Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
- Makes points that no other journalist seems to be making
- Points that are pretty obvious when you think about it
- Points that I agree with...
This is what decent journalism is all about. Understanding your subject, not trying for the cheap 'gotcha', offering an insight into the subject for the layman, making a case coherently, doing it consistently without any ulterior motive. And being right.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
I was listening to a Podcast (ark at me!) from The Times a few weeks ago - an interview with Paul Weller. I remember him being interviewed in the late 1970s on TV - he had a hatchet of an accent then. You wouldn't think that there was a regional accent in Surrey, but our Paul had a peach of a one.
Today he has a nondescript middle England update of RP.
I listened to myself on that Little Atoms show a few weeks ago (admittedly, probably putting on my telephone voice) and my near-undetectable Stabbeau accent depressed the life out of me.
And - thankfully - there are no problems that she observes that wouldn't be largely solved by applying this blog's version of state funding' for political parties. (That is a link to one of my posts from a year ago, but I could have written it yesterday without many changes).
The problem with advocating this is that no opposition is likely to take such a moral high-ground and call for it, and without such cooperation, no government could introduce it.
Even though we've seen that the Tories have no greater track-record of administrative competence, the kremlinologists will always give them rich rewards for grandstanding rather than for being constructive. If this wasn't the case, I suspect that the Tories would be prepared to accept that the arrangements I'm advocating here would be just as much in their interests as they would be in Labour's.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The comments under these posts alone surely prove that the Popinjays have taken on this role perfectly well - without any of the negativists.
Monday, November 26, 2007
How many song-titles can you think of that are just a word spelled out?
(I've got two so far*: R.E.S.P.E.C.T. and D.I.V.O.R.C.E.).
And one other thing: A random question that I meant to ask ages ago and never got around to: What do we think of the general idea of happiness as a public policy goal?
(*Oh, alright. I admit that I nicked this from here).
Sir Christopher Foster - a long-standing adviser on economic policy - thought that this was a problem that has built up over twenty five years. His list of problems would not appear unfamiliar to anyone who has given this issue a sideways glance:
- too many initiatives,
- too many reorganisations,
- not enough planning,
- many more pieces of legislation.
- too much micro-managing by politicians,
- the overconfidence of politicians in their own abilities
And that's all well and good. But - again - why do politicians feel the need to constantly try new initiatives? Generally, if they aren't being seen to over-react to almost everything, they can expect a well-organised personal campaign against them from any one of a few thousand professional pressure groups.
An unwillingness to either comply - or loudly denounce - any one of these initiatives - will rapidly result in that career-ending verdict: 'Out of touch.'
And should the relatively small cadre of ministers in central government really be spending longer planning for difficulties? Surely, that's what the professionals in Whitehall are for?
Also, why do politicians feel the need to micro-manage everything? Is there really an 'overconfidence' in their own abilities?
Or is this the result of a well-observed lack of confidence among politicians that civil servants will do anything at all about public concerns unless they have a bossy minister breathing down their necks? Do ministers rapidly draw the conclusion that anything that they want doing, they will have to do themselves?
The problems, of course, are plain to see.
Ministers have to make decisions that are too big. Strong devolved regional government would massively reduce the pressure.
Civil servants don't share ministers desires to be seen to be governing. Quite the opposite. When the public want to see action, sometimes they need to be shown action. This is inevitable, surely, in a democracy? Yet, as long as we have a permanent (and amateur) civil service, this problem will always be with us.
We need a larger number of political appointments, and a culture of specialism that all of the parties can draw on and recruit from. This may improve the quality of ministers that we have to put up with as well.
And as long as pressure groups and the media are indulged in the way that they currently are, even the best ministers and the most competent and professional of bureaucracies will continue to command little confidence among the voters.
And as long as we have a media that is prepared to connive with overpaid Mandarins to discuss these problems entirely in the context of politicians' failings (why wasn't Sir Christopher given the kind of mullering that is usually reserved for a minister?), I doubt if anyone will spend much time thinking about the causes of poor administration in this country.
Friday, November 23, 2007
I use this blog partly to organise my own thoughts. So I'm going to point back at this post of my own from a while back for reference - a similar theme.
