Cassilis

Elevating comment threads to post is, I know, a bit lazy but I think this merits it. Newmania has taken issue with my post below on Sweden's performance in the HR Index. Below is an edited version of his comment (full thing in the thread if you have the stomach) and then my response:

[Sweden] sounds like a miracle doesn’t it. It is of course nothing of the sort. Two Swedish economists recently published [a study] that asks how European countries would fare if suddenly admitted into the American union. The results? If the UK, France, or Italy became U.S. states, they would rank as the fifth poorest of the fifty, ahead only of Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia, and Mississippi. The richest EU country - Ireland - would be the 13th poorest. Sweden would be the 6th poorest. In fact, the study found that 40% of all Swedish households would classify as low-income in the U.S. So lets get it in proportion. More importantly there are only nine million people in Sweden’s vastness. Inward migration from outside Europe is negligible and they sit on fabulous mineral, forestry and coal reserves. They are also possessors of along tradition of neutrality from which their economy stole a march on the rest in post war booms as fact conveniently forgotten by the left.... . We had the Nazis to fend off 60 million people to fit in, plus a stream of world wide social problems to pay for. The per-capita wealth of the Swedes is just a trick of numbers..

Regular readers will know that Newmania isn't a bad sort and has a curious talent for being better-informed than most and very expansive with his rebuttals. Unfortunately those talents are allied to a spectacular ability for entirely missing the point.

The 'admission to the US' study is completely irrelevant and very illustrative of the hard-right mindset. In the 100 words or Newmania devotes to it there's mention only one measure - wealth. Nothing on equality, literacy, health outcomes, crime etc. just money. This is almost comically Thatcherite and if I didn’t know Newmania better I’d suspect self-parody. It’s also just the sort of narrow and selfish outlook most people have rejected for the last 10-15 years (including Cameron I should add, witness his ‘General Wellbeing’ rather than GDP speech). Also, given that the US is far wealthier in GDP-per-capita terms than most EU countries then the fact that these countries would fare so poorly in terms of rankings as states in the union shows ONLY how inequitably US wealth is distributed! As a supposed rebuttal from the political right this is actually making Polly Toynbee's case for her by providing a perfect example of the massive discrepancies in wealth that the US system can throw up without appropriate checks and balances.

Readers will know I'm broadly on the centre-right. In so far as this is about silly stark choices between the US or Sweden (which it's not of course) I far prefer the freedoms and the greater sense of individuality and distrust of the state we / the US have to the Scandinavian model. But (and it's a big 'but') we really need to stop being tribal about this and fighting silly old cold-war style battles - that's not what politics is about anymore. This assumption that any increase in state spending or state-sponsored intervention on social problems is the first step on the road to communism is utter c*** and more becoming to ConservativeHome than this blog.

And finally, my original post was actually about Sweden topping of an index that measures humanitarian response – it was specifically about the selfless, compassionate behaviours every nation would like to think they fare well on. Any rebuttal that revolves almost entirely around individual wealth and completely ignores the core purpose of the report rather makes my point.

Labels: Politics

...often gets a hard time from us in the UK - when she's not the target for slightly insulting caricatures about Abba or the chef from the Muppets she's regularly expected to bear the heavy weight of social democratic admiration the world over, with our very own Polly Toynbee often leading the charge. On those ocassions the picture is usually more nuanced than her fans are prepared to admit but just stumbled across something that might be a little more straightforward and certainly to Sweden's credit.

The Humanitarian Response Index is a survey drawn up by Dara International which ranks 23 aid donors from the OECD according to the effectiveness and impartiality of their relief efforts in eight crisis-hit countries. It tries to measure the extent to which they respect the principles that should guide humanitarian action, such as humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, as well as best practices in donor financing, management and accountability.

