered on BBC Online) her most powerful statement last night was about the attitude towards the killers. I don't have a transcript to hand, but her statement went something like the following

There has been a lot of talk recently of people being offended. Well, I'm deeply deeply offended that someone killed my daughter for their idea of God

This was a powerful statement, and a sentiment that has been notably missing from the public discourse in recent times.

Finally, in her temporary failure to forgive, this lady has given us a much more potent and impressive message of the importance and centrality of forgiveness to the gospel that she has dedicated herself to spreading than you get from most of the trite pablum that comes from the Church. Forgiveness is hard, not simply a form of words in a press release from Lambeth Palace, and pretending it is not cheapens it. By emphasising that forgiveness is hard, that as flawed humans we are not always able to get to it immediately, that it is key to the Christian message, and that it is not simply pretending that the wrong that was done was not wrong she has also emphasised the value of it.

I'll be praying for her.

Update: I've just noticed this piece in the Times today, which covers the issue very well.

Dangerous Ground

2006-03-06T06:50:00.000Z

Sometimes society just decides to run off the edge of a cliff, shouting "I'm a teapot, I'm a teapot". I worry that we're in danger of doing it again.

What on earth am I talking about?

Three things all spotted in ten minutes this morning.

An Oscar for George Clooney for Syriana
An Oscar for Rachel Weisz for The Constant Gardner
This piece in the Washington Post about the next "Dubai Ports" problem

The single common factor is the willful denial of reality.

While Oscars themselves don't determine the views of society we can't forget that the drip drip drip of the message being sent from Hollywood can be corrosive. In these two pictures you see pictures of reality that are so different from the truth as to be actively damaging, but which go along with some preconceived prejudices that are already out there. The US is currently engaged in trying to spread democracy, not stop it. Corporations are possibly the single most important societal invention for broad-based prosperity - and despite the fact that all corporations make mistakes pharma companies save millions of people every year. The Dubai ports issue, and the highlighted one over China raise the danger of protectionism, which could cause huge damage to us all. And exacerbating tensions with China has other dangers as well...

I'm probably just being pessimistic because it's Monday morning. But that doesn't stop me from feeling a little uncomfortable about this.

March For Free Expression

2006-03-05T21:29:00.000Z

On 25th March there will be a march for free expression in Trafalgar Square.

I don't know anything about the organisers, but on the assumption that they are accurately representing their speakers this appears to be a genuine, non-partisan, non-offensive attempt to support free speech in the face of the recent cartoon nonsense.

Unless it turns out between now and then that there is a nasty undercurrent with this march, I think I may break my usual rule of indolence and try to potter along. Pop along to their site and see what you think... and if you agree with the basic idea of freedom of speech put the date in your diary. This stuff matters, and people have died for it in the past. A stroll through central London can't be too much work, can it?

Abortion In America

2006-03-05T12:06:00.000Z

Over the next few years the American polity is going to move beyond Roe vs Wade. That much is certain. How it does so, and what that means, will be fascinating.

The underlying problem here is simple. The pre-Roe environment was one where abortion was a state-level issue, decided as part of the political process. Pro-abortion activists had (and have) a firmly felt belief that this was inappropriate, and that the right to abortion was one that should be available to all.

Now, the traditional approach to this type of problem was two-fold. First, pro-abortion activists could mount political campaigns in the states that banned abortion, attempting to change the law through the political process. Second, they could attempt to have a constitutional amendment passed.

The hurdle they faced? There wasn't enough support for their views amongst the voting population.

That poses a problem in a democracy, of course. However, instead of simply stepping up the attempt to change minds, a novel approach was taken. A "right" to abortion that no-one had noticed before was discovered in the constitution.

The result? The effect of a constitutional amendment, without the awkward "getting the agreement of the country" downside.

The effects of this have been deeply corrosive, and it has taken a long time for the conservative movement to react effectively. In fact, it has been one of the key elements of the conservative rebuild.

It is, however, poorly understood on this side of the Atlantic. "Anti-abortion" activists come in all shapes and sizes: from those who want abortions totally abolished, through strict-construction constitutionalists to those who want greater decentralisation. Many of them want restrictions on abortion, sure. But many simply want essentially political issues returned to the people. The one thing that certainly isn't true is that the current key demand from the anti-abortion movement is the actual abolition of abortion. Instead, their core demand is for the return of abortion to the political sphere, allowing it to be legislated upon by politicians, rather than simply by lawyers. At that point, many may fight for abolition - but most of their supporters will focus on limits... and limits that most even in the UK would likely find reasonable.

The irony, of course, is that the approach of the pro-choice movement has been deeply damaging to them, and to the Democrats (a party which they have essentially captured). The removal of abortion from the political process has invigorated the right, and has led (in significant part) to a grand alliance of various interest groups that have created the political movement that at the last national election to Republican majorities in both House and Senate, and the White House. At the same time the Democrats becoming a single issue party on this issue has caused the immense problems, and lost them both talented politicians and significant votes.

Now the appointment of Roberts and Alito to the Court may be acting as a watershed for the pro-choice movement, making them think beyond their current unsustainable attachment to Roe v Wade, and trying to find new approaches to attain their goals. This will take some time , of course, but a good example of the type of thought process they'll have to go through to adjust to this new world can be seen here, in the Washington Post today.

Of course, even this type of discussion doesn't go far enough. This issue will eventually return to the people, and the pro-choice campaign will need to engage the people at last if they are going to win their cause. But that's democracy, and it's certainly how we do it over here in the UK.

And that's the real point to remember about this. Over the next few years the coverage of this issue is likely to be deeply distorted. Whenever you hear it discussed, remember this one fact. The House of Commons can change the abortion rules in the UK. Neither Congress nor the states can in the US. The fight going on today is a fight to correct that imbalance.

It Is Traditional, And Therefore Right

2006-03-04T08:42:00.000Z

A small push back against the tide: Oxford students save sub fusc!

Oxonian brows around the world are a little less wrinkled today. We need more harmless traditions like this, not fewer.

Only On The BBC

2006-03-03T19:49:00.000Z

Perception vs Reality time.

In this ICM survey last year people were asked what religion they belonged to. Maybe not the best proxy for belief in God available, but only 22% of the respondents said that they were a member of "No Faith". Regular worship attendance was quite poor, as we all know, with 32% going at least once every few months, but with more than 50% attending a few times a year.

Evidence of a widespread absence of belief in God? I don't think so. In fact, I think it's fair to say it's evidence of a general belief in God of some kind, but of a theologically wooly nature.

Now we turn to this story from this evening, describing Blair interview with Parkinson.

Headline?
Blair 'prayed to God' over Iraq

As though his belief in God was unusual.

So, yet again, BBC perception (normal people don't believe in God) clashes with reality (most people in the U.K. do seem to, in fact, believe in God). No change there, then...

General Ignorance

2006-03-03T07:22:00.000Z

Depressing story from the US here, showing that people in the US know the Simpsons better than their constitution.

Sadly, we're no better... Here is an old story from the BBC about our historical knowledge, or rather lack of it.

Depressing, isn't it?

George Clooney

2006-03-03T07:00:00.000Z

A useful corrective this morning to the laudatory coverage of George Clooney that we've seen over here (Newsnight and Culture Show interviews, and so on).

The perception that he's tried to put across, and which has been backed broadly, is one of political activism against repression expressed through his films, in particular the two on release at the moment, with that action causing people to attack him without reason.

Charles Krauthammer points out that the problem with "Syriana" is that it presents a picture of US policy that is in fact diametrically opposite from the truth: rather than attempting to overthrow democracy and freedom around the world, Bush has regularly used the full force of the military to promote it.

And as for "Good Night And Good Luck"? Economical with the truth is probably the best that can be said for it. Covering the US government and Congress attempts to avoid infiltration by Communists during the Cold War is hard to do accurately if you work on the basis that there wasn't any such attempted infiltration, against the evidence that has been released since the end of the Cold War. You don't have to love Senator Joe to know that there was a problem... and Eisenhower was publicly challenging the witch hunts before Murrow was. Not a huge amount of bravery there, then.

Opposition to Clooney, then, isn't just because of his point of view politically: it's because he doesn't present the inconvenient facts that disagree with his view, and by doing so produce ideas that are further from reality than can be justified by artistic interpretation.

Incidentally, Mark Steyn, as always, is also good on this point here.

Iain Dale Hits The Nail On The Head

2006-03-01T07:44:00.000Z

A good first person write up of the DC "Built To Last" speech, making some key points about the document. However, Iain gets it exactly right when he says the following, which I think sums up exactly the importance of this document...

The emphasis now is on what it is changing to, rather than what it has changed from. And that is certainly progress.

That is spot on. Marketing is largely a question of narrative, of direction, of story arc. The key thing this document does is not create a "Fight With The Right", but that it continues to emphasise the story arc that has been established: Conservatism is the future.

Modern Britain Described

2006-03-01T07:11:00.000Z

Anne Applebaum writes today in the Washington Post about Ken Livingstone's suspension - worth a read on those grounds alone. Two particular things jump out.

First, the dark comedy of the author of "Gulag", the best modern description of the Soviet camp system being lectured by Ken as he defends Stalin.

Second, Applebaum's description of modern Britain. As an American who used to live and work here, and who has extensive contacts on both sides of the Atlantic, she has the requisite distance and closeness to be able to say the following...

Here we have, in a nutshell, evidence of the breakdown in relations between the British media and British politicians; the increasing incivility of British public life; the nasty strain of anti-Semitism on the far side of the British left (Livingstone has just called Ariel Sharon a war criminal, clearly a favorite insult, as well); and, to top it all off, the growth in the power of undemocratic, unelected "quangos" -- quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organizations -- of which there are now hundreds in Britain.

This rings pretty true, unfortunately, as do her further conclusions. Worth a read.

Health News

2006-03-01T07:03:00.000Z

This is great news: Chocolate lowers blood pressure. It's not just a food group, it's a medicine!

Life Moves On

2006-02-28T06:56:00.000Z

It's easy to forget how much things change.

Anyone with a child knows how many questions they ask. My daughter is no exception - coming up on 5 years old, just starting school, and asking questions nineteen to the dozen. I must admit that I find it one of the most fun parts of being a parent, seeing the interest kindle in a huge range of subjects, and the clear enjoyment she finds in learning new things.

Those questions at the moment focus on topics like "where do aliens live" (the answer to which, it turns out is in houses at the bottom of the craters in the moon - and interestingly they co-habit with Mickey Mouse. Who knew!), and how electricity works. But the topics are gradually getting broader, and there will come a time soon enough when they encompass how things used to be, and more political issues.

The differences between the world she's in and the one I was brought up in were brought into sharp relief for me by this film (Protect & Survive). The famous mid-70's public information film covering what to do in the event of a nuclear attack brought home to me both the climate of my childhood (I can vividly remember from quite a young age being aware of the fact that the large number of strategic naval bases close to our house meant that we had a pretty significant quantity of Soviet hardware pointed at us at all times), and the differences from that climate today.

That world came to an end, of course and I can vividly remember the moment I was told that the Wall had come down (a generation specific reference again). We're still not through the other side of the aftermath: the Islamist movement were given training and motivation because of the Soviet attack on Afghanistan, while the public discourse, especially in academia, has not yet adjusted to the realities of Communist crimes, still refusing to put the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, and their successors, as well as those of Mao and his cronies on a par with those of Hitler. We'll know we've left the final stages of that War behind us when wearing a Che shirt isn't acceptable, and when communism is no longer excused.

But on all of these issues we're in the mopping-up phase of the engagement, no matter how long it takes. We have new challenges, and new fears, and if I'm not sure how much safer we are now than then that's beside the point.

This film is, when you come down to it, from a totally different world - and it's that of my childhood. That's a very strange feeling. Watch it, and feel yourself fly backwards to the strange world of 1975.

Giving Credit Where It's Due

2006-02-28T06:43:00.000Z

Expectation vs reality again this morning, with this piece highlighting the fact that Bush has, again and again, failed to live up to the perception some have that he's a small minded bigot.

The particular topic is, of course, the Dubai ports deal. A huge commotion over very little, especially on the right where there were initial concerns over security (which have since then mainly been mitigated because of further information becoming available), and where some of the reaction has been unquestionably based on the Arab origin of the company involved - if not racism, at least regionalism.

Concerns over security from the right, though, are expected, and it was bad political antennae not to think this one through more carefully, at least as to presentation.

Bush, however, has done the right thing, defending the deal in clear and unequivocal terms. Key quote...

"What I find interesting is that it's okay for a British company to manage some ports, but not okay for a company from a country that is a valuable ally in the war on terror,"

Exactly.

A Climate Of Fear?

2006-02-26T21:02:00.000Z

A short, but necessary corrective to views about fly-over land.

The common view, particularly in the UK, of red-state America is pretty negative. In particular, there is the perception that the view of the ordinary member of the population is effectively simple racism, and that this drives both votes for Republicans and attitudes towards the Iraq war (and the Middle-East as a whole).

This story, then, should be given wider publicity. In Toledo, Ohio over the course of a single week an Islamic charity is closed down by the Feds (under suspicion of funneling money to Islamist terror groups), and then three Moslem men are arrested for suspicion of involvement in Islamist terrorism.

The reaction?

Not race riots. Not violence against the large local Moslem community. Not an upsurge in Mosque burnings. No calls in the local press for suspicion of local Moslems.

Nope. Instead, we get stories on ABC.com headlined "Ohio Muslims Say They Don't Fear Backlash" (and you can be sure that if there were suspicions of the opposite ABC would have been happy to cover them).