"The issue therefore is whether economic aid transferred by collective consent from the top of the socio-economic pyramid to the bottom is totalitarian.Elsewhere in Gracchi's piece, the balance of his argument is understandably aimed squarely at the open goal that right-wing libertarians offer: the dubious liberty of the beggar to eat caviar.
Various respectable bloggers on the right would definitely argue that case, but I think they are wrong. If you accept the definition of liberty that it is the absence of coercion, you then face a problem which libertarians are rather too keen to forget about, which is the definition of coercion and who can coerce. For the straightforward libertarian answer is that only the state can coerce, but that is obviously nonsense."
But I think that the word coercion provides a suitable jumping-off point. Douglas Rushkoff's notion of coercion, for instance, casts a useful light on another common theme of right-libertarians: A dislike for the concept of public service broadcasting.
The BBC is - I think for almost every English-speaking resident of these isles - fantastic value for money. For 37p a day, the radio alone is worth it. Chuck in the TV channels, the archives, the website, and the fact that Auntie provides a larger subsidy to the performing arts than the every other investor in the EU combined,* and the argument becomes almost unanswerable.
The vast majority of us have no complaint about the coercion of paying a licence fee, because it can allow us to continue enjoying this fantastic value at the expense of the minority who do.
Long may it continue. Because the alternative would be to expose my kids (and myself) to a constant stream of coercive advertising on TV. That would be coercion squared. On the one hand, continuously feeling incomplete without whatever tat that they are determined to flog me. And on the other, stuck in an expensive war of attrition that every parent has to fight when their children are exposed to advertisers.
It would cost us all a good deal more than 37p a day if some people had their way - and the level of investment in original content would fall through the floor at the same time.
There is something slightly bizarre in arguing with people who spend so much time painting liberal democracy as inherently totalitarian, while at the same time remaining silent about the powers of a profession that uses coercive subliminal techniques every day.
*OK. I can't source this figure any more - I could in the late 1990s, and I don't think it's changed, but I stand to be corrected.
Máirtín has let them off the hook, it seems.
I know that, when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. But surely the numb-nuts at Soho Square weren't going to risk hiring a Ulster taig who used to manage Celtic as their next manager?
I don't know how patriotic Villa fans felt about this one, but personally, I trace my lefty pro-EU disdain for Englishness to the English FA's ability to lure Brian (pbuh) away from Forest in the late-70s. My chauvinistic Irish family had nothing to do with it.
I resented their power to do so. When they didn't exercise that power, I saw the entire English establishment for what it is: A shower of morons.
Whoever gets this poison chalice will just become their latest scapegoat. Denis Wise is having a good season, isn't he? Could it happen to a nicer bloke?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
- Constant urge to re-organise everything - a permanently disoriented bureaucracy, permanently focused upon self-preservation
- Never-ending use of management consultants to draft re-organisation plans
- Increased demands from a mobile population that expects greater levels of 'choice'
- Inititivitis on the part of politicians - but no clearly stated long-term purpose
- Lots of 'audit', no 'inspection'
- A long-term collapse in the competence of public management
- Lack of any real attempt to hold bureaucracy to account by journalists
- Constant need to be seen to be cutting costs
- Regular changes of direction as a result of press / pressure group action
- Lack of a professional civil service
- Demotivated employees - no-one working there who believes (rationally, it would seem) that hard work will result in a better outcome than box-ticking
All civil servants are lazy cunts (here - passim). Genius!
Oddly, I think that the only politician who has grasped the problems, and shown any competence in offering a solution is Ken Livingstone. Rather than re-write my arguments, I'm going to cut-and-paste from a post I wrote over at The Trots some time ago. It wasn't - for the most part - an endorsement. Quite the opposite. But there are things about Ken that one can't help being impressed by. I said....
"...once in office – he was able to demonstrate why risk-averse political parties are often incapable of the kind of change that the public want. Where Blairite daleks would have drowned Ken's transport measures in a soup of consultation and consensus, Ken got on with it.If only Ken could drop his tipsy forays into gesture politics....
He drove through potentially unpopular policies that had articulate media-backed opponents, and he gave Labour an object lesson in how the real 'forces of conservatism' should be handled. It was often a joy to watch him presenting the Tory press with a stiff middle-fingered salute.