Sweden takes top spot with Norway & Denmark coming in 2nd and 3rd place respectively. The UK is 9th, the US 16th and those, ahem, deeply religious and therefore compassionate countries Portugal and Italy holding up the rear! I don't think the full report is available yet and I'm sure if someone poured over the methodology they might find some wriggle room in terms of how the rankings were arrived at but I still think this is an important index and something Sweden deserve credit for topping. Right-leaning blogs keen to score political points are usually very quick to flag rankings on tax-take, immigration or crime stats etc. but I'd be surprised if this is something many pick up. If there really is something broken in our society I'd like to think that fixing it also nudged us several places up this listing.

Labels: Politics

….on my way home from the office yesterday:

“20p fur a p*** man, f**cking shocking!”

Struck by the young man’s obvious anger at this arrangement I wondered if it was rooted in the idea that he should be charged at all for the opportunity to relieve himself or if he was just objecting to the price Glasgow City Council had arrived at. If the latter then presumably some sort of cost-benefit analysis was involved but the mind boggled at the details – weight, volume, olfactory impact..?

None the wiser (and having unburdened myself of the reasons for my own ‘purchase’) I decided to engage the young man in conversation to see just how well-founded his anger was and whether he’d like my support for any subsequent consumer campaign, letters to BBC Watchdog etc. I’m afraid I can’t recall what happened after that.

(Posted remotely from my hand-held device from an intensive care ward in a Glasgow Hospital…)

Labels: Diary

Labels: Media

It can surely only be a matter of time before people start ridiculing Gordon Brown's readiness to 'announce a review / inquiry' as soon as he comes under any sort of pressure or questions are asked about his competence?

Of course, there's nothing wrong with asking for expert opinions or independent reviews but if the PM's instinctive response is always to kick any awkward questions into the long grass and effectively hide behind the response of not wanting to 'prejudice the review by whomever' then people will start to question exactly what he's bringing to the situation.

Far from being a compliment Mr Blair's 'clunking fist' tag is looking more and more like a wonderfully underhand piece of irony aimed at his old enemy...

Labels: Politics

Sometimes politicians land on a phrase that particularly resonates with the public mood and gives added impetus to that most dangerous of things in politics, 'momentum'. David Cameron's address to the CBI yesterday morning wasn't particularly remarkable but for the inclusion of what might be just such a 'killer phrase' - Labour supporters will contest it and they may have reasonable grounds for doing so but given the general air of disquiet around at the moment the prospect of an election poster like this will concentrate minds inside No.10....

Labels: Media

There’s a strong likelihood that this post will pander to the lame stereotype of the tight-fisted Scot but hey, I am what I am.

Should I feel guilty about the amount of free online content I consume each week / month? I don’t mean blogs of course since they don’t charge for the ‘privilege’ (although perhaps an interesting parlour game on what blogs we’d pay to read if we had to?) but newspapers, magazines and journals etc.

Sating an appetite for political news and comment in pre-internet times was an expensive job. Without any online access and with rather meagre means I was forced either to linger in the newsagents irritating staff and genuine customers by reading as much as I could of the New Statesman or the Economist or, when expulsion from WH Smith’s loomed large, actually buying the things. And such was my appetite that once I’d actually been forced down that ‘buy’ route subscription became the most economical way of doing it. So while my peers waited with bated breath for ‘Q’ or ‘NME’ to land on their doormats it was the prospect of Bagehot or Saki that sustained me each week.

Online access (first at work then at home) changed all this. As far as I know, other than the Scotsman (they’d have to pay me), none of the major UK broadsheets charge for basic access online and the most recent editions of the Economist, the New Statesman and the Spectator are almost entirely free each week. There’s often some sort of subscription option (print or online) that does confer some extra goodies such as archive access or the occasional subscriber-only article but for the main part most of the new content can be seen for free and often before print release.

I think the impulse to guilt is prompted by the fact that I’m obviously on some list of past subscribers - I regularly get post from Boris Johnson trying to solicit a weekly fee for the Spectator’s ‘Champagne for the Brain’ or from the Economist explaining that a subscription to them will leave me ‘better informed’ than my work colleagues (a curious marketing angle that). Needles to say all such pleas find their way to my recycling bin. I like to believe that the likes of the Spectator or the Economist would applaud my market-conscious approach of refusing to pay for that which I can get for nothing and the New Statesman would at least welcome my recycling efforts.