I guess those small-minded racist red-neck Ohio hicks aren't quite as bad as might be thought.

Oh, and by the way. The leading contender for Governor on the Republican side? Ken Blackwell, the current Secretary of State of Ohio. And those damned racist right-wing Ohioans are clearly playing to their prejudices again, what with him being African-American, and all. Small-minded intolerant bigots, the lot of them...

Al Gore Is Richard Nixon

2006-02-25T22:55:00.000Z

Well, that may be putting it a little strongly, but this piece in the New York Observer (a publication which is always worth dipping into both for the occasional gem like this, and as a reminder of why I'm glad I live in London not New York) makes a good case that there are strong parallels between Nixon and Gore in respect to the 2008 election.

His case rests on differentiation from the key competitors on the war in Iraq. He makes the valid point that with the current left-wing of the Democrats out there it'll be tough for someone deeply involved in national elected politics both to be rational in action, and at the same time to maintain support on the anti-war left.

To win, Mr. Gore must run on a simple proposition that puts him at direct odds with Mrs. Clinton: Within 24 hours of taking office, he would withdraw all troops from Iraq and redirect national resources to crush Al Qaeda. The election of 2008 may become like 1968, with war protests wracking the country and the President sticking to his guns.

It's an interesting piece, and makes a good case, although I'm not sure it's a wholly accurate prediction. Worth a read though.

By the way, the one thing that I'm pretty sure of is that it won't be Hillary! in the White House next time. Too many negatives, for one thing, and also that she's running from the Senate. Kennedy was the last one to manage that trick, and to coin a phrase, she's no Jack Kennedy.

Newsnight And Blogs

2006-02-24T23:46:00.000Z

So you come home, and do some surfing to see what's been going on. Check the Newsnight site. Notice that the Editor has his weekly column up: the graphic is Ethical Man, about which you've done a post earlier in the week, and that you know from your site logs a number of BBC people have read. Have a look... and discover that your post is one of the topics of discussion (no link though, even with the usual BBC external sites warning, which is a bit of a shame). Well well.

A few points on this.

First, it shows you the difference between the different media of blogs and broadcast. I was expecting the usual Gaian nonsense from this story, which is what you get regularly from the Beeb. The package was rather like that, the discussion wasn't. I thought there was enough of a difference from my preconceptions to post an update, which I'm glad he quoted in part. And I linked to the site. That process is common with blogs. It's not quite as common with broadcast...

Second, and leaving aside that it's a post from here being commented on it is, I think, very good news that the Editor of Newsnight is reading comments from the blogosphere - and caring about them, even if he disagrees with them. The BBC is starting to get more used to interaction both ways with blogs. Sometimes they'll be positive, sometimes negative. But they're usually not designed just to be mean - and you can tell those blogs a mile away and not read them. The rest of us, particularly those who comment on BBC News regularly, do so partially as commentary, and partially in the hope that the things that we see as errors will be corrected, or at least addressed. Sometimes we're angry, sometimes we poke fun, but underlying it is a genuine hope that BBC News will produce top quality, well thought out output. Every news editor should be running a Technorati search multiple times a day and reading the results where possible, and Peter Barron (or his colleagues) should be commended for doing so.

Third, this Ethical Man segment is the type of segment ideally designed for this new type of interaction. Sure, get inputs one way from people via blogs and email. But why not also post preliminary findings / issues for exploration on the Newsnight web site a few days before broadcast and let the blogosphere (of all opinions) stress test the ideas. Do a trawl of the web, and email 50 or so blogs that you know care about Newsnight, the BBC output, or the issues you're covering, and send them an email letting them know about the content: even give them access to a password protected mini-site for this purpose. I'll bet every time they did it they'd get at least one new avenue of thought or improvement to the story, and maybe more. This type of open ended issue is ideal for it because it's so broad, and it's an area where conventional thinking is easy to fall into. It would improve the stories, would build links for the BBC in the blogosphere, and spark discussion. Why not give it a try, chaps?

Finally, and in the spirit of the request for comments on the specific issue, when you're looking at carbon budgets and household efficiency you have to look at nuclear power - pushing for the newest type of reactor (pebble beds) to be developed, improved and installed, and recognising the many benefits that come from nuclear power in general in terms of carbon usage. It's the one technology that may have the chance to make real substantial changes in the short term, and it has been unfairly maligned, significantly by the same people that make up the "ethical" movement. The degree to which "ethical" pressure groups, by pressure against nuclear, have caused excess carbon emissions, and thereby global warming according to standard environmental theories would make a fascinating element of this investigation.

Oh, and by the way, it wasn't just Mr Rowlatt who was likeable - all of his family seemed to be, composting toilets or not.

Cartoonists Discuss Cartoons

2006-02-24T07:38:00.000Z

You should have a look at this piece in the Washington Post this morning, where they've interviewed UK cartoonists about the Danish cartoons. It's an amusing exercise. The suggestion today seems to be that the cartoons attacked the "powerless", while they should attack the "powerful". Bearing in mind the cartoons were designed to make precisely the point that free speech was under threat from the powerful movement of global Islamism (not Islam as a whole, or Muslims individually), and that they have demonstrated precisely that, this excuse seems to be just a touch self-deceptive.

The strong note of "apres nous la deluge" is emphasised by the final chap interviewed, who comes the closest to giving the real answer.

"As a cartoonist, I have quite a few views about it," he said. "But as a human being, I'm not going to put me and my family in danger. So you might say they're winning."

Yup. You could. They are.

Empty Threats

2006-02-24T07:24:00.000Z

Amusing news from Europe, with leaders of the right telling David Cameron that they won't talk to him if he goes ahead with his plan for withdrawal from the EPP. A few thoughts.

First, this is delightfully unrealistic. Is he really supposed to believe that this group, who collectively will "work" with representatives of some of the worst behaved countries on the planet, will cut him off because of a simple political move like this? The mere idea is, of course, nonsense. Being sensible, grown up, politicians they will of course work with him. The threat is self-evidently toothless.

Second, it's rather emblematic of the way that European politicians have treated their own people and the UK: go along with us or we'll bully you into line. There is only one response to that, of course, which is defiance.

Third, they must be worried. The concern, of course, is that a sensible right wing agenda opposed to the ever closer union approach will spark interest in their own polities, and possibly create new power structures that they don't control. I'd take that as a sign that we may be onto something, myself...

Fourth, it's great for Cameron, helping support his right flank at a useful time.

Good news, then. Roll on the day we leave.

A Failure Of The Press

2006-02-23T07:07:00.000Z

If there is only one thing you read today (with the notable exception, of course, of this blog...) it is this piece in the Washington Post. It is written by Alan Dershowitz and William J Bennett - hardly soulmates, as they recognise themselves. It articulates the way that the press has failed us over the Danish cartoons, making the case by comparing the behaviour in this case with others.

A few key paragraphs:

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities

Later, the heart of it:

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the
Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.
The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.
In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

And then their conclusion

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities.

They conclude with this

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

This is a top quality article which summarises the situation extraordinarily well. A must read.

Ethics & The BBC

2006-02-22T20:56:00.000Z

This poor chap, innocent journalist that he is decides to move job. He's delighted to join one of the premier news shows on the BBC: Newsnight. What does he get as his first major assignment?

He's told he has to become "ethical man" for a year.

Now, this isn't "Judeo-Christian ethical man": do unto others and all that. No, this is the Church of Gaia "ethical man": the established Church of the BBC. Listen to him describe his current lifestyle...

I reckon my family already tick a few "ethical boxes" - admittedly, largely thanks to the influence of my wife, Bee.
We get organic fruit and vegetables delivered each week (by an LPG powered vehicle, the company assures us). The same company supplies us with locally sourced eggs, bacon and milk. Other food and household supplies we get from the supermarket and I'll pick up a few extras from a convenience store on the way home from work. By the end of the week our council recycling box is usually full.
We do have a car - a two litre petrol estate - but we hardly ever use it; just for shopping and trips on the weekend with our two young daughters, Eva and Zola. My wife and I take public transport to work and the girls walk to school. We usually have two foreign holidays a year but, since the girls were born, more often than not these will be in Europe.

Ah, but you see, he's not a true adherent to the faith. No, Mr Rowlatt has discovered an expert, Leo Hickman. Now, children, let's guess what Mr Hickman does in the real world? Yup, that's right, he's a journalist. At which newspaper I hear you ask... ? How about I let his bio tell us:

Leo Hickman is 31. He grew up in Cornwall about 400 metres away from what was to become Eden. He is a journalist, editor and the consumer expert at the Guardian. He lives in south London with his wife, two small children and 3,000 worms. He is also the author of How to buy and the editor of A Good Life: the guide to ethical Living.

Of course. The Guardian. Silly me: I had presumed it would be the Telegraph. And he lives with 3000 worms. Shame the Beeb didn't tell us all of that of course (although, come to think of it I'm not sure which is worse: writing for the Guardian or living with 3000 worms). And it gets better. It turns out that Mr Hickman had a project on the go for a while, around the beginning of 2004. Can we guess what it was? I quote from the first article in the series he wrote about it:

It was against this backdrop that I was set a challenge by the Guardian. Could I - someone living a typically comfortable and routine life in a city suburb - take a step back from my daily habits and consumer choices, and try to understand their true impact? Could I, over the course of a few months, start to lead a more ethical life, in which I reduced, to use a popular axiom, my footprint on the earth", as well as being a more positive force both to myself and those around me?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the poor BBC journo has been asked to rehash a Guardian idea of 2 years ago. Apparently advised by the journalist that did it at the Guardian. Without mentioning to us that this is a direct rip-off of an idea from a newspaper with a somewhat, shall we say, ideological take on the issues concerned.

And somehow I don't think that the idea of reducing his footprint on the earth means that he should only walk on the tarmac, so he doesn't leave footprints...

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. The ethics that this poor chap are going to be asked to live by are no doubt the usual mish-mash of well-meaning but ineffective and universally-agreed good sense and idiocy that you find on the left. On the right, of course, we disagree with many of them: in fact we tend to work on the basis that many of them are actively damaging. Saving energy in sensible ways is a great idea, for example. However, over-regulation to meet over-high safety standards or, worse, harmonisation across the EU can increase costs and price goods out of the reach of the poor: products made under those regulations are hardly ethical, are they? How ethical is organic food produced within CAP - doesn't CAP produce huge disparities in the global farming market that have the result of killing thousands of people a month in the third world from under-development? Isn't promoting the advance of capitalism and the rule of law the best (non-religious)ethical approach that any individual could take? Does that mean he should model himself on George W who, love him or loath him, does seem to spend most of his waking life trying to spread capitalism and the rule of law? You get the general idea.

The problem is that the BBC have gone that extra mile, and they've asked us to contribute ideas to suggest how he could best perform an ethical audit of his home - and over the course of the year on each area of his life. Hmmm...

You can find the link here. A modest suggestion to everyone reading this: go to the site and make some suggestions (positive ones, mind you), as to how he might improve his life ethically. Some suggestions:

In his job as a journalist look at the funding and political activity of the NGOs, and whether they end up, by promoting economically foolish policies, causing thousands of deaths around the world. Talk to both sides of the argument for once.
In his job as a journalist look at the behaviour of the scientific community on global warming research. To what extent is the environmental change community able to quash research that they disagree with, and are their proposals really the best way forward? As part of this, look at the Copenhagen Consensus, and similar approaches.
Rather than continuing to accept employment as a public sector employee, why not try setting up his own company, or becoming freelance, thereby contributing to the economy directly?

I'm sure you can think of many many more. Go for it!

My favourite part of the whole darned thing, though, comes from his bio from his Panorama days, where he did a programme on drugs. I quote...

Making the programme involved a journey into his own past as he was a regular dope smoker when he was a teenager. The evidence the programme uncovered made a very convincing case that that cannabis can have much more profound psychological effects than most people believe.

Really? You couldn't make it up, could you.

UPDATE (23:35 Wednesday Evening):

Well, I've just watched the segment on the show this evening. My reactions?

First, Mr Rowlatt is clearly a likeable chap: you couldn't help but warm to him (and indeed his family, who featured significantly in the package). A minor point, but quite important in an area that's too full of pomposity.

Second, a surprisingly good discussion in the studio - much better than the package. Lomborg was there, so my comment on the Copenhagen Consensus above was already in the mix. The dilemmas involved were given a good airing, and the benefits of free trade were at least discussed seriously (although the chap from Innocent smoothies appeared somewhat, er..., innocent).

Third, some delightful moments during the conversation - certainly the first time I've seen Gandhi and composting lavatories being compared to each other, for example.

Fourth, nice to see the BBC actually referring to viewer opinions. About 20% of the hits on this site between the time I finished the above post and the start of the package were from the BBC searching for Newsnight. They referred to a range of views from viewers from the internet during the discussion.

My conclusion? If he gets out of his comfort zone, and explores all sides of the arguments, then Mr Rowlatt could, in fact, produce some memorable television. If he stays in the Gaia-zone, without confronting the much broader issues of free markets, free trade and the wide range of serious opinions in this general area then it will be a wasted opportunity.

Women More In Favour Of Sharia Than Men: Further Analysis Of ICM Data

2006-02-21T23:40:00.000Z

I've just had a very interesting evening. At least, the results are interesting, not the 6 hours of manual data entry and checking that led up to them. What have I been doing?

Well, over the weekend I (and everyone else) wrote long pieces about the ICM poll of Moslem attitudes. Particular focus was paid by us all to the data about the possible introduction of Sharia law for various purposes. Those that expressed a preference were split evenly down the middle.