And when People In Pubs talk about problems, they expect clear-cut solutions of the kind that Ken offers, and political parties don't. Where Whitehall is stuffed with ineffectual self-perpetuating Sir Humphreys for whom a problem solved is a job abolished, Ken appears to have surrounded himself by fellow travellers who share his ambitions.
It's easy to be cynical about can't-do politicians boxed-in by tottering complex problems and irreconcilable vested interests. But Ken is the antidote to this. Independent-minded conviction politicians like him are – more than any other device – the means by which politicians and voters can be reconnected."
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
"An extravagant love of life lies at the heart of a sense of justice; anger at the cruelties of the world, at those who, due to their psychopathologies, megalomania, or attachment to malign ideologies, would drain the joy of life from others. So let's relish the sensuousness of existence and when our time is up be very pissed off indeed."
Friday, November 16, 2007
While I agree with Dave's conclusion ('stick with Labour'), his post contains a paragraph that sums up everything that makes me despair of most of the left.
Firstly, let me summarise what I'd regard as a sensible neo-Kautskyite ('ark at me!) position:
- Economic democracy will only be achieved by the maturation of liberal democracy
- When there is a tension between those who assert a general liberal position, and those who assert a democratic one, democratic socialists should should always side with the latter - secure in the knowledge that the democrats' illiberality is always overestimated
- Representative democracy is the highest form of liberal democracy. Any improvement towards this particular Burkean ideal deserves unreserved support. Any retreat from it should be opposed with every fibre.
"...historical experience shows that where Green parties do take off, they leave their radicalism well behind. The Realos take over from the Fundis, and the one-time soixante-huitard peaceniks end up cheerleading Nato bombing campaigns from the comfort of their ministerial limos."The problem Dave seems to find is that the 'Realos' grow up. The Nato bombing campaigns (I suspect that he's objecting to the endorsement of some European Green big-wigs for the liberation of Kosovo?) could be shorthand for any compromise. They could be shorthand for the kind of compromises that anyone who has been elected has to make in order to represent the interests of the nation as a whole.
I would argue that - in order to defend liberties and to promote economic democracy - it is essential that political representatives should abandon the sloganeering and posturing that is designed for their own supporters and embrace the need to prove the quality of their judgement by addressing immediate problems. The individual issues are less important that the requirement that every democratic socialist has to be - first and foremost - a democrat.
More importantly, no democrat can ever chose to perform for the gallery of their activist base over the general public. Knocking on doors does not - in itself - entitle one to influence. The problem with the Green Party is not that the 'Realos' will always get into arguments with their purists. It is that purists are given house room at all in The Green Party.
Thankfully, there is a political logic that supports this. Parties that aren't able to ignore their activists suffer electorally as a consequence. In the 1980s, the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy - with its attempts at mandating MPs and making them directly accountable to the swivel-eyed fruitcakes that turn up to every CLP meeting (and encouraging them to ignore those that didn't) - brought the party to the brink of destruction.
The Ulster Unionist Party was similarly traduced a few years ago by the constant recall of it's representatives by it's most obsessive activists. John Major's government found itself in a cleft-stick between it's need to run the country and appease the demands of Theresa Gorman in the mid-1990s. And - thankfully - the Tories must be starting to get worried about it's bloggertarians for similar reasons today.
Direct democracy kills political parties.
And when Dave cites the example of economic liberals regrouping in the 1950s to give birth to Thatcherism a quarter of a century later (he quite rightly approves of their strategy, if not their success) he argues that the left should go on a similar long march, promoting individual policies and values.
The Tory right didn't bang on about specific demands for all of that time though. They recognised that strategic value that reactionaries would draw from the advancement of economic liberalism. There are economic liberals who aren't reactionaries - but that didn't matter. The result was socially regressive.
Similarly, we on the left should recognise the instrumental value of advancing the highest principles of liberal democracy - particularly, the non-negotiable primacy of representative democracy. There are plenty of democrats that aren't socialists. But that doesn't matter. They are our allies. The result will be socially progressive.
The left will not succeed by promoting worker control or environmental prescriptions. We don't know how to apply the former with any success and we don't have any joint positions on the latter. If we want socialistic policies, we should simply promote democracy for now. The rest will fall into place of its own accord.