A couple of small flaws though. The excellent Prospect is still largely a subscription / purchase only publication so my spend isn’t entirely eradicated. And now that I can read the Daily Mail free online I’m actually forced to buy toilet paper. No system’s perfect.

Labels: Media

..makes interesting reading. I'm always torn in my reaction to Polly's articles between the realist's response imploring her to 'get real' and the soppy idealist in me asking 'what if she's right?' I consider myself on the moderate right but I agree that Labour should have better articulated the moral basis for taxation and challenged the selfish Daily Mail-esque narrative that labels all taxation a burden - it's not.

Labels: Politics

Well, after a rather busy week away it seems the topic of the moment is Gordon Brown’s character. And you’ll just have to take my word for it when I tell you that most of the insights I had on the subject while on holiday last week have been better articulated elsewhere. In Saturday’s Times Matthew Paris contrasts the intuitive political skill of his predecessor with his almost uncanny talent for attracting misfortune:

Quite. Gordon Brown's virtues are many but that ability to rise above and beyond events that came so naturally to Blair (remember how many ‘worst weeks’ he survived – they became a standing joke) is not one of them. The strange thing about Gordon’s character is that even after a week like last week certain aspects of it remain intact and are broadly agreed upon by supporters and critics - 'serious politician', 'intellectual', 'weighty', ‘cerebral’, ‘bookish' etc. Other than the than petty partisans I don’t think anyone would suggest that David Cameron or Nick Clegg / Chris Huhne are Brown’s intellectual equals. The question is though are those virtues enough to guarantee a successful premiership if they’re not allied with an air of competence?

I’ve been reading Stephen Graubard's 'The Presidents' and was struck but this quote from British historian James Bryce concerning the typical character of American Presidents:

Labels: Politics

Blogging has / will be light this week because I'm on holiday but via Liberal Conspiracy and Tom Freeman I have to comment on the latest awful diatribe by Melanie Phillips.

It was prompted by proposed legislation in the human fertilisation and embryology bill that recognises same-sex couples as legal parents, and remove the necessity for IVF clinics to consider the need for a father when taking into account the unborn child's welfare. Melanie has joined the likes of Iain Duncan Smith and Cardinal Cormac Murpy-O'Connor with the usual accusations about 'undermining the traditional family' or the 'abolition of fatherhood'. In truth it's little more than the sort of poorly disguised homophobia dressed up as cultural analysis that too many right-wing bloggers still tolerate and it's continued existence / prominence explains the doubts that still linger among the public about the depth of Cameron's efforts to reform the Tories.

As is often the case with poor arguments they hitch their wagon to indisputable facts and just hope you'll ignore the flawed logic that follows. In general terms children from 'traditional two-parent' families do fare better on almost every indicator - I'm not aware of anyone that's asserting otherwise. But the idea that this fact is somehow undermined by simple recognition that not every child's life is like that is utter nonsense. What about the other things equally beneficial to child-rearing that some children will have and others won't - at least one parent in stable employment, access to first-class nursery education (and beyond), adequate social housing etc? Why is it when policy discussion turns to these themes the right's enthusiasm for the ideal family environment is suddenly dimmed? There may be recognition about the importance of these things but their provision or otherwise suddenly becomes a far less pressing issue.

The essence of Phillips argument (as well as the support from O'Connor / Smith etc.) is actually brutally straight-forward - stable heterosexual marriage is the best environment to bring up children so the state should have no truck with making the alternatives easier. The first part of that proposition is just a fact but the second part is heartless nonsense since these alternatives always have and always will be needed anyway - sensible government means framing them in the best interests of the children and making them as easy as possible.