A lot of the commentary about this focused on the attitudes of the women interviewed, and quite reasonably assumed that they would have different attitudes to the men, and would be less likely to back Sharia law.

Today, ICM published the full results on their web site. Lots and lots of tables of data, which actually allow us to answer some of the questions posed: about how attitudes change according to gender, age, social class, voting intention and location. And it turns out that that analysis shows up some interesting stuff.

The Analysis
A note about the analysis that I've done. Nothing complicated, of course. What I have done, though, is to build some "net" statistics: the difference between those in favour and those against a proposition. It's the equivalent of the statistics produced on politicians on a regular basis.

So, if 21% of the sample group of 500 people think that the moon is made of green cheese, while 20% disagree, the net result is 1% in favour.

This approach has the benefit of ease of analysis. The sample is split according to a number of groups: men vs women, age, class, voting intention and location. Obviously these are separate analyses: the women are included in each other group, as are the Tories, the people from the Midlands and so on.

Helpful suggestions about additional approaches that might be useful always appreciated, because with this amount of data there may be some more posts on this topic coming out.

On to the results. I'll take the issues one at a time...

Sharia Law
As discussed above around 40% of the total sample were in favour, with an equal number against. Look at it on the segmental basis, though, and things change. Women, for example, turn out to be net in support of the introduction of Sharia law in certain circumstances (a net of 3% in favour) while men are mildly opposed (a net of -6%). Those under 35 are in favour (+5%), while those 35 and over are opposed (-9%). ABC1s are strongly opposed (-12%), while C2DEs are quite strongly in favour (10%). Voting intentions are interesting too, with Tories (-33%) and LibDems (-21%) very strongly opposed, but with Labour supporters actually neutral on the issue (a net of 0%, believe it or not). There is quite strong support in the Midlands (+8%), with opposition in the South (-7%)

Radicalisation
Next we look at whether Moslems have become more radical over the last year. Remember, here the total figure showed 46% thinking that they had (a net of +13% over those disagreeing). But again, there is lots of detail. Women (+20%) feel this much more than men (+7). The young feel it more than the old (+21% vs 4%). Class is less split (+18% for ABC1s, and 10% for C2DEs). Voting intentions don't change things much (nets of +16% for Tories, +13% Lab and 23% LibDems). Interestingly, the Midlands supports this idea much less (+3% only, vs +16% for the North and +17% for the South).

Are Women Covering Up More?
Here we see some interesting differences too. The "No Difference" responses are the majority across the board: so let's remember that for most it hasn't changed. However, where there have been changes perceived, men feel significantly more strongly that women in their family are more often covered up in public (+24%) than women do (+14%). Are Moslem women telling their families "Yes dear", leaving the house covered, and then ripping off the veil when they turn the corner, one wonders? No real difference by age, here (+18% and +19%). Class does matter: a net of +25% for ABC1s compares to a 13% for C2DEs. Tories have seen the least changes (+6%, compared to +16% for Lab and +17% for LibDems), and there has been much less difference in the North (+7%) than the Midlands (+22%) or the South (+25%).

Are Relations Getting Better?
Mostly people responded to this one that relations between Moslems and others were about the same: around the 50% mark for each group. Women were markedly more pessimistic, though (-10% vs -2% for men), as were those over 35 (-14% vs -8% for the younger group). Identical net figures for the two class groups, but Tories (-27%) much more strongly negative than Labour (-5%) or LibDems (-17%). Oddly enough, while the North and South are both negative (-16% and -12%), the Midlands are actually positive (+1%), suggesting that relations there have actually improved.

I'll stop there, for now. I've got some more to do to this data set, and some pretty charts too, if I can get Blogger to co-operate. Tomorrow evening, if I can rouse up the courage.

What does this initial analysis tell me? A few things, I think.

First, we can't make assumptions about the thoughts of these groups. The women interviewed certainly don't appear to be taking a much softer view (although their answers about violence tend to be marginally less belligerent than the mens'). There certainly doesn't seem to be a major attack on Sharia from them. And let's note that this was done by phone, which is probably the most likely to get an unbiased response from this group (any fear of pressure from husbands is minimised by the fact that the husband can't hear the questions).

Second, there seem to be significant differences in perception between political groups (although there are many more Labour supporters in total). This is good news for Tories: support we're getting from this community appears to be based on a group with distinctive views, which may make it less under threat. However, some of the attitudes of the Labour and LibDem voters could raise some concerns in those parties...

And third, though we may find it difficult to understand, there is strong and genuine offense across the board caused by these cartoons: the only group where this figure drops below 80% of the respondents being offended is the Tories, and there it's in the high 70's. This isn't an argument for changing our views about the cartoons, by the way, but more one for better explanation of why free speech is in all of our interests. But that's for another day.

Admit Israel To NATO?

2006-02-21T06:43:00.000Z

Sorry this is yet another post about the Middle East... but there is an interesting suggestion today in the Washington Post, with some merit. It would, at least, make the current position (that the West would broadly come to Israel's aid in the event of an attack from Iran) into an explicit one. Worth a read.

Divestment, Anti-Semitism & Israel

2006-02-20T07:51:00.000Z

The divestment row rumbles on.

For previous comments on the decision of the Church of England's General Synod see here...

The story on Monday is a piece from a chap described as follows:

Paul Oestreicher was a member of the Church of England's general synod and director of the Centre for International Reconciliation, Coventry Cathedral; he is now a chaplain at the University of Sussex

Inevitably the piece is in the Guardian, and demonstrates all the sterling qualities you might expect of a piece in that paper by a chap described in that way. He tries to make the case for the motion... but let's look at the highlights.

First, a remarkable statement:

If, as some now think, today's Jews are the Muslims - hatred transferred -

What on earth is he talking about? One is a race, the other a religion. There is no systematic attempt to wipe Islam from the face of the earth outside the paranoid ramblings of some of the most extreme Islamist leaders, well on the fringes of mainstream Islam. The major campaigns undertaken by the west in the last 20 years (The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq 1 and 2) had at least one common goal: at least in part they were about the protection of the rights of Moslems being oppressed. Not because they were Muslims, of course: just because they were people. We don't discriminate (when we actually pull our fingers out and get around to doing something).

Let's be clear about this: disagreement with the political purposes and behaviours of Islamism is not bias against Muslims, nor against Islam. There is in fact very little of the latter. There is a lot of disquiet about the political aims of Islamists but there is very little about the religion itself, or the people who follow it. Comparing the Jews over the last 2000 years (with specific reference to 1930s and 40s Germany) to current Moslems is just nonsense, and patently so.

Now we have a demonstration of what passes for political insight:

Peace cannot be made by building a wall on Palestinian land that makes the life of the miserably conquered more miserable still. A Palestinian bantustan will be a source of unrest and violence for ever

Now, I thought that the facts were that the wall had, in fact, been quite effective at cutting the current problem faced by Israel: suicide bombs. And I also thought that Israel had been in negotiation to try to create a 2 state solution - not a bantustan (but notice that he's now managed to compare Israel to both Hitler's Germany AND Apartheid South Africa without really trying. Clever, huh!), but that Arafat had continued his games throughout much of that process, having failed to fully engage in that process, and in particular refusing a settlement offer generally recognised since as being much better than could have been expected. I had thought that there was bad behaviour on both sides, and that the power balance in the region was rather complicated. Oh, and that within living memory there was an attempt to wipe Israel off the map by the surrounding countries, which failed. I must be wrong.

And then this

But the main objective of my writing today, is to nail the lie that to reject Zionism as it practised today is in effect to be anti-semitic, to be an inheritor of Hitler's racism. That argument, with the Holocaust in the background, is nothing other than moral blackmail. It is highly effective. It condemns many to silence who fear to be thought anti-semitic. They are often the very opposite. They are often people whose heart bleeds at Israel's betrayal of its true heritage.
I began with the recognition that the cancer of anti-semitism has not been cured. Tragically, Israel's policies feed it - and when world Jewry defends Israeli policies right or wrong, then anger turns not only against Israel, but against all Jews. I wish it were mere rhetoric to say that Israeli politics today make a holocaust the day after tomorrow credible. If the whole Muslim world hates Israel, that is no idle speculation. To count on Arab disunity and Muslim sectarian conflict and a permanent American shield is no recipe for long-term security.

Let's be clear. You don't have to be anti-semitic to agree with divestment. You just have to display the high quality of clear thinking demonstrated in this article. And you have to be comfortable that your actions will be seen approvingly by those who are anti-semitic. But no, you don't have to be anti-semitic, and I am quite certain (removing all irony for a moment) that the author is not, in any way, anti-semitic. He's just wrong. And badly wrong. And so are the people he is discussing. Not bad. Not anti-semitic. Just wrong.

And, by the way, the hook on which this article was hung (the Jewish Chronicle article by the Chief Rabbi, found here in the Times weblogs section) doesn't, to my reading, mention anti-semitism as the cause of the divestment motion once. Nor does much of the commentary I've seen. Some does, but only because the poor quality of the arguments in favour of divestment lead commentators to come to the conclusion that there must be something more behind it. Personally, I subscribe to the sloppy thinking argument. I'm sure some of them are anti-semites, but they're probably the tiny minority. Mostly they're just not terribly smart, or able to deal with the nuances of the arguments involved.

There is, of course, more. Look out, for example, for the cute comparison between the Israeli "peace" movement and the German resistance in WWII. (Minor difference, of course, is that one group were systematically rounded up, put in concentration camps and/or killed, while the other wasn't. Guess which is which...).

This article must be read. It comprehensively demolishes the case for divestment all by itself.

Sexual Abuse & The United Nations

2006-02-19T14:15:00.000Z

You can tell a lot about people by what they choose to do.

John Bolton, the baddest man in the whole damn town if you remember the accusations levied against him during his hearings for the job of US Ambassador to the UN, has just taken over the rotating presidency of the Security Council.

What's he gone and done? He's scheduled hearings into two main issues: sexual abuse committed by UN peacekeepers during their peacekeeping mission, and procurement fraud.

Now, last time I heard, I thought that sexual abuse was bad, as was fraud? But turns out that there is something worse! Yup, the worse sin than committing sexual abuse or stealing money that's supposed to benefit suffering people is...

encroachment by the council on issues which clearly fall within the functions and powers of the assembly

This is from a letter sent by the Non-Aligned Movement to the General Assembly President. Now, I'm sorry, but this exemplifies rather the whole problem with the UN at the moment. If peacekeepers are committing sex crimes on the UN's money, or people are stealing from the procurement budget then everyone should care. I note that there is no suggestion of immediate hearings in the Assembly on these issues, by the way...

I love this final quote from Bolton reacting in part to this additional story, about a couple of letters from Congressmen on other UN issues...

"The United States believes in taking action and being effective, and we don't apologize to anybody for that," Bolton told reporters. "The Security Council is acting, and other bodies can act as well."

We have all got a growing problem at the UN. But this stuff is exactly what Bolton's supporters wanted him to do: start to clean the stables. It'll take some time.

Moslem Attitudes & Liberal Democracy

2006-02-19T13:21:00.000Z

Three things to look at on this topic today, I think.

First, coverage of the march yesterday in London. Peaceful, sure. But let's remember what the peaceful protest is in favour of. From the BBC story...

Ishmaeel Haneef, from the committee, said the demonstrations were continuing because "the provocations have not stopped".
"These things are still being republished across the world," he said, using the example of an Italian minister wearing a T-shirt depicting the cartoons.
He said the way to "get back to being a civilised world" was to "give the copyright [of the cartoons] over to the Muslim community".

However peaceful these demonstrations are, the simple fact is that these people want to remove the cartoons from circulation. Sure, we should be grateful that there was no violence on this march. We should be happy that there is an attempt to use standard political means to achieve the goal they want. But we shouldn't let ourselves be distracted from their end goal, which is making the rest of us behave according to what is being presented as one of the precepts of their religion. That's not what happens in a liberal democracy. I'm glad there are marches not riots. But when it comes down to it even the most peaceful of the protests are for a goal that I deeply oppose.

(And by the way, let's remember that the idea that there is a universally accepted hard-and-fast taboo against depiction of Mohammed in Islam is in fact nonsense. It's just not true. )

This takes us on, then, to this excellent piece in the Washington Post this morning by the chap who started all of this. I'll quote liberally from it, although the whole thing must be read.

First, why did he do it?

The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in
tighter.

What he means is this...

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship.

This is followed by a number of examples of self-censorship on the subject of Islam, such as the following...

Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship.

Next, he covers the context of satire in Denmark, and makes a point which is quite telling about what the cartoons actually say about the attitude towards Moslems in Denmark

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

He then addresses the story that appeared this week suggesting that he was taking a different attitude towards Christianity or Judaism

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those

And then he comes to the heart of it

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

An interesting comparison he draws is with the old Soviet Union

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

And then a hopeful note, on the dialogue in Denmark

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.
In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

And that's the point, isn't it? This really is a must read piece.

It takes us rather neatly on to the third topic, which is the attitude study in the Telegraph of British Moslems. With equal numbers in favour and against the imposition of sharia law in areas with high Moslem populations there is cause for concern, mitigated slightly by the fact that there is almost no support for the 7/7 bombings. We're right to be somewhat concerned about the former statistic, and we should certainly hold the line more firmly than we have about some of the excesses of "cultural localism", and dealing with local issues through faith community leaders. We shouldn't get over-paranoid, though: there are plenty of young Moslems out there like Saira Khan (a more terrifying sentence may never have been typed, come to think of it...).

