On Friday I am off to Harrogate for what promises to be a truly exciting event. I refer of course not to the Lib Dem conference itself, but the launch there of the publishing sensation of the year – the Dictionary of Liberal Thought, which is the latest venture into hard covers by the Liberal Democrat History Group. It is the definitive guide to the world’s greatest political philosophy.
Modesty of course prevents me from mentioning that I have played a small role in its publication as part of the editorial group responsible for producing the book and also that it includes three entries written by me. Most of the really hard work was done by the indefatigable Duncan Brack and the excellent Ed Randall. It also includes contributions by many distinguished political historians. Lib Dem bloggers will be particularly interested in the article by the late Sir Karl Popper on the political thought of our own dear Lord Bonkers.
The book retails at £35.00, but I see it is also available via Amazon for £23.10. Doubtless there will be some kind of discount for LDHG members (although I can’t swear to this).
Of course, such is the richness and variety of the prose that many readers will not be content merely to own one copy. Since it is the sort of book one can dip into at any time for enlightenment and inspiration, as a minimum it is advisable to have one on the bookshelf to impress visitors, another on the bedside table for late-night reading and another at one’s place of work.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Labour – don't cha love ‘em?
There has been another gap in this blog over the last couple of weeks. This has been largely due to my having to write and present a seminar at the Institute of Historical Research on the topic of ‘Herbert Gladstone and Liberal-Labour relations’ between 1892 and 1905. This was quite a formal affair that couldn’t be dashed off in a couple of hours.
The core of my thesis is that contrary to the views of many Liberals of the ‘We was robbed’ school of thought, the promotion of Labour candidates by the Liberal party at this time was a logical and necessary step. The views of Labour and Liberal politicians of that time were pretty much identical and the Gladstone-MacDonald pact of 1903 that gave birth to the parliamentary Labour party was the only possible way of increasing working class representation in Parliament.
In between times, I have been engaging in a furious exchange of letters in the pages of the Watford Observer with members of the Labour party in Watford. My main theme has been what a disaster their party has been for the country in general and Watford in particular and that only the Liberal Democrats offer a serious alternative for progressive politics in Britain.
The core of my thesis is that contrary to the views of many Liberals of the ‘We was robbed’ school of thought, the promotion of Labour candidates by the Liberal party at this time was a logical and necessary step. The views of Labour and Liberal politicians of that time were pretty much identical and the Gladstone-MacDonald pact of 1903 that gave birth to the parliamentary Labour party was the only possible way of increasing working class representation in Parliament.
In between times, I have been engaging in a furious exchange of letters in the pages of the Watford Observer with members of the Labour party in Watford. My main theme has been what a disaster their party has been for the country in general and Watford in particular and that only the Liberal Democrats offer a serious alternative for progressive politics in Britain.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Why Unionists get such bad PR
I’m grateful again to Jonathan Calder for drawing my attention to this example of control-freakery by the Democratic Unionist Party, which is asking their candidates to sign a contract committing them to support party policy.
This one little incident demonstrates why Ulster unionists have such bad public relations. I can’t imagine the Sinn Fein leadership tolerating it for too long if their elected representatives demonstrate quirky, maverick views that contravene official policy. But somehow these things will be well understood without having to be spelled out.
By contrast it is typical that the more literal-minded unionists will want party loyalty rules put in black and white, so that there is no ambiguity. And perhaps typical too that at least one among their number should find it unacceptable and leak the story to the press.
For anyone wanting to understand more about the cultural differences between Unionist and Nationalist/Republican politics I recommend this article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.
This one little incident demonstrates why Ulster unionists have such bad public relations. I can’t imagine the Sinn Fein leadership tolerating it for too long if their elected representatives demonstrate quirky, maverick views that contravene official policy. But somehow these things will be well understood without having to be spelled out.
By contrast it is typical that the more literal-minded unionists will want party loyalty rules put in black and white, so that there is no ambiguity. And perhaps typical too that at least one among their number should find it unacceptable and leak the story to the press.
For anyone wanting to understand more about the cultural differences between Unionist and Nationalist/Republican politics I recommend this article by Ruth Dudley Edwards.
Phil Willis for President (of 'Liberals Against Choice')
Magpie-like, I shall seize on a couple of items from Liberal England that highlight stories I missed when I was away.