I do have some sympathy with the underlying drift of thought from the likes of Phillips here - of course society has changed dramatically over the last 50 years and it would be churlish to deny that some of the things advanced under the guise of progressive politics have had unfortunate (as well as fortunate effects). For example it may well be true that if society had maintained its mean, judgemental attitude to single parents (championed by the Tories in the 80's of course) there might be fewer today and consequently less of the attendant social problems. Likewise with shifting attitudes to divorce, sex-before-marriage, domestic violence etc. But that's to miss the point on a grand scale. The social response to these things is only one aspect of them and the idea that we should somehow try to calibrate it such that we control the incidence of them is nonsense. Yes there may be some unfortunate side effects but we shouldn't forget the sheer inhumanity with which many of these phenomenon were greeted in the past - ignoring the blunt truth that these things are simply facts of life, the implication from the likes Phillips is that we should be a little less humane, a little more judgemental and perhaps we'll reap some social reward. She couldn't be more wrong.

Labels: Politics

Those of you who read US blogs may already have spotted this but there's a bit of a row brewing over an impromptu protest by the U.S. women's Bridge team at an awards dinner. The team won the World Championship in Shanghai last month but during their victory celebrations team captain Gail Greenberg held up a sign that read: "We did not vote for Bush" - an attempt, she claims, to counter some tough questions and comments the team attracted in the course of the tournament about US foreign policy:

Following Trevor Phillips warm words for David Cameron's immigration speech a couple of weeks ago (however quickly undermined they were by that idiot Hastilow), it'll be interesting to see if his speech to the Conservative Woman's Organisation yesterday on rape and sexual violence will be similarly commended by victim support organisations and those campaigning for improvements to rape convictions - it certainly deserves to be.

Cameron identified three areas where significant improvements are needed - convictions and sentencing, victim support and cultural change. In today's Guardian Beatrix Campbell takes a slightly partisan pop at Cameron (really just for the order he put these in) but does point out that addressing the cultural aspects of this phenomenon are far more important (and difficult) than addressing sentencing policy or victim support issues. One aspect of this debate that's often subject to the wrong sort of attention is the nature of the victims dress and / or behaviour prior to the attack.

Although progress has been made in this area Cameron cites some horrifying statistics and a particularly depressing story to demonstrate that the misogynistic attitudes that used to characterise any discussion of rape haven't yet disappeared. Lindsay Armstrong was driven to suicide after being subjected to a brutal cross-examination including discussion of the underwear she was wearing at the time of the attack. An Amnesty International study found one in four think it is acceptable for a boy to 'expect to have sex with a girl' if the girl has been 'very flirtatious'. Cameron's 'moral collapse' theme may be a bit extreme but for anyone trying to address sexual violence these are worrying statistics. I don't have the legal experience to frame this argument properly but to my mind everything possible should be done to prevent lawyers (usually male) from using the victims dress and/or behaviour to muddy the waters over responsibility for the attack. When stories like the one Cameron cites become public knowledge, the would-be rapist is effectively supplied with a victim profile, a set of characteristics that say - 'attack this woman and your chances of escaping justice are improved'. The legal system needs to find a way not only of making dress / behaviour immaterial to the crime but to do so publicly.

The difficulty however is that the legal standing we should accord these things (i.e. none) is different to the common sense, every-day outlook that most women probably adopt and most parents urge on their daughters. How do we resolve the tension between removing any legal defence built on a woman's dress or behaviour while at the same time recognising that these factors clearly have some impact on the likelihood of being the victim of an attack? In the past people who have simply tried to point this out have been labelled sexist (or worse) in the mistaken belief that they're attributing some sort of blame for the attack to the victim. We need to find a way to make the law clear and unambiguous without eroding common sense.

Labels: Ethics

In light of Mr Sarkozy's availability on the dating scene Foreign Policy magazine has compiled a list of the most eligible world leaders, topped by the man himself.

Title: President of France
Age: 52
Interests: Anglo-Saxon economic reform, jogging, the United States of America .

...if Nicolas doesn't do it for you there's always:

Condoleezza Rice
Title: U.S. Secretary of State
Age: 53
Interests: Foreign affairs, enforcing message discipline, classical piano, NFL football, going to church and the gym

..or if, as FP suggests, "you’re the type of girl for whom anti-American rhetoric is an aphrodisiac" there's

Hugo Chávez
Title: President of Venezuela
Age: 53
Interests: Singing, denouncing the imperialist devil, nationalizing key industries

Labels: Politics

For those few regular readers I have it's worth pointing out straight away that that title isn't a political version of Magritte's famous 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' - it's just a statement of fact, this isn't a Tory blog. Let me explain...