So what's my point? Let's be careful we don't let ourselves become distracted by the violence or non-violence of individual protests, and keep the focus on the goals being enunciated. However you choose to behave, if you are advocating that my free speech be restricted because of your religious belief, I'm afraid you're on the other side of the well established rules of liberal democracy. And the reason for that is that we believe that your right to follow your religion, and mine to follow mine, require those free speech rights. End of story.

Nationalising Santa

2006-02-18T11:24:00.000Z

Two excellent posts from Tory Convert.

First, how the government now has targets for child development which now include, risibly, measurement of how many children of 5 years old can write a letter to Father Christmas.

As a nation we must learn to let go of the desire to nag politicians for moregovernment intervention and learn to stand on our own two feet. We need publicservices that are transparent, adaptable and truly answerable to the people who use them. The alternative is a bleak future of inexorable state control, intrusiveness and dependency.

Second, a piece about the nature of class nicely summarised as follows

rant rant rant ...

Great stuff. Both very much worth a read.

The Many Charms Of Chester Alan Arthur

2006-02-18T10:12:00.000Z

The American attitude towards their Presidents is fascinating: a combination of opprobrium for political opponents (US politics have never been a gentle business) and reverence from supporters, with a degree of sanctification once the person involved has vanished into history.

The men involved are without exception (even the boring bearded ones from the 19th Century) fascinating, and provide a wonderful path through US history. Watching the complicated relationships between them allows us to watch the intertwining conceptions of the role of the US, of the role of the government, of the importance of individuals and their rights, and to experience the importance of the personal in the development of the political.

The combination of Washington, Adams, Jefferson (and peripherally Franklin, one of the greatest non-Presidents, and equal parts genius and frustrating phony) provide insight into the founding generation, while watching Van Buren, Jackson, Polk , Harrison and Tyler, for example, allow us to watch the development of a rapidly growing and democratising country, while being aware of the horror of the Civil War which will arrive in short order. Similarly, today we have the sequence Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush (and possibly, heaven help us Clinton) addressing and then reshaping the results of the New Deal and Great Society.

A wonderful way to learn about these men, and to get some sense of the broad sweep of US history, is to visit their birth-places, homes or libraries. This also has the advantage that many of them are in fly-over land - the bits of Red-State America that so few from outside understand or visit, and that are so often demonised (in my view unfairly) by the mainstream media in the US and hence by the rest of the world. Of course, these are the parts of the country that elect Presidents, so understanding them is pretty important... They also, I have to say, tend to make the best pies, which is a pretty good recommendation in my book.

A strong suggestion: some time in the next 12 months get yourself on a plane, and try some Dead President tourism. A starting point can be found in this article from the WaPo, but there are plenty of other options. If and when you do (or if you happen to live near one now), let me know, and email me a review / photo etc.

Damn, It's A Dangerous Country

2006-02-18T09:53:00.000Z

How about this, then. Not only are they all armed right-wing Christian fanatics over there in the USA, but it turns out that even the blooming pavements (sorry, sidewalks) are dangerous. There are, it appears, random electrical leaks due to faulty wiring, that regularly kill dogs out for their morning walk, and injure people.

Seems like all of those old ladies that used to be worried about electricity leaking out of their wall sockets and killing them might have been onto something after all...

Reassuring Words From Goldsmith

2006-02-18T09:45:00.000Z

When Zac Goldsmith was appointed to his current role in the Party there were many (myself included) who were somewhat sceptical. I'm far from sure still, but this piece today is at least a little reassuring, in that it he at least sounds like a conservative. Worth a glance.

Perception vs Reality On Katrina

2006-02-18T09:11:00.000Z

Interesting news, via the Times, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, looking at the actual deaths caused by Katrina, which is still being cited as a racist hurricane spawned by BushChimpHitler and his minions...
Turns out that it wasn't, in fact, discriminatory based on colour at all. Instead there was disproportionate death amongst the elderly, possibly because they would tend to resist appeals to evacuate.
And the effect of race?

Although most evacuees were black, the proportion of white people killed was higher than would be expected from the racial composition of the worst-affected neighbourhoods. The widespread perception that Katrina was a "black" disaster may reflect news pictures of refugees rather than those who died, Dr Mutter said.

So I'm sure we'll be seeing Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson etc all apologising, then? Well, maybe not. However, it behooves all of us on the right to remember this report, and ensure that whenever Katrina is mentioned by the BBC or other media as the first racist hurricane they are corrected. To your keyboards, comrades!

Understandable Delay: Baffling Reaction

2006-02-17T07:36:00.000Z

The coverage over here in the UK of the Cheney shooting story has been quite restrained: the usual arch comments and raised eyebrows, but well down the story listings. It helps, of course, that the press over here are convinced that Cheney in fact eats babies: shooting a friend, no doubt, pales in comparison with the type of behaviour that they presume he gets up to on a daily basis.
The coverage in the US has been on a totally different order, and has rather drawn attention to the way that the Bush White House has made significant components of the press go stark staring loopy.
Charles Krauthammer sums up the situation nicely in this must-read piece in today's WaPo. His key point: while Cheney should have told the press a little more quickly he delayed for understandable reasons, the reaction of the press has been baffling.
Of course, this all misses the real story: it's all a plot to create a scandal which will cause Cheney to resign, so Condi can take over and make her election next time round as President a shoo-in. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Oh dear. I think I just qualified to write for the New York Times. Medic!

When NGOs Attack!

2006-02-15T07:19:00.000Z

Handbags at dawn within the NGO community. The craze for giving goats for Africa as a Christmas present encouraged by some of the large NGOs has come under attack... by other NGOs (The combination of sanctimony and ruthless competition is quite charming, don't you think? Nice to see it turned against each other for once). Goats, it turns out, are terrible for the ecosystem, and will lead to big problems for the recipients.

This approach (tools rather than food or money as aid), to be fair, is much better than simple donations, so I'm not meaning to be totally dismissive. It does draw your attention to two points, though.

Central planning is central planning, whether done by a government or by an NGO. And it basically doesn't work.
If we in the developed world really want to help, we'll eliminate some of the barriers to trade that remain in place. CAP anyone? A gift of £50 into a fund to campaign against agricultural subsidies... now that might actually help much more

Now, don't tell me that these organisations don't do politics: they do. It's just that the politics that they do are actively counterproductive.

Is Daniel Finkelstein A Nutter?

2006-02-15T07:09:00.000Z

Very interesting piece by him in the Times this morning talking about centralisation of power by the executive. I don't know if he is, as he fears he may be, a nutter over the general point... but I thought that this para summed up very nicely the situation that we're in:

The problem with ID cards, smoking bans and new terror laws is not just the standard liberal one. It isn't even that they are entirelyunnecessaryy, since you can fashion an argument for each measure. It is that we should be reforming and enforcing the laws we have, rather than adding new complicated, poorly thought through laws to the stack that already exists. The Legislative and Regulatory
Reform Bill isn't just a dangerous proposal. It is a flashing red light.
Our legislative activism is endangering our parliamentary democracy and we must stop before it's too late.

Indeed. We should be devoting at least one week per month in Parliament to the removal of legislation from the statute books. That wouldn't solve the problem, but it would be a good start.

Economic Idiots

2006-02-14T07:47:00.000Z

Just about to walk out the door, already lateish for work. And then my attention is caught by a piece on BBC 24. Of course, it's Valentine's day so cue standard story about flowers. No surprise there.
But this is the BBC, so nothing is easy. Instead of a nice piece covering the high demand for flowers today we get coverage of the "high environmental cost of importing flowers from Africa".
Three things spring to mind on this.

First, how exactly does this work with the BBC coverage of "Make Poverty History", and issues surrounding African development? Outsourcing flower production makes sense: it's easier to make the blooming things in a country with nice weather than in Aberdeenshire, and the labour is cheaper. If Africa is going to develop, people there need jobs, and these jobs will be driven by exports. You can't on the one hand attack the process of getting the export good to market, and claim that the use in this country of the export good is bad for the environment without at the same time thinking about the human cost if you exclude their product from the market.
Second, there were lots of references to "environmentalists say" in the report. It had the look of a piece driven straight by a lobby group press release. What I want to know in this kind of report is which lobby group, where are they coming from, and how good is their analysis? I want someone from the lobby group to be interviewed, and have the strengths and weaknesses of their opinions tested. Instead we get a puff piece.
Third, the basic economic illiteracy running through the piece is staggering. Leaving details aside, a story that is being made into a story about economics is discussed in terms which make it clear that the economic thought process is the furthest thing from the mind of the journalist or production team. You wouldn't have a fashion piece done by someone who didn't know the difference between a mule and a pump. You wouldn't have a sports piece done by someone who thought that Manchester United were a rugby team. Why on earth do you allow a simple story like this to be a) turned into a story about economics, and then b) to be done from the point of view of someone who appears to understand very little about, well, economics?

All in all, it's put me right out of the Valentine's mood.
And now I'm late for work, and the economic law that determines that the London taxi trade benefits in direct proportion to my propensity to blog in the morning kicks in. Ho hum. Another day starts well!
My advice? Just enjoy the flowers. They're pretty and they smell good.

The EU & Hamas

2006-02-14T07:12:00.000Z

Apologies for the hiatus in posting: intermittent technical problems have been cutting me off from the outside world. It's only when you can't log on that you realise how often you do...

Anyway, a nice piece by Charles Tannock MEP looking at the role of EU funding in the Palestinian political process.

The EU knew that plunder was endemic in the PA, and chose to ignore it. But in a democracy - even one as imperfect as the Palestinian Authority - corrupt governments never last forever. Ordinary Palestinians decided they would ignore it no longer.
The fact that the EU sent $350 million every year to the PA therefore makes Brussels a party to this corruption and indirectly responsible for the situation we now find ourselves in with Hamas. Yet the reaction among senior EU politicians to Hamas's victory is one of amazement - how could it have happened, they wonder. BACK IN 2003, I and other MEPs raised this issue with the European Commission, which is responsible for distributing aid money. We called for an investigation into the wanton misappropriation of Palestinian funds. There was huge resistance from the commission, which has always been sympathetic to the Palestinians and seen itself as a counterbalance to America's support for Israel. We did get our inquiry, hamstrung though it was by a diluted mandate. The outcome was a whitewash, and we were not allowed to debate the inquiry's findings.

Worth a look.

Stopping Bad Things

2006-02-12T09:32:00.000Z

A great pen-portrait of Sen. Tom Coburn, who defines his mission using that phrase. A believer in term limits, who resigned as he had promised at the end of his third term in the House, he has turned against some of the comity in the Senate, on the basis that comity isn't always helpful.
If only we had a few more people with this attitude, on both sides of the Alantic.
Of course, it's written by George Will, which is why it's so good.

Danish Cartoon Demonstrations

2006-02-12T08:30:00.000Z

The events of the last few weeks seem to have brought matters that have been bubbling under the public dialogue for some time to a head. Three articles from the Sunday Times...

Public reaction to the events. Basically, we think that this reaction is ridiculous, that publication of the cartoons was the right thing to do, and that a culture of political correctness has affected the policing of radical islamists in the UK
A long piece looking at what the government knew, and the forces that were working on it over the last few years
A very blunt leader.

I must admit to having been chilled yesterday by an interview with one of the spokesmen of the demonstration in central London. Let's be clear - he was a moderate, and is regularly described as such by the media. He was pressed harder than he would have been a month ago (and it's interesting to note that the media have now begun to push harder on these questions than before) as to his goals. Multiple times in the interview he used the phrase "blood and fire" to describe what would happen if the cartoons were not apologised for by both governments and publications - while denying that this was a threat, of course. And towards the end of the interview he began to be clearer that he did, indeed, believe that publication of these cartoons should be illegal.

Now, I don't believe that he supports terrorism, and he does distance himself both in words and in practice from the extremists. And I'm very glad to see that the basic distinctions within the Moslem community are becoming clearer, and that the more moderate groups are beginning to deal with the fringe by demonstrating that they are a small, and dangerous, minority viewpoint.

But what chilled me was that, all that being said, I believe that the type of Britain described by these phrases is one quite some distance from the one that I want to live in. I believe in freedom of speech. I don't like veiled threats. And even though I'm quite serious about my Christian faith (although a blooming awful Christian most of the time), I'm glad I live in a country where there is freedom to criticise all religions. From what he was saying, I'm not sure that he really shares these views.

If this is correct, and these aren't views shared by moderate Moslems then the public debate in this country could get much more difficult over the next few years.

Women, Children & Lefties

2006-02-12T08:04:00.000Z

I'm very lucky, having been happily married for what is getting on for 15 years. How she puts up with me I'll never know - I just hope that she never sees sense. I thought I'd draw attention to an interesting study out that today covers the effect that marriage has on the contentment of those involved. Unsurprisingly it tends to make both parties happier.
To extrapolate the point a little, there is an interesting wrinkle in the results relating to what makes women happiest. Turns out that they are mildly happier when only one of the family has to go out to work. Lots of reasons for this, of course, but add it to this story covering the possible negative effect of childcare at an early age on children and you do begin to focus on government family policy. Rather than greater state provision of facilities to make it easier for both parents to work, shouldn't we be focusing on finding ways to allow one not to? If it is, truly, better for the children, and if the women themselves are made generally happier because of it? An attempt to bolster family life in this way might also make it easier for people to have slightly larger families: necessary if we're to provide stability for the welfare structures we all seem to care about in this country.
(In the interests of full disclosure, we're a one income family, but by accident rather than ideology. Our daughter spent the first couple of years at home, beginning nursery when about 2 and a half to improve her socialisation.)
Of course, this is against the leftist consensus discussed this morning by Rod Liddle. And it's not a call to get women barefoot and pregnant in front of the sink (I'm the son of a mother that worked for much of my, relatively happy, childhood and I've seen some of the difficulties undergone by her and her peers in terms of workplace behaviour - many of those battles needed to be fought, and much of the social change has been very positive. But not all). It is, however, just more evidence that the blunt assertions implicit in the social changes of the last 30 years need to be questioned a little more carefully to ensure that they are actually based on something more than wishful thinking.