I went for a quick nose-around St Pancras the other day, but it was still a big building site. I think it'll be nice when it finishes though. Here's Left Lion's recollections of old St Pancras from the perspective of a Nottingham-based Jam fan.
Anyway, it's Friday. So here's three little bits of Jam-inspired trivia to be going on with.
Further to the discussion of all things Jam here and here....
1. Give me your nominations for 'most underrated Jam song' - in the comments. Once I've got the nominations in, I'll do a poll.
So far, in the comments here, I've had 'Happy Together' (my fav), It's Too Bad, Absolute Beginners and Tales from the Riverbank.
2. Give me a list of records that are obvious Beatle rip-offs. I'll start with...
- It's Too Bad - The Jam
- Start All Over - Kula Shaker
- Goodbye Girl - Squeeze
- Four Seasons in One Day - Crowded House
- Don't Look Back in Anger - Oasis
3. It's an important weekend for those geniuses in Respect. Any suggestions for a theme tune (I've already done some piss-poor ones in the comments over on the Ingrate's post).
The show has been archived (mp3), with me using the telephone voice that my mum used to make me use.
Regular visitors will not hear much that hasn't been written up at least a dozen times. I referred to a study that Tom Steinberg had cited here some time ago, offering evidence about how an increasingly customised and personalised media offering is (or isn't, it turns out) driving us into anti-social cul-de-sacs.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
And - on the subject of The Jam, wasn't Happy Together their most overlooked tune? I think so.
And while we're on the subject of early 1980s high-points, surely there has never been a better pop video than this one?
It’s a tale of a protestant man who slits his wife’s throat, and then – shortly afterwards – does away with himself.
There are a number of variations that arise, no doubt, from it’s propagation through the oral tradition.
Here are the top two results from my Google search for it. There are differences. The dénouement illustrates the confusion that loyalists had in the early 20th century: The Germans had wiped out almost the entire young northern working class in hours on the Somme. But – as the century moved on - the priest-ridden farmer state to the south replaced the Hun as the prime enemy.
".....what is interesting about it is the way that American Gangster reflects a society in which doing your job has become the substitute for an ethic. We all know why that is- in the longterm it is sensible not to be pettily corrupt- but that doesn't work obviously with all levels of potential income and the truth is that if you discount public service, there is no reason not to aim for what you can collect. The ethos of ego clashes in this film with the ethos of the job and it isn't obvious that the job wins- its clear that in the long run letting your ego rip leads to disaster, in the long run we are all dead, but it is also clear that not doing so leaves us with the question we would like to ask Iago:Good blog, Westminster Wisdom, innit?
What is the motive of a motiveless malignity?"
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
All of this bloggertarian business got picked up a bit more than I expected. If you haven't been following it, it started with an exchange of unpleasantries in which right-wing genius Devil's Kitchen called me seven kinds of cunt because I'd written this post arguing that many self-styled libertarians were really just right-wing negativists. It all inspired this post over at the Trots and escalated from there.
Devil's Kitchen offered this by way of response and has now provided some links to his back pages to prove that he is not - in fact - negativist at all. Oh no. Not a negativist. Certainly not.
Item one is a post ('Carnival of Polly Kicking #3') which is 'excoriating' (trans: swearing at) Polly Toynbee ("liar", "fool", "shut the fuck up" and "thieving cunt". Oh - sorry - that last one was aimed at Gordon Brown).
Have a look if you like. Libertarian? Well, it shouts about a few totemic libertarian objectives I suppose, but it's prime motivation appears to be to advance a position that is as far as possible, the direct opposite of anything Polly Toynbee would argue for.
If you can find anything that acknowledges where we are, that understands the various actors and institutions or that offers any recognisable road-map that supporters of his proposals could follow .... well good luck. No-one who really would like to see a smaller government could take any comfort from the fact that so many Bloggertarians are appropriating the word 'libertarianism'.
It's claim to non-negativism seems to rest entirely on a back-of-the-fag-packet outline of how a Citizen's Basic Income could work. It's hardly original (I think I've visited at least a dozen blogs that advocate a CBI - but I've never seen one that offers any advice on how any electable politician would be able to implement it). I'm waiting in hope by the way - I quite like the idea in principle. But - in passing - none of the Bloggertarians ever address the question of how you can have a CBI without ID cards?