I've been blogging for just under two years and I've been largely sympathetic to Cameron's efforts to transform his party. Not because I'm a member (I'm not) and not because they'll get my vote regardless (they won't) but because I think democracy is the better for having competing serious options for government. I can conceive of voting Conservative at the next election and I can conceive of voting Labour, as I did in 2005.

In broad terms I'm happy with the 'centre-right' tag but like any catch-all label is disguises some complexities – I favour a small, efficient state with low taxation but I place a tremendous premium on education and would happily pay more tax to improve it (and think the state has a key role in doing that). I think the family is a very important institution but I recognise how nebulous a concept that is - I'd sooner see children adopted by a stable, loving gay couple than a squabbling heterosexual marriage (and I don't support tax breaks for married couples either). I hate punitive taxation and I'm comfortable with entrepreneurs and risk-takers getting amply rewarded but I think the drift towards corporate greed and 'payment for failure' is actually undermining capitalism. I want to make sure that our approach to immigration recognises the strains it can place on public services and infrastructure but I also see it as a huge positive and something that all parties have a responsibility to campaign on responsibly. There are many more examples like this and I'm far from unique when it comes to having an ill-defined political identity.

On the blogosphere though this rarely seems to be the case. Sidebars are routinely organised according to party loyalties (or at least left / right alignment) and on most blogs every post and comment has to be viewed through the prism of the author's allegiance, with the choice of stories to highlight and subsequent discussions usually following a predictable, partisan pattern. At the moment for example there seem precious few 'Tory' blogs willing to engage on the question of Ashcroft's tax status while those Labour blogs happy to drown Blair with the millstone of Iraq champion Brown, the one national figure who could probably have stopped UK involvement in it.

So for the avoidance of doubt this isn't a Tory blog, or a Labour one, a Lib Dem one or an SNP one – it's just a political blog. I don't subscribe to the narrative that Labour has somehow 'ruined' this country or that every day we live under a Labour government is another day toward the dogs – that's adolescent nonsense. Nor do I buy the common left-wing refrain that 18 years of Conservative government gave birth to every ill we now see and that the Conservatives are fundamentally unreformable and permanently unfit for office – that too is cr**. I think the blogosphere could do with a few more people like that and a few less partisan bloggers.

Labels: Politics

Last week I took issue with Hopi Sen's criticisms of Michael Gove's speech to the Bow Group on Gordon Brown's character. Tom Freeman also joined the fray and the discussion continued on the comments thread of my post, Hopi's and Tom's. Being mature, gentlemanly types we agreed to disagree but one thing I found particularly strange was Hopi & Tom's reluctance to recognise that Gove was actually building on a narrative about Brown's character that's been on the go since the mid-90's. Contrary to their suggestions it wasn't some new and shallow partisan device - friend and foe have described Brown much as Gove did last week and the sheer regularity of character sketches like that lends them credence. On Tom's post I said:

"Gove's piece isn't some random left-field view from out of nowhere - it chimes more or less perfectly with the prevailing narrative on Brown's character as depicted by almost every major political commentator and even the largely sympathetic biogs I've read.

I suppose you could make a case that Gove, Rawnlsey, Jenkins, Toynbee, Hattersley, Lawson (Neal), Campbell et al and most of the commentariat have this wrong and your good self, Hopi and Tom H have it right but it doesn't seem that credible to me... "

Tom disagreed and unfortunately I didn't have links to the multitude of similar character studies I mentioned to back up my point. But then, almost as if she'd been reading the exchanges and wanted to come riding valiantly to my defence up steps Polly Toynbee in today's Guardian.