Phil Willis’s opposition to parental choice in schools is predictable but still annoying. It is a similar attitude to that displayed by Don Foster on casinos (see previous post). Both seem to have a paternalist, almost Fabian, attitude, with a touching faith that experts know best. ‘You see, the people, the poor dears, they don’t know what’s good for them.’ I can’t imagine that Willis or Foster stop for a second to consider how their pronouncements relate to liberalism either with a small or large L.
And yet somehow they escape the opprobrium that many defenders of Liberalism within the party pour on the likes of Mark Oaten. Although I have by no means always agreed with Mark, at least he genuinely did try to think about the nature of Liberalism and much of what he said was simply about changing how we present our views. By contrast, I find it almost impossible to recognise anything Liberal about many of the public views of Willis and Foster.
Phil Willis’s opposition to parental choice in schools is predictable but still annoying. It is a similar attitude to that displayed by Don Foster on casinos (see previous post). Both seem to have a paternalist, almost Fabian, attitude, with a touching faith that experts know best. ‘You see, the people, the poor dears, they don’t know what’s good for them.’ I can’t imagine that Willis or Foster stop for a second to consider how their pronouncements relate to liberalism either with a small or large L.
And yet somehow they escape the opprobrium that many defenders of Liberalism within the party pour on the likes of Mark Oaten. Although I have by no means always agreed with Mark, at least he genuinely did try to think about the nature of Liberalism and much of what he said was simply about changing how we present our views. By contrast, I find it almost impossible to recognise anything Liberal about many of the public views of Willis and Foster.
The evils of pedestrian guardrails
Where I was in fuller agreement with Alan Duncan was over his strictures against street clutter – he made reference to a roundabout near Kettering where he counted more than 200 poles, signs etc.
This is hardly a new issue. My own bugbear is the hideous pedestrian guardrails, that seem to be installed as part of almost any new urban traffic scheme. In theory they are designed to protect the pedestrian. But in fact they box us in, restrict our freedom and make roads look like racetracks so that drivers feel more confident in going faster.
The one council that has really tried to counter this ‘clutter culture’ is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Conservative, unfortunately, not Lib Dem), whose Kensington High Street improvements scheme was based on creating a pedestrian-friendly environment through the removal of excess ‘street furniture’.
I understand that the council had great difficulty getting the scheme past the safety fascists because it broke many of the supposed rules of such scheme – for example cycle parking racks on a central reservation.
This is hardly a new issue. My own bugbear is the hideous pedestrian guardrails, that seem to be installed as part of almost any new urban traffic scheme. In theory they are designed to protect the pedestrian. But in fact they box us in, restrict our freedom and make roads look like racetracks so that drivers feel more confident in going faster.
The one council that has really tried to counter this ‘clutter culture’ is the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (Conservative, unfortunately, not Lib Dem), whose Kensington High Street improvements scheme was based on creating a pedestrian-friendly environment through the removal of excess ‘street furniture’.
I understand that the council had great difficulty getting the scheme past the safety fascists because it broke many of the supposed rules of such scheme – for example cycle parking racks on a central reservation.
Are the Tories for real about localism?
The gap in postings has been at least in part because I have been away at the Local Government Association urban conference in Newcastle.
I heard Alan Duncan, the Conservatives’ Shadow Secretary for Trade, Industry and Energy argue for more autonomy and powers for local government. This seems a bit rich given that during their last 18 years in power the Tories went to almost any lengths to avoid giving extra powers to councils and to take away as many as they could. I mischievously asked whether this conversion was genuine or just because he was speaking to a local government conference. The reply was pretty noncommittal.
It seems all opposition parties sing the praises of local choice and autonomy until they get into power, when the dead hand of the Treasury takes over. And yet the optimist in me keeps hoping that a consensus is emerging that excessive central control of public services just has not worked.
So right now the Liberal Democrats, as a party committed to decentralisation, should be leading the debate and building on the report of the Huhne Commission of a few years ago. Yet somehow I’m still not hearing it and the lacklustre policy paper on local government submitted to the last conference (and rightly rejected) gave a sense that we are resting on our laurels.