The Food Of The Gods

2006-02-12T07:56:00.000Z

Good to see this story: small Scottish company builds business through inventiveness. The fact that the company involved is Tunnock's, producers of one of the only food products necessary for basic happiness, is the clincher.
And not only comestibles... they even have games. There goes my Sunday.

Neo-Realism

2006-02-10T07:07:00.000Z

An amusing new term has suddenly popped up (mentioned here in the Corner, but note the reference by Rich Lowry to the Journal too) - neo-realism. Lowry defines it as follows.

conservatives who take the best from the neo-cons (basically the idealism) and the realists (the prudence and the kind of deeper understanding of the process of liberalization that you've been writing about).

He claims that there are only 3 of them (with one of them being Condi). I don't think he's right. I think that the bulk of the Iraq War supporting conservative movement here in the UK falls much more effectively into this category than any other. I'd probably say that I was one too.

In fact, there would be some real advantage to having a term to use to describe this approach - and in particular to get away from the dread phrase neo-con, which is sadly regarded one of the vilest forms of abuse in political discourse over here (no, officer, I didn't mind him cheating on me, stealing my car, or cooking my dog for dinner, but I've just discovered he's a neo-conservative). Neo-realist would do the job nicely.

So count me a member of the Vast Right-Wing Neo-Realist Conspiracy (membership card #00004). Join today...

UPDATED:

The cabal grows - Mr Lowry has identifed John Bolton as one of our number. Onward, comrades...

The Church And The World

2006-02-08T22:39:00.000Z

What is the role of the Church in the world? Not a small topic... but two particular decisions of the General Synod of the Church of England make it one worth discussing. Both appear on the surface to be signs of the general state of beardiness of the current Church - a wholly owned wing of the liberal intelligentsia. I don't think they both are: one is much better than it appears, the other much worse.

I'll start with the bad.

As you can see in the story mentioned at the bottom of this, and in the articles you can find on the very useful Thinking Anglicans, the Church has decided to take a political stand on the Israel-Palestine question, by divesting from Caterpillar. There has been an ongoing discussion about this, and many members of the Church (me for one), have been worried that this type of action was inevitable. Like all such steps it sends a signal that is far blunter than the message that people of goodwill would be wanting to send... but one fears that some of the supporters of the motion (at least in the country, if not the Synod) may in fact have supported it because they want to send a blunter (and deeply ugly) message.

The reaction is fascinating. George Cary (not my favourite Archbishop, but a clearly a good man) says he is ashamed to be an Anglican. Ruth Gledhill, the Religion correspondent from the Times writes a long blog entry, which attracts so much comment that she's just posted another defending her ability to be objective. And the great Oliver Kamm has just written a piece holding the line against this faulty decision with great fortitude.

It's particularly sad that the current Archbishop of Canterbury supported the motion. His theological writing is deeply interesting, and he has the capacity to add a huge amount to the mission of the Church. The occasional spasms of political correctness like this turn off huge swathes of people who will never delve further into his writing - a great loss to them, and caused by only a small number of statements which are (to this poor layman) as ill-judged as they are well-meant.

The other decision, however, gives me an odd form of comfort: the decision today to apologise for the slave trade. Now, this bears all the hallmarks of the usual PC nonsense, and in many ways it is. Worse, I come at this with the usual nonsense calls for reparations from the US ringing in the ears. Despite this I'm heartened.

Why? In part because the decision reflects the reality of the situation. The Church did have sins, committed in the past maybe, but never apologised for. Abolition brought an end to the crime, but didn't undo it. More important, however, the decision emphasises the continuity of the Church - that the Church of today IS the Church of yesterday... and that of tomorrow. There is a continuity there that often seems lacking from decisions in the Church of England, a recognition of a greater degree of continuity than is often obvious in the day to day nonsenses of changing liturgy, attitudes towards social issues, and reinterpretative hoo-hah. This continuity is important for the Church, and for the country, where an established Church is one of the unseen fibers of society that can hold us all together (even where many are non-believers, or believers in other faiths).

Most important, though, it allows the role of Christianity in the abolition of the slave trade to be emphasised over the next few years without a backward look. Christianity, and in particular British Christianity, has a lot to be proud of in that achievement, and the name William Wilberforce is one that should be known and celebrated by all. If this decision allows that conversation to begin with a clear conscience on the part of the Church it will be well worth it.

Honesty About Corruption At The World Bank

2006-02-07T07:40:00.000Z

After the nonsense surrounding his nomination, it seems as though Paul Wolfowitz is tackling one of the issues that should really concern anyone truly worried about world poverty: corruption in aid-recipient countries and world institutions.
This has to be good news, and combined with the Oil For Food concerns may be part of a broader concern over this problem. Giving money and aid is important: but doing so into a country without the rule of law is much more likely to succeed.

Hearings For Appointments?

2006-02-06T20:23:00.000Z

There has been plenty of coverage of the speech today launching the Ken Clarke Democracy Task Force. The deep ironies of KC trying to reestablish trust in British politics I'll leave to one side for now, other than to say that it's amazing how easily coffee that you've sprayed out of your mouth in a combination of disbelief, disgust and amazement can come off an LCD screen if you wipe it off quickly enough...

What I really want to discuss, though, is the idea of hearings for public appointments. A good idea on the surface, of course, with great precedent in the US. And it does identify a problem that there is at the moment: even with the reforms of some time ago the public appointment system, especially at high levels, remains too opaque.

However, there is one major hurdle. It requires a legislature where the party system is weaker than that which we currently have at Westminster. With the centralised structure that the current system imposes, and with the growing trend towards professional politicians with little or no outside experience, there are fewer and fewer mavericks prepared to take views on appointments on a neutral basis.

This is evident in the US where the recent Alito hearings were an excellent example of the effect this politicisation can have. Judiciary branch nominations are more important to the Democrats' agenda, of course, as they have been unable to get many of their key ideas agreed by the electorate. Since Bork they have approached these appointments on a strict party basis, and the system has been the loser because of it. When you make the appointee's wife cry you know that there is a problem. The rise of the internet, incidentally, has made it much harder for the gross mischaracterisations that we've seen in the past to take hold.

In the UK the issues would be different of course. The left would care about the NHS Chief Executive, while the right would care about the BBC. There would be point-scoring galore, and the attacks would no doubt become personal very quickly. This would, of course, be imposed by the Whips. Not the first time, to be sure, but within 10 years, they'd be using all their efforts to control the proceedings.

Without a cadre of backwoodsmen (and women) to change the attitude of the backbenches as a whole it seems unlikely that the temptation to cause trouble would be avoided. Once that problem was fixed, then the idea of vetting public appointments might well fly. And if the A-list is used in the correct way, to identify and elect high quality local candidates, with a range of business and political experience, and of a wide range of ages, then we could move towards a solution to the backbench problem more rapidly than we might expect.

But a bunch of 32 year old careerist former Special Advisers and former lobbyists scoring points off each other? No thanks.

A Real Tribute From Iraq

2006-02-05T11:52:00.000Z

L/Cpl Allan Douglas was recently killed in Iraq. The reaction of the Iraqis in the area in which he was serving is very interesting indeed. Key quote from the province's police chief:

"This soldier died as a martyr trying to make Al Amarah safe for all Iraqis of all religions," he said. "We are all deeply shocked and sad."

Hat Tip: Harry's Place

Now This Is A REAL Sport

2006-02-05T11:18:00.000Z

The description in the first para says it all...

rocket-powered airplanes racing around a 2-mile-wide, 5,000-foot-high racetrack,blasting out 10-foot-long flames

And I notice that they are still looking for other venues for the inaugural season. If only one of the UK venues would bid...

Sorry. I have to repeat that again.

Rocket powered airplanes blasting out 10 foot long flames.

What's not to like?

Of course, the Health & Safety Executive would no doubt have something to say about it. As would noise campaigners. As would the usual League of Panty-Waisted Protestors Against All Things Right And Good.

I think I'd better go have a little lie down now. I've come over all Clarkson.

(Hat tip: Slashdot)

Teaching The Teachers In The US

2006-02-05T10:49:00.000Z

The Washington Post has a very interesting piece about the politically motivated behaviour of some teacher training colleges in the US. Frightening stuff, although the fact that it's being publicised is the first step in a fight back.

Also worth a look for background is this site: Students for Academic Freedom. This whole area has been fascinating to watch for the last couple of years, and seems to be making progress. A one-sided education isn't an education.

A Non-Socialist Labour Movement

2006-02-05T10:37:00.000Z

A very interesting piece by Tristram Hunt looking at the (more diverse than most people realise) intellectual roots of the Labour movement, and the role that non-socialist ideas played in it.
Think of the opportunities lost for the country and people by the wrong turn that the progressive movement took towards state control 100 or so years ago. Depressing.

Animal Testing

2006-02-05T10:10:00.000Z

An interesting article in the Times looking at the unintended consequences of the idiotic behaviour of some anti-vivisection activists at Oxford, which seem to have backfired. And a good thing too - their arguments have too rarely been challenged, and their violent behaviour has had a free ride for too long. They key paras:

As I live and work in a seat of learning, I’m predisposed to support animal testing. Actually it’s just common sense. Without animal testing we wouldn’t have penicillin, small pox vaccinations, pacemakers, heart valves, and we’d be nowhere in the fight against cancer and Parkinson’s. The idea that vivisectionists enjoy torturing animals is ridiculous. The thrill for them is not killing an animal, it’s the possibility of progress.
The fact that the people who disagree with me prefer sensationalism to reasoned debate is tempting many Oxford students down a traditionally un-PC path. Being part of Pro-Test won’t only mean you support the necessary evil of experimenting on animals, it strikes a blow for a grown-up conversation about this important topic.

What Is The Political Equivalent Of A Puggle?

2006-02-05T10:05:00.000Z

So a puggle is a cross between a pug and a beagle. A labradoodle is a cross between a labrador and a poodle.

What do you call a Liberal Democrat voter that switches to the Tories because of the efforts of DC? A liberative? Conservicrat?

Saving Harry Windsor

2006-02-05T09:48:00.000Z

Prince Harry hasn't always had the best judgment in the world. However, that seems to be changing. His determination to perform his full role in the Army seems to be causing some consternation, and the ridiculous suggestion has now been made that he might have to be guarded by special forces while in harm's way.

What nonsense. There was a period where this might have made sense (where a civil war might have been caused by the sudden disappearance of a senior royal) but those days have long gone. As a serving officer his place is with his men. He knows the risks, and a diversion of resources to protect him would damage operational efficiency and possibly cause other men to die to protect him. That in itself would do much more damage to the institution of monarchy than anything that could happen to Harry.

Let's give him respect for his apparent determination to do it right. Let him get on with the job.

Increase Your Happiness At Once

2006-02-05T09:26:00.000Z

If reading a well crafted blog posting increases your net level of happiness then go right over to Tory Convert and get reading this long, well crafted, and interesting post about...happiness.

Finally... A Response From The Conservatives On The London Demonstrations

2006-02-05T00:36:00.000Z

After slightly too much silence, David Davis finally shows the Conservatives' hand on the recent demonstrations against the Danish cartoons.

At the height of the protests on Friday demonstrators chanted slogans threatening more London bombings, praising the "magnificent" 9/11 hijackers and waving placards saying "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay" and "Europe you'll come crawling when Mujahideen come roaring".

Mr Davis said last night: "Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence and, indeed, incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.

"Whatever your views on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder."

It's good to see proper pressure begin to be put on these thugs, who give a bad name to both Islam and their fellow Muslims.

Even more important is the pressure being put on the police. Unbelievably (or rather these days inevitably), the only arrests that were made were of two counter-protestors carrying cartoons of Mohammed, because of the threat to the peace. The crowd were apparently too likely to cause problems if arrests were made of those inciting to violence.

Rather ironic, really. Threaten to massacre those who insult your religion and you don't get arrested for potential breach of the peace... because if you do get arrested you might successfully create a breach of the peace. Carry a picture of Mohammed and you get arrested for potential breach of the peace... because the police know that you won't in fact breach the peace at all.

With luck some pressure from the Tories will help to start to reverse this mindset in the police - and if not create enough headwind that changes are made to the police, not by the police.

Sitzpinklers Attack!

2006-02-04T21:00:00.000Z

Gentlemen, we are under attack. The great Stephen Pollard has the details... Stand up for your rights!

Hamas & Democracy

2006-02-04T11:55:00.000Z

Surprising good sense from the Washington Post (by which I mean, of course, an opinion that I broadly agree with). Well worth a read, as a level-headed approach to understanding the course of democracy in a Middle East where Islamism is a political force.

The Inevitable Cartoon Post

2006-02-04T09:53:00.000Z

I've been avoiding writing on the cartoon scandal , because I'm still not sure what I think about it. A couple of things jumped out at me today, though.

First, this article covering the demonstrations in London. The key paragraph for me is as follows

A crowd of several hundred demonstrated outside the Danish Embassy in Knightsbridge, with protesters repeatedly shouting: "UK you must pray, 7/7 is on its way."