And that's it. There are a number of other posts in the list that we're asked to consider as proof that DK isn't a negativist. Check them out.
- Privatise schools!
- Sack all of the civil servants!
- Global warming is all made up by doom-mongers!
- Privatise pensions!
All of them based on an utterly ahistoric assessment of modern institutions and power-structures. Most of them are - in themselves - complete electoral liabilities. No counterfactuals. Not really anything that would pass as argument outside of the semi-religious circle-jerk that crops up in the comments boxes of sites like that.
Instead of there being historical processes that could be altered by recognisable forces, we are offered a list of cunts (teachers, civil servants, politicians, Polly Toynbee), and a list of largely unargued demands for ultra-Thatcherite excesses.
This isn't libertarianism. It is simply numb-skulled Poujadism. The cherished themes that aren't electoral liabilities (leave the EU!) would not be possible to argue without accompanying policies that would be electoral liabilities. No wonder these people's understanding of 'democracy' stretches little beyond a demand for referendums on a variety of cherished stand-alone issues.
And where am I going with this? Well, in the comments under my post at The Trots, things rapidly descended into a slightly asymmetrical argument. A number of the commenters argued that there is no point in bickering with the Bloggertarians because it is a bit like engaging with creationists.
It's a fair point. If your base position is so ignorant of history and your diagnosis of society's problems are so ... weird ... then surely any further reasoning is a waste of time? If you really think that "under New Labour, the UK has become subject to a Sociofascist, Autocratic and borderline Kleptocracy" then you really have (to borrow a phrase from Shuggy) went and done and gone and lost your damn mind.
On the other hand, are lots of complicated know your enemy arguments. On a more civilised level, you learn something when you have a more sober argument with a fairly reasonable Tory (again, here's oneinspired by this spat). The Bloggertarians - whatever they claim - have a gravitational pull on The Conservative Party. In these arguments, Tories will always side with the Bloggertarians. Like UKIP, they are the Tories 'Id'.
Know what they are arguing for today, and you can see where The Stupid Party is heading tomorrow. It's a two way trade, even with the self-styled left-bloggertarians. Allies - or objective allies? Take your pick. My argument for picking these fights is that - if you write about Bloggertarians - your comments box becomes a very good Petri Dish.
But sod that. There's another good reason for picking fights with them. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. It's therapy for people who aren't so ill that they have to write 5 x 1000 word posts calling everyone a cunt every day. It helps you gird your soul and see the enemy for what it is. Anti-democratic. Negativist. A liability to any party stupid enough to regard them as allies or an asset of any kind.
And a complete and utter shower of cunts.
Update: Proof of the Petri dish argument: There are lady-Bloggertarians as well! Now I'd never have believed it possible until I saw this which I found in the comments here. I'm beginning to feel sorry for the Tories.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
In the same post, there's a bit of scepticism from the DUP about the Tory motives in promoting a Grand Committee. Mick points out that this could be important in the event of a hung parliament.
All of this prompts me to re-fly an old kite of mine.
I still think that there is a simple magic bullet here - regional constituent assemblies that take over the democratic oversight of all regional governmental entities - made up of existing Councillors, and initially elected by the Councillors.
This idea has a number of unique virtues:
- It would be achievable without a massive increase in the cost of bureaucracy (indeed, there is a case to be made that it would ultimately reduce it)
- It could be done at fairly short notice, in an ad-hoc way to start with
- It would not be seen as a significant 'constitutional' change (regulars may recall the I find the notion of constitutional change in the UK a bit of an odd subject)
- It would be seen as bringing government closer to the public
- It would neutralise many of the problems caused by asymmetrical devolution (Scot / Welsh assemblies, but none in England)
- It would be much more acceptable - politically - than a single English parliament.
- All of the major parties could accept it - it doesn't jar with any of their traditional stances on local government
- It would be a pilot scheme - because it is uncontroversial, I doubt that it would excite the kind of opposition that would require the current Government to nail it's colours to it too firmly (or be opposed too stridently by the Tories or the Lib-Dems). It could be a genuine 'let's see how it goes' exercise.
- It would increase the legitimacy of local elections and make them more contentious and relevant
- It would underline the need for democratic capacity-building among local Councillors - they would need to improve their communications / consultation skills if they wanted to be selected to join the constituent assembly
- It would provide a new channel into mainstream politics for people who are not career politicos.