Part of the problem is that we are a party dominated by campaigners and matters like the balance of responsibilities between central and local government hardly make for exciting newsletter copy. Yet campaigning is surely about more than just winning votes in a given election, but about changing the intellectual climate in our favour.
I heard Alan Duncan, the Conservatives’ Shadow Secretary for Trade, Industry and Energy argue for more autonomy and powers for local government. This seems a bit rich given that during their last 18 years in power the Tories went to almost any lengths to avoid giving extra powers to councils and to take away as many as they could. I mischievously asked whether this conversion was genuine or just because he was speaking to a local government conference. The reply was pretty noncommittal.
It seems all opposition parties sing the praises of local choice and autonomy until they get into power, when the dead hand of the Treasury takes over. And yet the optimist in me keeps hoping that a consensus is emerging that excessive central control of public services just has not worked.
So right now the Liberal Democrats, as a party committed to decentralisation, should be leading the debate and building on the report of the Huhne Commission of a few years ago. Yet somehow I’m still not hearing it and the lacklustre policy paper on local government submitted to the last conference (and rightly rejected) gave a sense that we are resting on our laurels.
Part of the problem is that we are a party dominated by campaigners and matters like the balance of responsibilities between central and local government hardly make for exciting newsletter copy. Yet campaigning is surely about more than just winning votes in a given election, but about changing the intellectual climate in our favour.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Fostering illiberalism
Stephen Tall has beaten me to exposing Don Foster's ill-considered and illiberal response to the announcement of Manchester's successful bid to host the first regional super casino.
I have often complained about the tendency of some Lib Dem spokespersons to be more nannyish and anti-fun even than New Labour. Foster is among the very worst offenders, previous transgressions being attacking the rail industry for not installing CCTV in all stations and the hysterical scaremongering in 2005 about the effects of the Licensing Bill.
One further absurdity of his reaction is the attempt to invoke local choice to defend a centralist policy. One reason he gives for opposing any further super casions is that they are 'against the... concerns of many local communities.'
Yes, Don, but not necessarily against the wishes of the communities that submitted bids to host super casinos. Otherwise they wouldn't have bid, would they now? And those local communities that are against super casinos can just decide not to bid. It's called local decision-making. It's something the Liberal Democrats are supposed to be in favour of, along with individual freedom. Don Foster evidently either doesn't understand or doesn't much like either concept.
I have often complained about the tendency of some Lib Dem spokespersons to be more nannyish and anti-fun even than New Labour. Foster is among the very worst offenders, previous transgressions being attacking the rail industry for not installing CCTV in all stations and the hysterical scaremongering in 2005 about the effects of the Licensing Bill.
One further absurdity of his reaction is the attempt to invoke local choice to defend a centralist policy. One reason he gives for opposing any further super casions is that they are 'against the... concerns of many local communities.'
Yes, Don, but not necessarily against the wishes of the communities that submitted bids to host super casinos. Otherwise they wouldn't have bid, would they now? And those local communities that are against super casinos can just decide not to bid. It's called local decision-making. It's something the Liberal Democrats are supposed to be in favour of, along with individual freedom. Don Foster evidently either doesn't understand or doesn't much like either concept.
Sidmouth wreck reminiscences
As the MSC Napoli salvage operation gets under way, I note Rod Liddle in last week's Spectator reminds us of the last notorious wreck on the Sidmouth coast. Back in 1974 a hovercraft sank after trying unsuccessfully to gain access to Sidmouth harbour. As Liddle puts it:
As the craft flapped pointlessly in the surf, many yards from shore, a magisterial figure in a smart suit emerged from within its bowels and waded, with steadfast expression and immense resolve, through the waves, a look of destiny upon his face. People looked on in amazement and trepidation. For it was the Right Honourable Jeremy Thorpe MP — and he’d come to do a spot of canvassing.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Belated Burns' night thoughts
I failed to post on the 300th anniversary of the Union and on Burns Night. For the latter I plead the effects of a heavy cold that meant neither haggis nor whisky was consumed.
As I sign off again for a few days, I would merely encourage readers to look at this article by Michael Fry writing in a recent edition of Prospect. Fry advocates independence for Scotland, largely because it would create a real political debate and ideological choice north of the border.