"Brown still clings to third way tactics, a deliberate refusal to be defined. Back in 1994 it seemed so clever and deft to confuse the Tories and steal a few of their clothes. But now, 13 years later and facing a very different political universe, it's calamitous"

....

"Brown's political programme needs a story, a narrative, a red thread to stitch it together and embroider a picture of the society he wants, so everyone can see it. Without signposts, voters are lost. "Aspiration", the poor old Queen said over and over, but it's vacuous. Brown's other favourite word - "change" - is just as empty, but his e-message to the Labour party faithful laboriously hammered it out eight times in less than a page. They are words deliberately chosen for their lack of left/right political meaning. They are safety-first, centre-ground words. Is centre what he wants to be?"

....

"If, as his people say, Gordon Brown is driven by a strong sense of social justice, why not say so? (And don't do those things that don't fit the rubric - cutting inheritance tax, or detention without trial). But he chokes on the words as if they would cause his political death"

There are of course subtle differences between Polly's theme and Gove's but there are also similarities and quite damning ones at that - 'vacuous', 'empty', 'safety-first', 'chokes on the words' - the picture of a man who's never reconciled his core political beliefs with the public persona he's forced to adopt for electoral reasons is pretty clear and this from a supporter.

As I said Polly's angle is subtly different but the similarities are strong enough to make Tom's charge of "low, snide politicking" or Hopi's of "intellectual cowardice" against Gove look pretty baseless.

Labels: Politics

One of the joys of blogging is that readers, however few, can be drawn into your other interests even if they only visit for ill-informed second-rate political commentary. I've always had a keen interest in art history in general and a particular passion for Vincent Van Gogh so was saddened to see that his 1890 oil 'The Wheat Fields' failed to sell at auction at Sotheby's last night. There were expectations that the painting might fetch $35m but in the end it failed to even reach its undisclosed reserve or attract a bid over $25m.

Labels: art

A little late with this but if you missed it on Friday well worth a read - David Brooks in the New York Times spoofs last weeks debate for Democratic Presidential candidates. It's a short but very funny piece so please read the full thing but my favourite part was the closing homage to Jack Nicholson's 'A Few Good Men' speech a la Hilary:

WILLIAMS: Now we turn to our lightning round in which each of the candidates will have 3.75 seconds to spout pandering clichés that demonstrate how the campaigning process has reduced their minds to pabulum. Senator Clinton, which issue would you like to obfuscate next?

CLINTON: Obfuscate? Son, let me tell you the truth, because you can’t handle the truth. We live in a world with enemies. We fight elections where people play rough. Who’s going to do it? These two pretty boys? The left-wing nutjobs in our party who sit around watching Bill Maher? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, leads to victory. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about in Santa Monica dinner parties, you want me at that podium. You need me at that podium. And I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the self-righteous liberals who rise and sleep under the blanket of the very victory I provide!

Spoof perhaps but on the basis of the polls for Hilary it may not be far wrong...

Labels: Politics

Does Nigel Hastilow represent the 'soul' of the Conservative party, its lunatic fringe or something in between? Your answer probably depends on your political affiliations but prior to his resignation I was ready to post the following today:

"If David Cameron doesn't expel Hastilow immediately then I don't care if come the next election Brown has flattened the Commons, signed sovereignty over to Brussels and nationalised my knob and leased it back to me once a month at exorbitant rates, the Tories will not get my vote"

Thankfully he has resigned and spared me that intemperate and very atypical reaction on this blog. Now for a more considered discussion…

What do we actually mean when we talk about the 'soul' of a political party? The normal understanding is a solid, immutable core, fixed in principle and impervious to events. In a world of near-constant political cross-dressing and regular rebranding this makes the concept of a party's soul a meaty target for political opponents. It's the ideal vehicle to let you tether the image of your opponents to an unpopular set of beliefs or historical outcomes – 'at heart they haven't changed' is a potent line of attack. So how do we apply the concept to the two main UK parties?