Now, I don't care how offended you are, that's out of line. It's a minority opinion in the Moslem community, there is no doubt. But so is the group that feels so offended that they want to alter our free speech rights. And I thought that this type of threat was a crime these days. Why the police didn't get involved...

Second, there is Matthew Parris today. While I am a regular churchgoer, and he's an atheist, I have much sympathy for his argument. My faith isn't threatened by the laughter of others. I may well be (and sometimes am) offended by the mockery of Christianity, but there is no way that I'd in any way legislate to stop others being able to offend me. Market pressure on them, maybe, but force never.

Third, a general point. We in the west should be brooking no nonsense from those states that fail to provide proper freedom of religion within their own borders, but yet presume to criticise. In fact, we should use this as a chance to raise the treatment of Jews, Christians and others. A picture may be offensive: a ban on conversion is more so. And there are, and have been, Moslem countries where religious freedom is more or less available.

Fourth, as to the cartoons themselves, I find them pretty much without merit. They're not terribly funny, and send no point other than tweaking the sensitivity of the faithful follower of Islam who might encounter them. So, I'd rather these cartoons hadn't been the focus of the argument.

Finally, I come back to Matthew Parris' point. Religions, even on "liberal" interpretations of them, always involve a negation of other views. For example, I believe in the incarnation. I believe in the resurrection. If you don't, we disagree on very fundamental issues indeed: issues on which I certainly believe the whole of creation hang. Too often we've pretended these disagreements didn't exist, rather than accepting them, and moving past them. The latter is a far safer course - and can engender a serious conversation which can deal with tensions like those raised by these cartoons more effectively than the mushy approach that we have today.

Two For The Price Of One

2006-02-04T09:49:00.000Z

What a great combination. The chance to have a tasty, meat-based meal while at the same time offending Stella McCartney.
Ladies and gentleman, your obligation is clear. Reserve your table at once!

Building International Understanding

2006-02-04T09:43:00.000Z

Lovely story, this.

Man in America decides to send out 5 messages in bottle. Man in Dorset finds one of them. Man in Dorset sends reply.

Now, if you're the man in Dorset, which of the two options below do you send?

a nice note with some pictures of Dorset
a nasty note with a fake name telling the American off for littering and for US foreign policy

Of course, the answer is (2) above in this case. What an ass.

Government Involvement In Childcare

2006-02-03T08:03:00.000Z

Well, that's a surprise. Turns out that if you intervene in a sector by providing lost of free government-backed players (in this case for child-care) you might actually reduce the total choice available to consumers because you make it harder for the private sector to stay involved.

Who'da thunk it, huh?

Next week: eating two pints of ice cream can make you sick shocker...

Here We Go Again

2006-02-02T23:34:00.000Z

You know that guy you sometimes meet at a party? The one with the slightly too-fixed stare, who goes on and on about how coffee enemas changed his life, or how the problems in society are all the fault of people wearing too many artificial fibers, and who talks just slightly too loudly while standing just slightly too close, never quite leaving you the time to abstract yourself from the conversation politely?

No comments about the Liberal Democrats from the seats in the back row, please.

The "Bush n' Blair lied" crowd are really starting to remind me of that guy. At every possible opportunity they make us hear the same story all over again.

Here we go, for example. The second edition of a book about the run up to war is published with some new material. Yes, I said second edition. The new material? A document that says what everyone knows - that there were pretty firm plans to invade Iraq before the second UN attempt.

Let's stipulate to that. Heck, let's stipulate that there were firm plans to invade before the FIRST resolution.

It doesn't change the fact that it was legally justified even before the first resolution, because Saddam was in breach of the ceasefire. It doesn't change the fact that everyone, but everyone, thought that the WMD story was true. It also doesn't change the fact that almost everyone thought that the first resolution was designed to cover military action. More coverage of the precise run up to the war is neither interesting nor relevant. This type of detail is already, in practical terms, a matter more for the historians than for the press.

Unless you work at the BBC, of course, in which case it's vitally necessary. I'm tempted to hold up a "Cut The Crap" card...

Why We Are In Iraq

2006-02-01T23:28:00.000Z

There has been a huge amount of talk about the 100th British soldier killed in Iraq. He's been used, in particular, for political reasons by those who maintain the "Bush & Blair lied" line.

There is a very powerful piece in the Times, in which we hear from the family of this soldier. His name was Corporal Gordon Pritchard, by the way, not "the 100th British soldier killed in Iraq".

His father is quoted.

"He said in a perfect world we would not need to be in Iraq. But if there was no one else there to protect the people from madmen with guns then we should do it.”

That's why he and his colleagues are still there. I wish that we were prouder of them when they were alive.

Alito & The Dwindling Of The Democrats

2006-02-01T06:49:00.000Z

With the swearing in of Justice Alito, we can take a look back at the last few weeks and months to survey the damage. It's instructive for those in the UK polity as they assess US politics. It also gives us some insight into the implications as the UK moves more and more towards a judge-run society.

Let's remember where we came from - a huge distortion of the constitutional structure of the country to ensure a set of political goals. What do I mean by this? Simply this. Unable to get their political objectives achieved by the building of popular consensus on key social issues, Democrats have focused on the courts and law schools, to change the law by judges, rather than by legislation. For years they have been aggressive in attack (the disgraceful but successful Borking of... er... Bork). They have demonstrated arrant hypocrisy (attacking Justice Thomas for supposed sexual harassment, then mounting a party-line defense a few years later of President Clinton claiming that "it's only about sex"). And for years they were met by passivity from the right, with moderate candidates being appointed and then moving towards the liberal activist consensus over time.

The result of this has been deeply corrosive. The abortion question is the perfect example. It is, of course, not mentioned in the constitution in any way. Yet Roe v Wade enshrines it as a right (and not, as often reported, only at the early stages of gestation). This means that the kinds of question discussed elsewhere by Parliaments are kept outside the bounds of politics. The end result of this has, of course, been that the issue has become more, rather than less, political, with the grand anti-Roe coalition containing a whole group of people with different views (from total abolitionists to constitutional purists, through those who believe in more control but not abolition). Such a coalition would not exist were it not for the nonsense of Roe, but this coalition has benefited the Republican regeneration for years. And abortion is not the only issue - affirmative action, gay marriage and many others come under this purview.

Over the last 25 years the right has slowly been building a response. An infrastructure of organisations to provide support, both practical and intellectual, for conservative jurists had to be built, and the slow progress of lawyers through the institutions of government and the courts has slowly built up the bench-strength for future appointments. Today there is that pool, and President Bush has now dipped into it twice, with Rogers and Alito (failure of will and misplaced loyalty produced the road-bump that was Meirs - and the objection to her was precisely because of the fact that she was not from this pool) - skilled, high quality jurists both... and notably non-political in their judgments. And that's the emphasis. The view of this movement is to get back to the constitution, and back to the law. The political views of the judge are left outside the court, and the case is decided as neutrally as possible.

But that's where the Democrats suddenly come up against a problem. The whole of their worldview is based on the fact that judging is a political action. In that analysis, an approach to judging that concentrates on what the constitution says is a political, rather than a legal, approach. But it isn't. It's simply a concern for the rule of law. And as the leftward interpretative tide has stopped, the last area of political gain for the left has also gone.

The result has been implosion. The loss of control of the channels of communication, and the rise of the internet mean that the types of attacks that used to kill a nomination, or damage the public perception of an appointee for ever now only make the nominee's wife cry. Alito and Roberts were not bigots, radicals, fascists, or racists. Attempting to brand them as such simply made the accusers look foolish.

And finally we get the Kennedy meltdown, and a failed attempted filibuster and the most political vote for a justice in living memory.

This is a political movement devoid of intellectual honesty, devoid of constitutional propriety and devoid of grace. There are a few residual high quality people involved. But the intellectual and moral contortions required for a Democrat to build a career on the national level are so vast that the number of these high quality people will drop unless something is done.

In the long run, that cannot be good for the Republic - but that's a problem for the liberal movement. In the short run there is a lot of legal and constitutional damage that needs to be unpicked.

And a few points for Brits. The abolition of Roe v Wade does not mean the abolition of abortion, just the return of the issue to the states. The attack on affirmative action is not an attempt to discriminate against minorities (some of the biggest losers due to affirmative action are minorities of Asian origin). The arguments over gay marriage are not focused on attempts to bias the legal structures against homosexuals - simply over the fact that the political consensus required to make such a change simply isn't present yet. And so on. When reading about these issues, it's important to bear that in mind. British conservatives may not always agree on every policy issue with their Republican counterparts... but they are a lot closer to our way of thinking than their Democratic colleagues.

Meantime... Welcome Justice Alito. May you grace the bench for many many years.

Tebbit & Cameron

2006-02-01T06:38:00.000Z

An excellent piece in the Telegraph by Matthew D'Ancona covering the contrasting speeches hits the nail on the head. Key points...

There are great similarities between the two
They are both concerned with regaining power
Emphasising that the degree of similarity between their views is suprising given their different ages
Identifying that Cameron's approach is not to deny Thatcher's legacy, but to claim correctly that Blair was continuing her work

Worth a read.

A Real Debate At Last About Euthanasia

2006-01-31T07:16:00.000Z

This is one of those topics that I know is very emotive, and that many people feel strongly about on one side or the other. Mind you, in the last 2 days I've touched on evolution AND abortion, so I may as well make it 3 in a row...

The launch of this new grouping seems to be an important advance. Until now, the arguments surrounding euthanasia have been held on battlegrounds chosen by the pro-euthanasia organisations. The establishment of a group focusing on the other side of the argument should be welcomed by both sides, as it'll improve the quality of debate, and therefore the quality of end result.

My own view? I guess it's consistent with my view on capital punishment (against) and abortion (against, but recognising that abolition won't ever be a practical political prospect), in that in all cases where we are given the chance to choose life we should. We have much work to do on palliative care, for sure, as with life expectancy increasing and medicine keeping us alive well past the date that we'd otherwise have died 100 years ago this will affect many of us. There will continue to be many cases of pain relief causing death, as today - a necessary hypocrisy. But formal legalisation of euthanasia is simply, to me, wrong.

The Mainstream On Europe

2006-01-30T22:34:00.000Z

Here we go again.

Newsnight covers the Cameron speech briefly, and with mild scepticism. More on this speech, and Norman Tebbit's in a long post tomorrow...

However, we then move on to look at the visit of William Hague to begin the process of EPP withdrawal.

Now, let's be very clear about this. The centre ground of British political opinion is not currently represented by any of the mainstream parties on this issue. Voters are more sceptical of the goals, processes and ambitions of the EU than the politicians, with the MEPs even more off to the fringe than the rest of the political culture. A very simple Google turns up this YouGov poll, for example: there are many more.

Let's also note that the culture of control and ethics in the EU institutions isn't quite what you might want... to the extent that a Google of "EU Corruption" gives you over 6.8 million hits. Non-audited accounts, whistleblowers suspended, very odd expenses practices, and so on.

It is entirely fair, then, to suggest that withdrawal from the EPP and the establishment of an anti-federalist group is a reasonable move towards the political centre, well in tune with the general approach of (to pick one phrase almost at random from Cameron's speech) "the battle to replace short term bureaucratic fixes with long term sustainable solutions".

In fact, it's quite an interesting story: the new generation against the old, out-of-date view of mid-20th century statist approaches - the generation of Hannan, Gove, Villiers and Cameron against the old guard of Patten, Heath, Hurd, Ken and Heseltine.

To be fair to him, Michael Crick's package did a fair job of looking at the issues in the round, covering some of the problems, but also identifying the opportunities, and letting Roger Helmer make his case.

Kirsty Wark, though, is still unable to grasp this new reality. The old stuff comes out all over again: "reopening old wounds", "Tory splits", "lurch to the right", ably assisted from Brussels by Edward McMillan-Scott. They take turns to biff poor Dan Hannan (who holds his end up pretty well. It's probably quite tough to hold a straight face when you're actually accused of wanting to sit in the same grouping as Le Pen and his cronies).

Let's put this very simply (because I know that people from the BBC do regularly search the web for comments on their show thanks to the site logs, so will be reading this). All of the news over the last few years makes it clear that the Europhiles are certainly now (and in fact always were) a small rump within the Conservative Party. They had significant influence, in no small part because of the oxygen they were given on this issue by a BBC that agreed with them. Their views have failed amongst the membership of the Party, and have failed to get support from the people of Britain as a whole. Their views have failed across Europe, especially in the new accession countries. Worst, their views have failed the people of the UK and Europe, economically and politically. It is not radical, dangerous, or fringe thinking to suggest this.

One cause for optimism, however. Cameron is going to win this issue. Clear blue water is going to open up, exposing the true divide between people and politicians. The facts of life, as I quote Mrs Thatcher saying regularly, are conservative. An EU reshaped and remade for the next 50 years can be a powerful force for good, and for positive change in the world. This move away from the EPP gives the UK a distinctive voice, and will allow us to make the case for the type of EU that we actually want.

And the Tory Party will eventually be represented in Brussels by people with views in the mainstream of British politics on the future shape and structure of Europe. Not by Edward McMillan-Scott.

Different Perceptions

2006-01-30T07:09:00.000Z

To me, and many like me, Norman Tebbit is a great man. He was part of the generation of Conservatives that stemmed the decline of the UK. He sold the message of Conservatism in the right way for his time. He has demonstrated, since the Brighton bombing, one of the most impressive examples of personal dedication and devotion without expectation of reward that I can think of in recent public life.