It has long struck me that it is an odd political system where three of the four largest parties are centre/left and essentially collectivist, as is the case in Scotland. While I am sure that the Lib Dems have done good things in coalition, the most frequently trumpeted achievements - free care for the elderly, abolishing tuition fees and a smoking ban - may be worthy enough of themselves but are not really distinctively Liberal policies.
So without necessarily agreeing, I see Michael Fry's point.
As I sign off again for a few days, I would merely encourage readers to look at this article by Michael Fry writing in a recent edition of Prospect. Fry advocates independence for Scotland, largely because it would create a real political debate and ideological choice north of the border.
It has long struck me that it is an odd political system where three of the four largest parties are centre/left and essentially collectivist, as is the case in Scotland. While I am sure that the Lib Dems have done good things in coalition, the most frequently trumpeted achievements - free care for the elderly, abolishing tuition fees and a smoking ban - may be worthy enough of themselves but are not really distinctively Liberal policies.
So without necessarily agreeing, I see Michael Fry's point.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
That adoption row: Christian morality or thinly-veiled bigotry?
It is not so very long ago that a significant proportion of the population would have accepted, at least as an aspiration, the view of most Christian churches that sex was something that should happen within marriage, meaning heterosexual marriage. Views on sexual morality have changed – and a good thing too. By not altering its teaching to move with the tiems, the Roman Catholic Church has come to appear at best anachronistic, and at worst bigoted. Even most practising Catholics have moved on and their views on divorce, gay and lesbian rights, contraception and abortion tend to have more in common with non-Catholics than with the Pope.
And yet, like it or not, Christianity is part of national life. Christian organisations have a long tradition of doing humanitarian and philanthropic work, so the notion that they cannot follow the Church’s teaching in so doing. I can see how it might feel that Christian organisations are being prevented from following Christian morality in the way they work.
For me, as a Liberal and a Catholic, I can understand both sides’ point of view. The question is whether the Church is genuinely concerned to abide by the tenets of its own teaching or whether it is just engaging in a sly bit of homophobia. If the former then no doubt the Catholic adoption agencies refuse to give babies for adoption to heterosexual couples who are cohabiting or where one or both parties have previously been divorced.
If the point is that these agencies exist to find Catholic homes for Catholic children then just possibly it’s fair to allow them to discriminate in favour of couples who are within a marital unit that the Church recognises. Otherwise it might be difficult to bring the children up as Catholics.
If it is just same-sex couples who are being singled out, then the churches’ moral case falls to the ground.
And yet, like it or not, Christianity is part of national life. Christian organisations have a long tradition of doing humanitarian and philanthropic work, so the notion that they cannot follow the Church’s teaching in so doing. I can see how it might feel that Christian organisations are being prevented from following Christian morality in the way they work.
For me, as a Liberal and a Catholic, I can understand both sides’ point of view. The question is whether the Church is genuinely concerned to abide by the tenets of its own teaching or whether it is just engaging in a sly bit of homophobia. If the former then no doubt the Catholic adoption agencies refuse to give babies for adoption to heterosexual couples who are cohabiting or where one or both parties have previously been divorced.
If the point is that these agencies exist to find Catholic homes for Catholic children then just possibly it’s fair to allow them to discriminate in favour of couples who are within a marital unit that the Church recognises. Otherwise it might be difficult to bring the children up as Catholics.
If it is just same-sex couples who are being singled out, then the churches’ moral case falls to the ground.
Nil nisi bunkum
I was uncomfortable with the overly fulsome tributes the other week to Loyalist leader David Ervine, examples aplenty here. So I was pleased to read a typically forthright ripose from Ruth Dudley Edwards here.
One of the sad things for me about media coverage of the Northern Ireland peace process is the way that reporters are so indulgent of those with nasty paramilitary pasts, so long as they can master inclusive language and Guardian speak.
Had a former Alliance Party leader died suddenly, it is hard to imagine that they would have received the kind of eulogies afforded Ervine by the great and the good, nor the same level of media coverage. And yet the likes of John Alderdice or Oliver Napier have devoted their lives to opposing sectarianism and promoting peace.
Ervine's political party had negligible political support and his terrorist organisation failed to disarm. But because he managed to sound like a Guardian editorial, Ervine is hailed as a great man of peace.l
One of the sad things for me about media coverage of the Northern Ireland peace process is the way that reporters are so indulgent of those with nasty paramilitary pasts, so long as they can master inclusive language and Guardian speak.