That would not be a good enough reason to really oppose this now.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Good post here. Takes a well-aimed swipe at my prejudice that a knee-jerk rejection of the political mainstream is always a bit mindless.
I mean, it *is* still nearly always mindless. But not always, apparently.
"the key problem in education today - sub-standard teachers who are not fantastic. The obvious thing to do is to get rid of them and draw from the deep well of latent fantasticness out there. Recruiting the less than fantastic ones was, in hindsight, something of a mistake."Regular readers of Shuggy will be amused to hear (as I did over the weekend on a Radio 4 programme - can't remember which) how post-16 education is done in the Army.
Apparently, the average reading age of a squaddie isn't that impressive, but they've had some success in improving it.
How do they do it? The consensus appears to be 'press-ups - and lots of them.' It works apparently.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Via the boy Rubbish (by email), here is the man himself foreseeing the witless combination of bloggertarians, kremlinologists and fuckwits of the Rory Bremner variety.
It is well known that a certain kind of psychology explains big things by means of small causes and, correctly sensing that everything for which man struggles is a matter of his interest, arrives at the incorrect opinion that there are only "petty" interests, only the interests of a stereotyped self-seeking.
Further, it is well known that this kind of psychology and knowledge of mankind is to be found particularly in towns, where moreover it is considered the sign of a clever mind to see through the world and perceive that behind the passing clouds of ideas and facts there are quite small, envious, intriguing manikins, who pull the strings setting everything in motion.
However, it is equally well known that if one looks too closely into a glass, one bumps one's own head, and hence these clever people's knowledge of mankind and the universe is primarily a mystified bump of their own heads.
Stop press: Latest news: Fuck You Alan Johnson, I'm off for a fry-up!!?!?!???!!! Genius!
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
His outline looks interesting. I'd suggest that his 'possible roles' could include the fostering of a more conversational civil space that can promote more localised dialogues on matters of policy (as opposed to Westminster-centric spitting matches about politics).
Monday, November 05, 2007
Rise like Lions after slumberIn thirty years time, don't forget where you first read about the The British People's Alliance, will you?
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many - they are few.
The argument goes like this. The really popular blogs are not analytical enough, and tend to be echo chambers for media style gossip. Ergo they impoverish blogging.OK. I'll try:
The post on Westminster Wisdom was sparked by this post by Sunny on Pickled Politics. The post was titled "Challenging the elites, and the blogs" and made the same point about the current state of UK blogs and also goes on to the say that there is elitism in the NGOs, think tank etc towards blogs because of their impoverished debate level as already mentioned.
Isn't it wonderfuly amusing, and dare I say beautifuly ironic to see someone bemoaning blogs for being tabloid and requesting that debate be raised to higher purpose analysis away from the dumbed down masses, whilst simultaneously moaning about elitism outside the world of blogs?
I would agree that "really popular blogs are not analytical enough, and tend to be echo chambers for media style gossip." Not blogs in general, but really popular blogs. In the case of political blogs, you have to do something to become really popular, it seems. You have to provide a hospitable place for trolls in your comments box and you have to write knockabout posts that simplify and personalise issues.
There are plenty of sites that don't chose to do this though. Dizzy will have seen one of these when he visited Westminster Wisdom - and there are plenty more to chose from if he could tear himself away from the fuckwits in Iain Dale's sidebar for a bit longer.
The next observation - that "there is elitism in the NGOs, think tank etc towards blogs because of their impoverished debate level as already mentioned" - is hardly a difficult one to understand. NGOs and think-tankists do turn away from the blogosphere rapidly because it takes a while to realise that there is a world beyond the more popular herd of independent minds that make up the popular blogs.
If NGOs and Think Tanks were more aware of the less popular sites - the ones that aren't that interested in attracting hordes of spEak You're bRaines types, then this would change.
As I said yesterday, the reasons that is is not massively rewarding to use blogs in an interesting, deliberative way may dissolve into thin air when the technology gets better at back-tracking and collaborative filtering. Then, maybe, the people who are actually paid to wonk may find time to ferret out the good stuff that we amateurs have been reading for ages.
I fear that Chris is too patient in his defence of the term liberal left. He could, far more easily, gone on the offensive against the notion of a liberal right.