Trying to identify the 'soul' of the Labour party is an interesting game a decade and a half into 'the project'. Supporters adopt the 'traditional values in a modern setting' line, maintaining that Labour values of fairness and equality remain constant even if the means of application have changed. Depending on whether or not you're a supporter that explanation will bear weight but the description comes perilously close to a set of banal universal platitudes that no modern party would dissent from (the Tories aren't 'against' fairness or equality). You're also up against the distinction between 'soul' and 'values' and that tends to descend into semantic arguments that lose most people. Supporters would probably contest thisand it's not meant as a criticism but I think the Labour party have successfully exorcised the idea of a party soul – the collectivist socialist wing is now a comical rump and in the public consciousness Labour is defined more by the solutions it advocates rather than the outcomes it seeks. I'd content that's a healthy place for a party to be.

The Conservatives 'soul' is no less complex an idea. Small state, low-tax Conservatives would be one formulation but in an age where all the main utilities & transport companies are in private hands and the main income tax rate is about to hit 20% it becomes difficult again to sustain this idea as something completely unique to conservatism. The real danger for Conservatives is that their 'soul' is viewed in terms of social rather than economic terms – valiant though his efforts have been Cameron's party still carries unpleasant associations when it comes to race and sexuality and yesterday's events serve to highlight this. The disgraceful remarks by Nigel Hastilow and the chilling unqualified support from his constituency chairman demonstrate the gulf that still exists between the Cameron modernising set and elements in the wider party. Yes the leadership handled this with more aplomb than they've done before (Mercer, Winterton etc.) but that speaks to superficial, administrative changes – it says nothing (or perhaps everything) about the party's soul and where it sits in relation to the immigration question. Conservatives can't duck awkward question about the depth of Cameron's reforms if idiots like Hastilow still make their way onto PPC lists. I purposively didn't read many other blogs on the Hastilow row because I've been blogging long enough to know how the reaction pans out -absolute libertarians are probably banging on tiresomely about freedom of speech, ignorant simpletons are probably just saying 'he was right' and higher-profile, more moderate Tory bloggers issue a standard denunciation and then quickly move onto the 'reaction' itself and how the media 'didn't help'. Meanwhile out in the real world tens of thousands of apolitical moderate voters who'd been thinking positively about Cameron decide he may be OK but he's leading a bunch of idiots – the mountain that Cameron had almost scaled has suddenly doubled in size again.

It might herald a duller political age with debate revolving around competence rather than principle but I'd quite like to see the death of the concept of the 'political soul' – I suspect David Cameron is in a similar place today.

Labels: Politics

The Economist's Bagehot column this week on Gordon Brown's conflicting ideas about what the state should and shouldn't do:

Mr Brown's idea of the state turned out to be rather less liberal than his Hampstead-rousing rhetoric seemed to suggest.... He roped in lots of thinkers and writers to beautify his case but not one whom he sometimes brought to mind: Thomas Hobbes, with his Leviathan—the supreme authority to which individuals surrender some of their liberty in order to protect the rest of it. Mr Brown's diluted version is that his own Leviathan may take on new protective powers, if they are subjected to judicial and parliamentary oversight. Thus, despite his hymns to Milton, Orwell and the rest, Mr Brown implicitly justified the assorted liberty-eroding measures that Labour has enacted - circumventing the presumption of innocence, bypassing due process and so on.

..and then..

The idea of the state that emerges from this learned hotchpotch is one that knows it ought to be small, but somehow cannot resist getting bigger; a state that creates risks by trying too hard to eliminate them. So Mr Brown is not quite the grasping statist that some portray him as being. He understands that an overmighty executive is undesirable, and that arbitrary power is dangerous. He can see that the state alone is failing to teach every British child to read. All the same, his philosophy seems to boil down to this: government can indeed be trusted not to abuse its authority, and to meet all its citizens' needs—so long as the government in question is his.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Labels: Politics

I'm still reading the detail behind this myself and I'm far from endorsing every aspect of it but given some of the near hysterical commentary over the last couple of weeks on Scottish public spending it's nice to see the Glasgow Herald demonstrating that it's far from a simple issue...

Labels: Politics

In general I strive to avoid overt confrontation with other bloggers and I have no part