Had a former Alliance Party leader died suddenly, it is hard to imagine that they would have received the kind of eulogies afforded Ervine by the great and the good, nor the same level of media coverage. And yet the likes of John Alderdice or Oliver Napier have devoted their lives to opposing sectarianism and promoting peace.
Ervine's political party had negligible political support and his terrorist organisation failed to disarm. But because he managed to sound like a Guardian editorial, Ervine is hailed as a great man of peace.l
Monday, January 22, 2007
The Today programme - alarmist and simplistic
Unusually this morning, I listened attentively to much of the Today programme. That is to say, I wasn’t either in a half sleep or rushing to get ready for work. A couple of the items, both presented by Sarah Montague, highlighted two of the things I dislike about the programme – its' love of alarmism and simplistic solutions.
When the person in charge of the anti-pollution work on the ship grounded off Sidmouth stated that the situation was under control, Ms Montague’s disappointment was almost audible. She spent the rest of the interview trying to get the interviewee to backtrack. The more reassuring he was, the more incredulous she sounded.
A couple of items later, she interviewed health minister Ivan Lewis about his campaign to improve the quality of food provided to older people in hospitals and nursing homes. I confess I hadn’t heard of Ivan Lewis before this morning, although he sounded a decent enough chap for a government minister. I have no idea how necessary his campaign is. I imagine that while most institutions responsible for providing meals to the elderly do a good job, there will be those who cut corners in the belief that the old folk won’t really notice. Which I think was broadly what Ivan Lewis was saying.
But Sarah Montague spent the interview sneering and hectoring – repeating a refrain about pensioners starving, demanding to know why the government hadn’t done anything about this before and why no more government money was being spent on meals for pensioners, as part of the campaign. Ivan Lewis asserted that the problem was not about resources and whether or not he was right, Sarah Montague offered no evidence to contradict him other than a shrill screech of 'No more money'.
The way the Today programme deals with issues like these makes it a positive obstacle to understanding. The programme presents all problems in public affairs are only really interesting for their potential for death and disaster. Their only possible solutions are tougher government intervention and more state spending. Although I suspect that the majority of Today listeners will be broadsheet readers, its approach is relentlessly tabloid.
When the person in charge of the anti-pollution work on the ship grounded off Sidmouth stated that the situation was under control, Ms Montague’s disappointment was almost audible. She spent the rest of the interview trying to get the interviewee to backtrack. The more reassuring he was, the more incredulous she sounded.
A couple of items later, she interviewed health minister Ivan Lewis about his campaign to improve the quality of food provided to older people in hospitals and nursing homes. I confess I hadn’t heard of Ivan Lewis before this morning, although he sounded a decent enough chap for a government minister. I have no idea how necessary his campaign is. I imagine that while most institutions responsible for providing meals to the elderly do a good job, there will be those who cut corners in the belief that the old folk won’t really notice. Which I think was broadly what Ivan Lewis was saying.
But Sarah Montague spent the interview sneering and hectoring – repeating a refrain about pensioners starving, demanding to know why the government hadn’t done anything about this before and why no more government money was being spent on meals for pensioners, as part of the campaign. Ivan Lewis asserted that the problem was not about resources and whether or not he was right, Sarah Montague offered no evidence to contradict him other than a shrill screech of 'No more money'.
The way the Today programme deals with issues like these makes it a positive obstacle to understanding. The programme presents all problems in public affairs are only really interesting for their potential for death and disaster. Their only possible solutions are tougher government intervention and more state spending. Although I suspect that the majority of Today listeners will be broadsheet readers, its approach is relentlessly tabloid.
The Castro follies
I am not normally one to praise the opinions of Conservative MEPs, but there is an excellent article by Daniel Hannan on Castro’s closing days in this week’s Spectator. Unfortunately this has now disappeared behind the magazine’s firewall but really keen readers can always nip out and buy it.
He highlights the rival madnesses that seem to afflict western attitudes towards Fidel’s regime. On the one hand many people on the democratic left regard Castro as a hero for standing up to America. As former New Statesman editor Peter Wilby put it:
When challenged about the repressive nature of the Castro regime, western Fidelistas will point to Cuba’s amazing healthcare system, as though healing the human body is an acceptable substitute for destroying its spirit.