"I have a problem with this whole "liberal-Left" issue: to me, the terms are near incompatible. Many of us have long argued that the terms Left and Right are effectively meaningless, and that the actual fight is between those who are statist...and those who are free-market libertarians."
You can see the problem with it by revisiting Mr Eugenedes' point. Bloggertarians, as he points out, will always gravitate towards something pragmatic, right-wing and populist like the Conservative Party or possibly UKIP, because they don't have any positions of their own that could be sold to a sceptical public. They have a critique, of course - and the bloggertarian position is absolutely stupendous as a standpoint from which to oppose something.
But if you ask a right-wing libertarian to explain what they would actually do on any given subject (with an audience consisting of some members of the general public, as opposed to wonks from the Adam Smith Institute) ... well, don't hold your breath waiting for anything coherent.
Here's what I mean. Have a quick look around a few bloggertarian sites. It's easy enough to find out what they are against. In the example of 'law and order', generally it's...
- ID Cards
- DNA databases
- Police powers in general (though the distinction between bloggertarians and libertarians is that they only oppose police powers where they are endorsed by a Labour PM).
For example, let's look at what a more libertarian alternative to a publicly funded and accountable police force would look like. How will it be funded, in whose interests will it operate as a consequence? What powers will this atomised entity be provided with? How would the end of socially-funded policing impact upon the environment that we live in? Would there be less CCTV? Less by way of gated communities and general obstructions in the way of the free individual walking about where they please?
I don't think so.
Would commercial risk aversion demand that we have more robust means of proving our identity? Will well-heeled lawyers be able to demand access to any information held by organisations that verify our identity, should such organisations exist? Will we wish to provide these atomised entities that we pay to look after our personal security some kind of legal leeway to make mistakes? Or will every standard of the law apply to them even though we expect them to constantly place themselves in situations that demand the use of force or coercion in our interests?
Will we be a more, or less regulated society? Will we be more or less intruded upon? Will life generally be fairer? Will our initial choice of womb be any less of a future-defining decision than it is now?
In this case, I'm pretty sure that market liberalism would result in less of what most people would call liberty.
In the meantime, any examples of bloggertarians not simply being negativists would be greatly appreciated.
"Some of us would be very happy to see the rabid side of the Tory Party defect to the right."I still don't know whether I agree with it or not.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
"I reckon lots of smart people start blogging and don't find it rewarding because they don't get into a community whose praise and criticism can make it worthwhile. That community is what those of us who want to see a more thoughtful blogosphere should all try to build."I'd agree with his conclusion, but I think that the technology isn't quite there yet to support the development. Blog-posts disappear from view shortly after they are written in most cases. They aren't captured and indexed in a consistent way, and 'backlinks' aren't sufficiently effective or consistently applied. There isn't a fully developed form of 'collaborative filtering' in place yet (though this is developing all the time in different forms).
I keep emphasising the 'yet' bit of those sentences because it's pertinent.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere - a lovely journal of what happens when we are invited to Have Your Say. One for the blogroll - definitely. And high up.
Can we have one for The Guardian's Comment is Free? And for Iain Dale's site? And Harry's Place?
Hat tip: James, Paul and Padraig - all via Facebook.
Friday, November 02, 2007
But on the other hand, he is capable of adopting positions that are so disgraceful that he is almost impossible to vote for.
Good Ken / Bad Ken. Today, on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme (Real Audio File), Good Ken came to the fore. As every other politician either scuttled for cover, equivocated, or jumped upon a negativist bandwagon, Ken stood tall and said what any responsible political leader needed to say. And he said it with conviction.
"Police officers operated against suicide bombers in conditions of extreme danger - and subject to strains - both of risk to themselves and of their desire to safeguard Londoners lives, that no one not in their position can understand.
Health and safety legislation was not drawn up for such extreme situations.
This verdict makes the struggle to defend Londoners against terrorism more difficult. The shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes was a tragedy but the safety of all Londoners must not be undermined in a struggle against terrorism that goes on every day."
I expect that the Tories and the Lib Dems will get their scalp in the end though. The journalistic profession doesn't even have a place in it's gearbox that allows it to emote responsibly.
"2nd November 2007. When they were stuck for a guest and invited that bloke with borderline Tourettes on."