Unfortunately, this was not a universal view even at the best of times. There was always a group of core Tory voters who were immune to the charms of the polecat, and they began to drift away from us over the 1990s, helped by the general incompetence and lack of direction from the Major regime. In fact, to a large swathe of precisely the voters that we need to reattract, Norman Tebbit is the epitome of what they left the party over.

This is one of the most unfair perceptions I can think of, but political perception isn't about fairness.

So when he speaks to the Bow Group comparing Cameron to Pol Pot there is a double benefit for us. First, it keeps balance within the Party conversation, pinning down the right wing, and helping to make it clear where the boundary of tolerance for change is within the Party. But the second effect is more important, in that it signals to disaffected centrist tories that Tory Party is a safe home for their vote.

I'll look forward to reading the speech.

Abortion And Evolution In Britain

2006-01-29T19:04:00.000Z

A majority of British women want the rules around abortion tightened. So it is a "womens' issue" after all... just the other way from the way in which it's usually presented.

Of course, the Blair government reaction to this isn't terribly surprising: there will be no change to the law, nor any thought of any change. So anyone who has spotted this story from the US via Michelle Malkin, for example, shouldn't get their hopes raised.

But at least we have this in the political process, not distorting our entire constitution, so we should be thankful for small mercies I suppose.

At the same time we have this news about the fact that a whole bunch of Brits also doubt evolution, with a remarkable 40% of them thinking creationism or ID should be taught in schools (I'm very firmly of the other view, by the way).

If this were happening in Oklahoma, the BBC would be doing one of their lovely "what a bunch of right wing religious loons Americans are" stories, of course. But it's happening in Britain so instead they end the story with a piece about... what a bunch of right wing religious loons Americans are.

So some things don't change, then.

Bear In Woods Excretion Scandal

2006-01-29T18:40:00.000Z

Well, blow me down. ID cards wouldn't actually stop any terrorist attacks? You don't say!

A bad idea, which will be implemented poorly (or rather very, very expensively), late, and in a way which endangers all of us.

Continuing Fallout From Palestine

2006-01-28T08:35:00.000Z

The effects of the election rumble on.

The more time that passes on this the more I'm certain that I think that this has been a painful but good thing. Hamas has been one of the biggest obstacles to peace, and have had a privileged role of plausible deniability, able to keep the pressure on Israel without comeback. No more. Now they're in charge, and will have to choose a path. If they send Palestine formally down the eliminationist path they'll lose a lot of global support... but if they pull back they'll have to wind back some of the agression in their culture that they have fomented.

Calls for cleaning up Fatah's leadership are also important. Corrupt societies don't have full application of the rule of law... and the rule of law is necessary for economic progress. If these calls for a clean-up help pitch Palestinian policies towards higher public standards of conduct and accountability then everyone in the region will benefit.

One final point. I'll be interested to follow the treatment of Palestinian Christians under the new regime. There was talk before the election of a tax on non-Muslims: will they implement it? More, will they allow the Christian minority to have freedom of religion? If not, one would hope for a greater bipartisanship amongst Christian charities and churches over the Palestinian question. As the Western Churches have given the Palestinian cause quite significant support, unqualified by much criticism or necessary nuance, a change might have a leveraged effect in the support in the West. Of course, that would require intellectual honesty from the people concerned, and that may be too much of an ask.

Foreign Policy And Neoconservatism

2006-01-27T07:28:00.000Z

ToryDiary today has a piece on the Oborne comments in the Spectator, and about appropriate links between the UK and the US.

A couple of points.

First, what is neoconservatism? This is something that has been debated again and again, but there is a core truth that I think is missed on this side of the Atlantic: neocons are often liberals mugged by reality (shades of Mrs Thatcher's "the facts of life are conservative"). In many ways neo-conservatism is not of the right, but is armed free-market liberalism with an overtone of morality. At heart, neo-conservatism is often simply a belief that the rule of law, democracy, free speech and the free market (in that order) are universal goods, that they are the best approach both for the individuals concerned and for the rest of the world, and that it is in all of our interests to promote them.

Second, truth matters. The difference between the Clinton and Bush White House approach to foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere could well be seen as focusing on this precise point. To the left, the truth underlying Arafat's behaviour (and expressed in his speeches in Arabic, and his behaviour) was less important than what he said in English in negotiations. To the Bush White House what matters is what they do: the actual facts on the ground. This is why the Hamas victory in some ways is good - it makes it very clear what the actual views of the Palestinians are, and gives Hamas the responsibility of moving forward.

Consistency with the rest of Cameron's behaviour, then, is to be found in a move towards this neo-conservative agenda, not by a move towards "realism". The same motivations behind a global poverty agenda, and behind a social justice agenda are behind a neo-conservative agenda.

This is, I know, a somewhat contentious summary of the issue - that'll teach me for trying to write a post on such a complex topic before rushing out the door. No doubt the comments on this thread at ToryDiary will prompt a much longer and more rational post from me this evening.

Apology

2006-01-27T07:26:00.000Z

Computer brain-freeze yesterday, I'm afraid. Seems to be working again now.

More Sex For Politicians Immediately

2006-01-25T23:46:00.000Z

Well, now they've got an excuse. Turns out that politicans having affairs may only be doing it to enhance their public speaking abilities. Scientists have demonstrated that sex before public speaking (or other stressful situations) calms the nerves, and therefore presumable improves performance. So it's all for the good of the Party and the Country, you see.

Of course, that doesn't help the poor people who actually have to have sex with the politicians. How they deal with the stress I don't know.

Next, of course. MPs will be trying to claim it on their parliamentary expenses...

It's All Happening At Once

2006-01-25T06:56:00.000Z

Three things, all at the same time, for George Galloway...

Big Brother - he doesn't seem to be very popular with his housemates, (or the public) does he?
The Serious Fraud Office - appear to be going through a whole range of new material from the US
Uday Hussein video appears to have been discovered

Oh dear.

The Immortal Memory

2006-01-25T06:41:00.000Z

Tonight is, of course, one of the key cultural events of the year: Burns Night.

About the man...

The poetry...

Go on, drink up!

I Guess Tories Care About Tax, Then...

2006-01-24T23:31:00.000Z

158 comments today, and still counting, on the tax thread at ConservativeHome. You can find the comment thread here if you have a glass of Scotch to hand... you may need it.

My own views? I don't think that Cameron and Co want to see taxes fall as aggressively as some in the Party. I don't think that they want them to stay still. I do think that they think that raising the issue of tax simplification is a way to get to the argument they want to make without touching on all the old hot buttons.

You can think of it this way...

There are people who don't fill in a tax return at all. Either they don't need to (in which case tax policy isn't the most relevant issue for them), or they should but don't... in which case I suspect they'll be unlikely to support our law and order policy (being likely to be on the wrong end of it), let alone our tax policy.
There are people who have to fill in a tax return, but can't afford or can't justify getting an accountant to do the work. I'll bet most of these people (especially at this time of year) find the argument for tax simplification (whatever they think about appropriate tax levels) easier to understand than the sheaf of forms they're knee-deep in at the moment.
Then there are people who have their tax returns done by an accountant. Many of them already vote Tory. Those that don't aren't the market for a tax cutting message anyway: they regard it as a moral issue. They may, however, respond to the same issue if expressed as a waste and inefficiency one: wasting money that could go to the underprivileged, and imposing a burden on everyone.

I reckon this simplification meme has much further to go for now. Let's see how the arguments play out for a while before insisting on a pledge to abolish personal taxation on the first day of a Tory administration, shall we?

BBC & Death Penalty

2006-01-24T23:18:00.000Z

Scott Callahan at The American Expatriate does great stuff. Look at the response he's extracted from the BBC here over their disparate coverage of the death penalty in the US and China.

Key facts from his previous coverage...

So, 3,400 executions in China merits only 2 stories on the death penalty in general, and zero stories on any specific execution, while 60 executions in the US merits 7 stories in general and 21 stories about specific executions. Or, put another way, executions in the US, which total only 1.76% the number of executions in China, get 1,400% of the amount of coverage given to executions in China. And the 1,000th execution in the US since 1976 is, for the BBC, a "landmark" and "milestone" requiring 3 stories, while the 1,000th (and 2,000th, and 3,000th) execution in China since January 1 last year passes by entirely unremarked upon.

And the BBC's response? Illiterate piffle, suggesting that it'll all come out OK in the end, and suggesting that he writes to a show called "NewsWatch" with his complaint.

Take this sentence, for example...

I note your objections to the BBC reporting on significantly more to aspects of the death penalty in the US rather than China where more executions take place.

I'm not sure which language that's in, but it certainly isn't English.

Bookmark him, and check daily.

Shameful Decision On Abortion

2006-01-24T07:09:00.000Z

The decision in this case on abortion is a disgrace. While personally I'm strongly opposed to abortion, I do understand that there are reasons for retaining it in the law, so my views on this aren't driven by a desire for legislative abolition.

But the idea that a child can be sent for an abortion by a doctor without informing the parents?

Compare this with the attitude, for example, towards school trips. Remember this story a while back about a boy dying while caving on a trip? Parental consent is required for this.

So, let's get this straight. You can't go on a trip to the local museum without a note from your parents, but you can get an abortion. You don't have to think abortion is wrong to think this is barking.

Tax & Stability

2006-01-24T06:38:00.000Z

Long thread covering tax and stability over at ConservativeHome yesterday. 95 comments at time of writing...

My own view: this fits well with the broad strategy. Get them listening, correct the misconceptions that the public has while making clear (in new, cuddlier language) the underpinnings of a conservative view on the issue, then let the press spin it as a U-turn. The party have done a great job in this too, with CCO spinning the message very professionally, and the membership being broadly supportive (enough complaints to be seen as "challenging the old guard" but not enough to cause "Tory splits" talk).

Now, the blogosphere should press on this tax simplification point. The argument for a much flatter, easier tax system is a powerful one, and such a system can be extremely good for the economy. The misallocations of both financial and human capital caused by the vast complexity of the incentive systems we now have are just that - misallocations. Correcting them would be good for us all, would take a couple of years, and would then provide a base for actual tax cuts, especially with the savings from a few years of better management in the public services in the bank.

The Centre Moves

2006-01-23T23:37:00.000Z

Anthony Wells' Polling Report looks at a More4 polling report.

Interesting stuff about the perceived views of the parties. But the key information comes towards the end...

Last year people told Populus they saw the centre ground as a point somewhere between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, with the Tories off to the right. Now they’re telling Populus that the centre ground is a point somewhere between the Tories and Labour

While we don't know when this started, does it maybe point towards initial success for the DC strategy of pulling the electorate to the right by talking ourselves a touch to the left, increasing the power and effectiveness of our general right-wing message?

All At Sea

2006-01-22T08:38:00.000Z

It appears that the Bishop of London is going on holiday, as a speaker on a cruise ship. Fine. Spreading the gospel, and all that, and it's nice for a senior churchman to have the chance to have a good holiday.
But he's doing it at Easter. You know, redemption of the world, pivotal point of the entirety of creation, key feast in the Christian calendar?
Now, he is supposed to have some sympathies towards the Orthodox church. Maybe he's just decided that they're right on the question of the appropriate date of Easter? In which case he's back in time. If that's not it then what on earth is he thinking?

UPDATE 24 January 2005
Well, that just goes to show you shouldn't believe everything you believe on the internet, doesn't it? Turns out that this is in fact a sabbatical, and the first one he's had in 33 years... Can't argue with that at all, so I of course withdraw all snarkiness above, and switch to jealousy instead.

Just Because You Pay More Doesn't Mean That You Get More

2006-01-22T08:26:00.000Z

A concept not unfamiliar to most of us, but clearly not to Brown & Blair. Two very good pieces in the Sunday Times today:

Irwin Seltzer on Brown. Key quote at the end of the piece...

But those who want a brighter future for Britain can take heart from one thing. Brown is a fast learner. It is not unreasonable to hope that he recognises that claiming an ever-larger share of the country’s wealth, and overtaxing wealth producers, has begun to drag the economy down. That is not a legacy he will cherish. Perhaps the one-time Iron Chancellor will renew his affair with Prudence. Or is that a triumph of hope over experience?

From my Latin lessons long ago I vaguely remember a category of questions that expected the answer "yes". Don't you reckon this is one of them?

Then, in this piece, we get a good summary of the wide range of problems.

The task for the Conservatives now is to come up with an alternative to the outdated economics of Mr Blair and Mr Brown. They have been following a model that other countries abandoned in the 1990s. The average tax burden across the industrialised world was 39% in 1997 — identical to Britain’s — but is now 37%. The Labour government is taxing its citizens and businesses more at a time when other countries are doing so less. It is the road to an unsuccessful, uncompetitive economy. Ultimately it is the road to ruin.

Tough for a Tory to disagree, really.

Compare & Contrast

2006-01-21T16:04:00.000Z

Iain Dale comments on Sen. Kennedy's membership of the Owl Club.

And the MRC in the US comments on the differential coverage by the New York Times of this issue compared to the coverage a few years ago of the Augusta National Golf Club.

No bias there, then.

More About Funding

2006-01-21T11:17:00.000Z

Alexander Chancellor in the Guardian describes the experience that he has had while applying for a grant to restore an architecturally important building. A perfect example of the nonsense that happens when you get bureaucrats involved in this type of activity, and then ask them to "increase access".