On the other hand, without the sheer folly of the American blockade, it is pretty much impossible to believe that the Castro regime would have lasted so long. Castro has survived on being able to present himself as a patriot opposing American domination. Because Florida is a swing state, no presidential regime has had the courage to stand up to the Cuban exile population in Miami.
The regime in Cuba will struggle to survive Castro’s death for long – only American pig-headedness could possibly save it.
He highlights the rival madnesses that seem to afflict western attitudes towards Fidel’s regime. On the one hand many people on the democratic left regard Castro as a hero for standing up to America. As former New Statesman editor Peter Wilby put it:
One of the earliest lessons I learned as NS editor was that many readers regard Castro rather as Telegraph readers used to regard the late Queen Mother, and
that harsh criticism of the Cuban president would lead to threats of cancelled
subscriptions.
When challenged about the repressive nature of the Castro regime, western Fidelistas will point to Cuba’s amazing healthcare system, as though healing the human body is an acceptable substitute for destroying its spirit.
On the other hand, without the sheer folly of the American blockade, it is pretty much impossible to believe that the Castro regime would have lasted so long. Castro has survived on being able to present himself as a patriot opposing American domination. Because Florida is a swing state, no presidential regime has had the courage to stand up to the Cuban exile population in Miami.
The regime in Cuba will struggle to survive Castro’s death for long – only American pig-headedness could possibly save it.
As I was only just saying…
...Expect a long gap. I didn’t expect it to be quite this long, but it’s harder to start blogging again once you have stopped than to keep going when you’ve started. Let’s see how it goes this time.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Claire Ward MP fails "honesty booth" test
Although I am still coming to terms with my new computer, it would be wrong not to mention the performance of Watford's Labour MP Claire Ward on the 'honesty booth' feature on Radio 5 Live's Morning Phone-in today.
The basic idea is for an MP to answer various questions after which listeners text in to say whether they think the MP is being honest. Only 11 per cent of listeners reckoned her answers honest. Lembit on the same feature last week scored circa 70 per cent.
Perhaps more damning and accurate was the following listener comment:
The really sad thing for me was the lack of any personal warmth or critical judgement other than blind support for everything the Labour government does. Not so much sycophancy as psycho-phancy. Challenged by a listener's question to say something nice about David Cameron, she simply couldn't. The one policy of Tony Blair's that she didn't agree with was elected mayors 'for towns'. And why might that be, we wonder.
Alternately funny and scary, it's well worth a listen in the brief time it will be on the web.
For those following the link, the interview is about 2hrs 24mins into the programme, with listener feedback at 2.42.
The basic idea is for an MP to answer various questions after which listeners text in to say whether they think the MP is being honest. Only 11 per cent of listeners reckoned her answers honest. Lembit on the same feature last week scored circa 70 per cent.
Perhaps more damning and accurate was the following listener comment:
“It’s clear she’s not a liar, just a typical Blairite. A wriggler. Not exactly dishonest but not honest. Not to be trusted.”
The really sad thing for me was the lack of any personal warmth or critical judgement other than blind support for everything the Labour government does. Not so much sycophancy as psycho-phancy. Challenged by a listener's question to say something nice about David Cameron, she simply couldn't. The one policy of Tony Blair's that she didn't agree with was elected mayors 'for towns'. And why might that be, we wonder.
Alternately funny and scary, it's well worth a listen in the brief time it will be on the web.
For those following the link, the interview is about 2hrs 24mins into the programme, with listener feedback at 2.42.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Forced conversion
Tomorrow is a red letter day. After 15 years I am set to abandon the ranks of Apple Mac users and install a PC at home.
This is not a decision I have taken willingly. It is a kind of forced conversion. My working life has been in publishing (not quite as grand as it sounds) and has always involved working on Macs. So it seemed sensible to have a Mac at home as well. And over time, part of my indentity has become entwined with being a Mac user – a sense of belonging to a select band, creative and with intellectual aspiratations. PCs by contrast seem humdrum, dull and dour.
As a Roman Catholic, I found Umberto Eco's description of Macs as Catholic computers and MS Dos (as it was in those days) as Protestant rather appealing. (According to Eco, Windows was a kind of Anglican compromise.)
I can remember an article in the Belfast-based political magazine Fortnight, which sought to apply Eco's theory to the province's political parties. A ring round identified that both the UUP and DUP used PCs, while Sinn Fein used Macs. The SDLP, perhaps in a show of conciliation, used PCs. But the clincher was that the cross-sectarian Alliance Party used both PCs and Macs.
For a long time, having a Mac at home was not a problem and when dealing with 'proper' commercial printers it was sometimes an advantage. But it has become increasingly difficult to sustain. My employers now use PCs and I keep getting key commands wrong at home and at work. All my Lib Dem colleagues use PCs and so does Watford Council. Although sharing documents across the platforms has become much easier, it is still frequently a source of irritation, when people can't open documents I have sent them.
I never got round to upgrading to OSX, partly because Apple created it in such way that installing it meant replacing almost all software. Some bits of software aren't upgraded for OS9 and others not at all for the Mac. This iMac is now five years old and has become sluggish. It's time to replace it and buying another Mac (it would be my fourth) simply doesn't make sense.
So, tomorrow the Mac is going, to be replaced by a PC that will be more efficient but less fun. Sitting in my tiny room, working on my Apple Mac I have felt a bit like the occupant of a priest hole, keeping up a recusant tradtion. Tomorrow I conform to the Establishment. I feel a bit of a heretic. Henceforward, logging on will involve the kind of disappointment involved in setting out to attend Mass and finding only a prayer meeting.
More prosaicly, I have never known changing computers to work smoothly. Don't be surprised if there is another hiatus in this blog.
This is not a decision I have taken willingly. It is a kind of forced conversion. My working life has been in publishing (not quite as grand as it sounds) and has always involved working on Macs. So it seemed sensible to have a Mac at home as well. And over time, part of my indentity has become entwined with being a Mac user – a sense of belonging to a select band, creative and with intellectual aspiratations. PCs by contrast seem humdrum, dull and dour.
As a Roman Catholic, I found Umberto Eco's description of Macs as Catholic computers and MS Dos (as it was in those days) as Protestant rather appealing. (According to Eco, Windows was a kind of Anglican compromise.)
I can remember an article in the Belfast-based political magazine Fortnight, which sought to apply Eco's theory to the province's political parties. A ring round identified that both the UUP and DUP used PCs, while Sinn Fein used Macs. The SDLP, perhaps in a show of conciliation, used PCs. But the clincher was that the cross-sectarian Alliance Party used both PCs and Macs.
For a long time, having a Mac at home was not a problem and when dealing with 'proper' commercial printers it was sometimes an advantage. But it has become increasingly difficult to sustain. My employers now use PCs and I keep getting key commands wrong at home and at work. All my Lib Dem colleagues use PCs and so does Watford Council. Although sharing documents across the platforms has become much easier, it is still frequently a source of irritation, when people can't open documents I have sent them.
I never got round to upgrading to OSX, partly because Apple created it in such way that installing it meant replacing almost all software. Some bits of software aren't upgraded for OS9 and others not at all for the Mac. This iMac is now five years old and has become sluggish. It's time to replace it and buying another Mac (it would be my fourth) simply doesn't make sense.
So, tomorrow the Mac is going, to be replaced by a PC that will be more efficient but less fun. Sitting in my tiny room, working on my Apple Mac I have felt a bit like the occupant of a priest hole, keeping up a recusant tradtion. Tomorrow I conform to the Establishment. I feel a bit of a heretic. Henceforward, logging on will involve the kind of disappointment involved in setting out to attend Mass and finding only a prayer meeting.
More prosaicly, I have never known changing computers to work smoothly. Don't be surprised if there is another hiatus in this blog.
Charles Kennedy - my part in his downfall
Like Iain Dale, I was struck by the lack of a mea culpa moment from Charles Kennedy on Tuesday.
Indeed in all the comments I have heard from Charles since he stood down, there has been no sense at all that he thinks he did anything wrong and one senses he still has 'issues'. I'm no moralistic teetotaller myself, but I tend to harrumph a bit at this modern insistence that alcoholism is an illness. It seems to deny any sense of personal responsibility and imply that suffering from it is simply a piece of bad luck – like a bad dose of influenza.