Yes, it's important that we make sure that a broad range of people benefit from this spending. Yes, it's important that we try to make sure that people from all walks of life, backgrounds and ethnicities are interested in the history of our common country. But doing it this way doesn't seem to work, does it? Let's start by fixing the schools, so that we provide people with the intellectual interest to want to carry on learning for the rest of their lives.

Conservative Bloggers Weekly Is Up

2006-01-21T10:35:00.000Z

There has been lots of discussion over at ConservativeHome about ways to use the internet to encourage the resurgance of the conservative movement over here. A good example of the type of thing that we need is this weekly roundup of British Conservatism.

Lots of great reading.

Sad Sir Edward

2006-01-21T08:59:00.000Z

You can tell a lot about someone by what they do with their money after their death. The ASI blog explains...

Pulling Up The Library Ladder

2006-01-20T23:58:00.000Z

£80 million of lottery money is about to be spent, says The Times, on British Libraries, but none of it on books.

Instead it will pay for buildings to be adapted for “services”, including Citizens Advice Bureaux and benefits — crèches, mother and toddler groups and t’ai chi, Pilates and fitness classes.

Now, some of these may well be very worthy indeed. But, as the article points out, this is coming at a time when 50 libraries are said to have been earmarked for closure in the last week alone.

And listen to the quote from Stephen Dunmore, from the Big Lottery fund, which is giving the grant:

The whole idea is that libraries provide a focus for community activity, converting the space so that it can be used in a more imaginative way. Libraries are about books, but there are ways of learning which don’t have to be book-based.

This rather misses the point, don't you think? There may well be ways of learning which don't have to be book-based. Museums, for example. National Trust properties. Swimming pools. Schools. Night Classes. The internet, even. Libraries, though, are about books.

Why does this matter? A whole bunch of reasons. In a library we are all equal, with equal opportunities, and equal access to books. In a library a child from an otherwise underprivileged background can, should they wish, find a way out for their intellect (which will be useful for them whatever they eventually choose to do with their life). In a library we can find real depth of thought. In a library we can find opinions we wouldn't always find on-line going to our familiar web-sites, and can read them more deeply than looking at a screen. In a library a child can learn a love of books that can stay with them for their whole lives - their feel, their smell, their weight.

Who loses from this? The poorest, who don't get the chance to go to Amazon and drop £50 on a whim. Children, to whom whole avenues of our culture will be less available. All of us, because there is something powerful about the mere feeling of a huge building full of knowledge that you can't get anywhere else.

I'm a huge user of libraries even today, and many of my happiest early memories are of having the chance to go to our library (I can still see it and smell it 30 years later) and pick out a huge pile of books for the coming week, so I guess part of the reason for this screed is a personal, visceral reaction.

But it's more than that. We can't lose (though I fear we have already to a large extent) the ideas that motivated the foundation of this place, for example, in 1680. Libraries have been a huge source of good in our country, lifting many from poverty, and ensuring that everyone, whether miner, unemployed, call centre worker, doctor or investment banker has access, should they wish, to the best ideas humanity has created. We should be encouraging more money to be spent on books and more grants from the new rich (look at what Carnegie did with his money, for example).

And we should not be throwing out books.

A Call To Arms

2006-01-20T07:17:00.000Z

The reasons we need a much more effective conservative blogosphere in the UK perfectly summarised here at ConservativeHome by EU Serf. We'll change the public debate one post at a time: but by making it clear what we think, we will change it.

Standing Up For Small Business

2006-01-18T22:13:00.000Z

After all the back and forth about the "standing up against big business" line, this release from the Conservative Party is a good example of the general approach in practice.

The issue is parental leave, which can pose problems for big business, but can be crippling in the wrong circumstances for small businesses (and which in those circumstances may actually increase discrimination against young women).

The approach? Pitch the press release (and the policy) in favour of the small fry. Focus on the benefits that small business gives to the country and to the families of the owners and managers of those small businesses as well as the families of the employees who will benefit from the paid leave. And while doing this, don't be, and don't be seen to be, acting against the interests of women who want to have children (said children, of course, being the ones that will pay our pensions and health bills, lest we forget).

A small press release, on a peripheral topic, but nicely positioned, and a good example of an approach that should work.

Gove on Galloway

2006-01-18T07:10:00.000Z

Michael hits it on the head, as always, in his latest. The first key section...

So you can fawn to fascists, work with sanctions-busters and shed tears or the collapse of totalitarianism and still be considered a worthy MP. But miaow in public and you’re beyond the pale. It’s OK to prostrate yourself before a mass-murderer, but go on all fours before Rula Lenska, and that’s it.

But then he goes on to make a broader point about our great media, and the rule imposed on Galloway, stopping him expressing his political views in the house due to lack of balance...

After all, almost everyone else in the Channel 4 stable seems free to do so.
Channel 4’s spin-off, More4, has just finished a week of programs on the Iraq War that were so relentlessly anti-Blair, anti-Bush and anti-West that the new channel might as well have been called MichaelMoore4. On Channel 4 News (or Clause 4 News, as it might be renamed) Lindsey Hilsum presents a view of international affairs that does not take a genius to recognise is just a shade left of centre. And even Channel 4’s schools programmes betray a particular worldview. The series History in Action: Heroes or Villains, which is aimed at 11 to 14-year-olds studying GCSE history, is accompanied by teachers’ notes encouraging students to design posters celebrating Mao’s Long March, write a sympathetic obituary for the Communist leader Ho Chi Minh and write in defence of Yassir Arafat.

If the rest of Channel 4 can do it, why can't George? Read the whole thing.

Transatlantic Conservatism

2006-01-18T06:44:00.000Z

Next month there will be a trip by Hague, Osborne and Fox to the US, where they will meet their counterparts, to try to rebuild the links between the Tories and the Republicans. One of the more important trips they'll take over the next few years, I reckon.

One of the things that I've always been confused about is the way that UK conservatives seem to assume that, just because they disagree on a number of issues with the Republican party, and that they do so from the left, not the right, that this means that they somehow would fit within the Democrats.

This isn't helped by British media coverage of US politics, of course, but it is a gross simplification. There are, of course, a small number of politicians within the US who are Democrats and who might fit within either the Republican or Tory party. However, the degree to which the Democratic party today is the party of special interests, of win-at-all-costs behaviour and of the removal of political issues from the political sphere into the judicial, is simply not understood. Just look at that paragon, Ted Kennedy.

I feel a long post coming on. Maybe this evening...

Meantime, all conservatives should hope for the strengthening of these links. We don't have to agree on everything, but we should recognise our disagreements are ones within the same family.

Newsnight On The Tories

2006-01-17T23:12:00.000Z

So I find myself blogging about Newsnight again. Oh well.

A few first observations

A good performance from Letwin. In fact an excellent one. The key: knocking back again and again Kirsty Wark's standard BBC assumptions that conservatives want to be mean to poor people (and that our record in the past was this). In particular emphasising the council house sales were the biggest wealth redistribution ever. Good point, and unanswerable.
A good performance from the panel. Genuine discussion, and while no agreement on key issues, real actual ideas, and supportive back-and-forth
An excellent performance from Tim from conservativehome in particular when Kirsty suggested that conservatives would naturally back big business over small, when he emphasised that conservatism proper was focussed on free markets, which sometimes didn't mean backing big business at all

The key to it all, and something that is becoming a theme for me was this. The old media establishment don't get the new wind blowing through conservatism. The propaganda lines used over the last 30 years have sunk in too deeply, and they find it very difficult to deal with conservatives talking about issues that we've broadly cared about but never expressed effectively. It turns out that we didn't eat babies, didn't try to abolish the NHS, and broadly believe in a fair and just society. We just don't think that the monstrous overweening state is the way to do it. In fact, we think that it's actively damaging thousands of people every day.

Watching them deal with this is rather like watching Richard Dawkins being introduced to God. (although I don't think that'll be broadcast on national TV. Mind you, I'll bet the ratings would be good...)

I think it's going to be quite fun to be a Tory over the next few years.

Baker On The West Lothian Question

2006-01-17T07:12:00.000Z

The West Lothian question has surfaced again, as it is likely to continue doing. The underlying problems raised by devolution under the current government have never been taken seriously, and have not been addressed.

They are, of course, about to become radically more important. A likely result of the next election is a small Labour majority under Gordon Brown, with the majority sustained by the votes of Scottish MPs. This will be clearly unfair, and will provide great ammunition for Cameron. I have some concerns about his ability, as an English toff, to raise the question in a way that won't undo some of the progress that the party has made over the last few years, but he should be able to find enough Scots to help him.

So, how to deal with the problem?

There are two basic approaches.

The most common approach proposed is changing the rules of the existing institutions. The approach outlined by Lord Baker in today's Telegraph falls into this category. English votes for English laws, or some variant on it, would go part of the way to solving the problem, of course. However, it would institute a two-tier system of MPs, and would add a whole bunch of complexity to Parliamentary processes (how do you define an "English" bill, for example). Worse, it would cause real problems in terms of assessing eligibility for high office (who has a majority would, err... depend). Most important, it would keep the real problem in place.

The alternative is much more attractive structurally: a devolved English Parliament, based maybe in Middlesex Guildhall, across the road from Westminster, and with similar devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament. Westminster would, of course retain the currently "national" powers needed: defence, foreign affairs, the core fiscal and macroeconomic controls, and so on. Much else would be devolved.

There is a disadvantage, of course, which is that it involves more politicians. This is, indeed, a problem, although solvable (in part by reducing the number of MPs in the Westminster House). More important, though, is that it would recreate balance in the constitution, and allow those of us living in England an appropriate degree of self-determination. The media would begin to report more accurately, and it would be easier to hold the appropriate level of the political system to account.

Of course, this is all very un-English: in particular because they believe that the Westminster Parliament IS the English Parliament. How we get over that hurdle I'm not sure... but I suspect we'll get a lot more attention to this in only a couple more years.

Putting A Face To A Name

2006-01-17T07:04:00.000Z

I've always thought that the story of Lady Jane Gray was one of the most poignant in British history. A pawn of Tudor politics, she lost her head under Mary Tudor (who was, as we all know, a Bad Thing).

It appears that after being faceless for hundreds of years, a picture of her may have surfaced in, of all places, Streatham.

Corruption, Cronyism, Incompetence

2006-01-16T23:33:00.000Z

Hillary on MLK day in a typically classy speech claims

"We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence," she said. "I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country"

But no, she's not talking about the one that her husband ran.

Oh, and she compares the way the House of Representatives is run to a plantation.

And I thought that it was the Senate that had a former Klan member in it?

Now, just imagine if a Republican tried this...

Three Cheers For Colin Powell

2006-01-16T22:52:00.000Z

Not a subject line I thought I'd find myself writing, I must admit, but it's certainly the way I feel having just watched the Paxman Newsnight interview. The whole exercise just demonstrated the problems that we have here. Powell was the epitome of good grace and rationality - recognising errors made, stating his case as he believed it clearly, and emphasising the unanimity of view within the intelligence community as to the Iraq regime. Paxman, however, came across as rather odd, and at one point seemed to make it explicit that he believed that the decision to go to war was based on knowingly false information. Colin Powell didn't like that. Colin Powell used to be in the military. Colin Powell looks quite scary when he doesn't like something you've just said. That makes good TV.

There is a simple problem. On this issue, it's quite clear that the category of "unfortunate, but genuine and understandable error" no longer exists. Nothing other than absolute, metaphysical certainty will now do when assessing intelligence information (at least for a war that the media dislike). We know this, of course, but this is a very very clear demonstration of the phenomenon.

And with the current situation in Iran, that leaves us with a bit of a problem.

Watch the video, but first make sure that you have nothing hard in the room. Otherwise you'll be out at the electrical shop buying a new TV tomorrow morning.

Some Good News For A Change

2006-01-11T07:09:00.000Z

Nice to see this story this morning, of the first sighting for a long time of red kites in London . Wouldn't it be nice if they became a regular feature of the capital?

A Tangible Step Forward On The Environment

2006-01-10T23:40:00.000Z

An example of the beginnings of an environmentalist approach that might actually work is described in this piece. With a focus on technology improvement, and representatives from a number of major markets and companies it may provide a forum for real tangible improvements. Important to note the presence of both China and the US: we need both on board any solution for it to be effective. Also important to note the significant presence from the corporate sector.
I'd be interested to see what the new Tory environmentalist group would have to say about this. What worries me is the suspicion that they'd condemn it...

Clearly The BBC Is Understaffed

2006-01-10T07:37:00.000Z

Follow up from Scott Callahan (always a must-read) on the ongoing story (since December last year) of Newsnight and Niger.
As he says, at least they took the story down. But the quality of the journalism involved does rather put the lie to the idea that the output of the Mainstream Media is automatically credible.

Tire Slashing On Election Day In The USA

2006-01-10T07:22:00.000Z

Odd that this story isn't being covered on the BBC, don't you think, and that we have to rely on Michelle Malkin to cover it.
Oh... sorry... it's DEMOCRATS involved. All is now clear.

Good Sense From Barroso

2006-01-10T06:54:00.000Z

As reported in The Times today...

The Commission is concerned that if federalist leaders push ahead with the treaty, it will put them on a collision course with the eight countries that have promised their people referendums on the treaty, including Britain and Poland.
Speaking in Vienna, Senhor Barroso pleaded: “Please avoid a new division in Europe about institutions. The most important concern now of EU citizens is not institutional problems, but growth and jobs.”

Indeed. He seems to be living in the same universe as the rest of us. Unlike, sadly, the Austrian Chancellor, who said

“The constitution is not dead, the constitution is in the middle of the ratification process.”