Perhaps this is a safe moment to mention my own encounter with Kennedy's 'illness'. As leader he visited Watford in 2002 at the launch of Dorothy's mayoral campaign. He took part in a walkabout in the town centre, which went well enough. But he looked pale, washed out and genuinely ill.
Charles made it only a couple of minutes through his speech before rushing out to the lavatory. We all assumed either that he had a very bad dose of gastric flu or similar. Perhaps naively, we didn't really think of alcohol, because he didn't fit the stereotype – not red faced, bombastic, tired or emotional. But it was all still a little bit embarrassing. How little we knew!
Indeed in all the comments I have heard from Charles since he stood down, there has been no sense at all that he thinks he did anything wrong and one senses he still has 'issues'. I'm no moralistic teetotaller myself, but I tend to harrumph a bit at this modern insistence that alcoholism is an illness. It seems to deny any sense of personal responsibility and imply that suffering from it is simply a piece of bad luck – like a bad dose of influenza.
Perhaps this is a safe moment to mention my own encounter with Kennedy's 'illness'. As leader he visited Watford in 2002 at the launch of Dorothy's mayoral campaign. He took part in a walkabout in the town centre, which went well enough. But he looked pale, washed out and genuinely ill.
Charles made it only a couple of minutes through his speech before rushing out to the lavatory. We all assumed either that he had a very bad dose of gastric flu or similar. Perhaps naively, we didn't really think of alcohol, because he didn't fit the stereotype – not red faced, bombastic, tired or emotional. But it was all still a little bit embarrassing. How little we knew!
Thank you, Simon
Thanks to Jonathan Calder for pointing out the following from Simon Hughes on the leader's speech.
How thoughtful of him to remind us all why we didn't vote for him as leader.
I guess it was a seven or eight out of ten speech, in terms of speech, but it did the necessary for the party.
How thoughtful of him to remind us all why we didn't vote for him as leader.
Too early to tell…
I'm a history student rather than a political pundit, so I think it wise to allow time to elapse before making any judgement about the success or otherwise of Ming's speech and the Lib Dem conference as a whole.
That's the reason why all my fellow bloggers have beaten me to an instant opinion on the subject (see Lib Dem Blogs aggregated) etc.
It's not just that I couldn't be bothered and can't get it together. Absolutely not. Not in the least. Not at all. No!
That's the reason why all my fellow bloggers have beaten me to an instant opinion on the subject (see Lib Dem Blogs aggregated) etc.
It's not just that I couldn't be bothered and can't get it together. Absolutely not. Not in the least. Not at all. No!
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
For liberty, against freedom
Today we debate the Lib Dem 'themes' paper Trust in people: make Britain free, fair and green or TIPMBFFG as Alex Wilcock has dubbed it.
Given the great fanfare with which the whole 'Meeting the challenge' project was launched last year, the paper is dull and disappointing.
To ride my own particular hobby horse briefly, it again treats freedom as a purely a matter of constitutional and civil liberties. I would like to see a bit more of the small 'l' liberalism that sees freedom as the government butting out of people's lives and leaving them in peace.
One of the frustrations for me of Blair's view of Britain is that it is a joyless one in which any instance of people having fun has to be part of some bigger project of social improvement. Sadly, as I have commented before, the Lib Dems are too often actually more nannyish than Labour over this - viz the horrific predictions by our MPs of the effect of the Licensing Act.
I suspect my views on this have more support among fellow Lib Dem bloggers than they do in the party as a whole. If only we ran the party!
Given the great fanfare with which the whole 'Meeting the challenge' project was launched last year, the paper is dull and disappointing.
To ride my own particular hobby horse briefly, it again treats freedom as a purely a matter of constitutional and civil liberties. I would like to see a bit more of the small 'l' liberalism that sees freedom as the government butting out of people's lives and leaving them in peace.
One of the frustrations for me of Blair's view of Britain is that it is a joyless one in which any instance of people having fun has to be part of some bigger project of social improvement. Sadly, as I have commented before, the Lib Dems are too often actually more nannyish than Labour over this - viz the horrific predictions by our MPs of the effect of the Licensing Act.
I suspect my views on this have more support among fellow Lib Dem bloggers than they do in the party as a whole. If only we ran the party!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)