Thursday, March 17, 2005

Stormin' Norman Baker

The Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes is on the warpath again, reports the Guardian. Norman Baker:

has written to the cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, asking for Mr Birt's unpaid job as a "blue skies thinker" at Downing Street to be investigated.

Mr Baker is concerned Lord Birt is using his close relationship with Tony Blair at McKinsey, where he is a paid adviser on "global media and entertainment practices", and is asking what access Mr Birt has to confidential government papers.

Remember, it was a question from Baker that caused Peter Mandelson's resignation from the cabinet.

His second resignation, that is.

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Tories: Cynical or incompetent?

Back in February I devoted a Liberal Democrat News column to Patrick Mercer's bill to give householders the right to use greater force against burglars. The Tory benches were packed that day and they clearly thought they were on to a winner.

The BBC reports what has become of that bill:

The Conservatives have been accused of cynicism after Tory MPs did not turn up to debate the party's own plans to improve laws on force against burglars.

Labour says the "debacle" shows Tories do not really care about the issue.

A committee is examining the Tory plan but its latest meeting was called off when only five MPs arrived in time - one short of the number needed.

Cynicism? Let's be charitable and say they are just very incompetent.

Floreat St Custard's

The other day I included a link to one of Ronald Searle's cartoons from Down With Skool! Here is a the way to the front page of the St Custard's site.

Penguin have recently republished the four Molesworth books as one of their Modern Classics. The introduction by Philip Hensher is very good; certainly, it is much better than the one Tim Rice contributed to the last collected edition.

There is a review of the Penguin volume on the London Review of Books site by Thomas Jones, though he is somewhat out of sympathy with the books. He has a point when he says:
there is something genuinely unsettling about the idea of boarding prep schools - the youngest of these children are only seven - and the great disingenuousness of the Molesworth books is that they appear to exaggerate the institutional horror when their actual effect is to condone the institution.
As they retreat into the past, the mores and institutions of the Empire are becoming increasingly strange to us. Far from the 1950s seeming cosy, they are beginning to look distinctly exotic.

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

It was 43 years ago today

The BBC website has a feature on Eric Lubbock's victory in the Orpington by-election, which took place on 15 March 1962.

Monday, March 14, 2005

Jonathan Sayeed is unwell

The Sayeed saga, which we followed here, appears to have come to an end with the news that Jonathan Sayeed is to stand down as MP for Mid Bedfordshire on health grounds.

Stop sniggering at the back.

So there is time for one last extract from the website of The English Manner, the company that Sayeed was involved with. Here are the details of its course The Final Touch:
Today we will learn how to walk, how to sit and stand, and how to get in and out of a car. Lectures throughout give vital information on basic rules and the emphasis remains not on pampering but on teaching techniques which improve presentational skills and impart a greater social confidence. We will cover body language, posture, stress management, and we will have a session on ‘beat walking’ and ‘supermodel’ tips. Sandwiches will be provided for lunch.

New Zealand cricket sex scandal

There's a headline you don't see every day. In the unlikely event that you want them, the juicy details are here. I think this would be a good place to add the word "allegedly".

Meanwhile, the Shropshire Star reports that:
A Shropshire father today hit out at allegations that his teenage son filmed New Zealand cricket star Daryl Tuffey having sex with a woman.
We'll see what the South Shropshire Journal has to say at the end of the week.

Terrorism does not threaten our way of life

If you do visit the Vote 2005 site, you will find the following contribution on page 7 of the Hereford discussion:

Thank you to the people in Hereford who are part of the effort against the terrorists.

If we LOSE against the terrorists, do you suppose a rural area such as Herefordshire would be immune? Look at Chernobyl. Just by an accident, an area larger than the UK was poisened (sic.) Don't you suppose it would be hugely more serious if they did it on purpose?

Terrorist designs on Ross-on-Wye and Abbey Dore? It sounds rather extreme. But is it any sillier than this contribution by Charles Clarke to the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill on 28 February:
The Government take the view that we must take all reasonable and practical steps to protect people in this country from those determined to destroy our way of life, and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill does precisely that.
"Destroy our way of life?" Think about it. Can you imagine Tony Blair going on the BBC and saying something like "The terrorist outrages of recent days leave me no alternative but to declare Britain a fundamentalist Muslim state"? Of course not.

Terrorists kill people, which is why they must be stopped. They do not threaten our way of life. The slaughter of 9/11 did not begin to undermine Americans' confidence in the rightness of their system of government. In fact it seems to have had just the opposite effect.

Perhaps we are more insecure in Britain. Certainly, there is something telling about the way that a terrorist attack on America has had such an effect on New Labour when we in Western Europe have been living with terrorism for decades.

There is a tendency to deny this history. People argue that present-day terrorism is something new because it attempts to kill as many people as possible. This has the perverse effect of playing down the crimes of the Provisional IRA and turning them into a cuddly 1970s' answer to the Kray Twins. "They was real gents. People was safe when they were planting bombs round here. They never touched kids. Well, technically they did...."

What can threaten our way of life, of course, is hasty legislation like the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Safe Liberal Democrat seats

Simon Titley on Liberal Dissenter has posted a useful guide to websites devoted to the forthcoming general election.

One of the ones he lists is Vote 2005, which I mentioned here a while ago. It takes the form of a bulletin board, with a separate discussion devoted to each constituency. Some of these discussion are already on their fifth or sixth page; goodness knows how many there will be by the end of the campaign.

These discussions are divided into regions. Whenever a new posting is made, the discussion containing it goes to the top of that region's list. The result is that the constituencies there is a lot of debate about congregate at the top of the list, and the ones which are less exciting - in other words the safe seats - sink towards the bottom.

The striking thing is that there are many Liberal Democrat held constituencies amongst the boring safe seats at the bottom of each region. Another encouraging sign that a major Lib Dem presence in the Commons is here to stay.

Sunday, March 13, 2005

Story of the Week

Once again the Shropshire Star come through for me:
A concerned Shropshire father was trying today to contact his 18-year-old son who is at the centre of allegations that he filmed a New Zealand cricket star having sex with a woman.
More here.

Saturday, March 12, 2005

Dave Allen

One of the signs of my increasing age is that I often turn first to the obituaries when I open a newspaper. (And, as the old joke goes, if I am not in them I get up.)

There is a good obituary of Dave Allen in today's Guardian, which reveals that his father (who died when Allen was 12) was a friend and drinking partner of Brian O'Nolan - better known as Flann O'Brien or Myles na Copaleen.

There was a patronising comment on the radio news that said, in effect, that while Allen's comedy seems rather tame now we should appreciate that it was daring in its day. Nonsense. As Michael Gove said on Newsnight Review last night, our fear of offending people's religious sensibilities means that Allen would probably not get on the screen at all today.

Friday, March 11, 2005

Our best and only hope

Here is today's House Points from Liberal Democrat News. You can find an archive of these columns here.

Maintaining liberty

I could not make it to Harrogate, but I was there (as vicars say) in a very real sense. I followed the conference in detail thanks to the volume of press coverage.

This is something new. Ten years ago there was hardly a journalist in the building. The level of media interest today owes much to the coming election, but is also a mark of how far the Liberal Democrats have come.

Meanwhile in Westminster attention is still on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Those opposing it are painted as soft on terrorism. Who cares about civil liberties, critics ask, when people’s lives are at stake?

“Give me liberty or give me death” was the cry of the American Revolution, but it has little resonance in modern Britain. We are obsessed with safety and when things go wrong we blame the state and its agents. If a child is battered, we vilify the social workers involved not the person who did it. So it’s not surprising that the government is frantic to protect itself from the blame that would follow a terrorist outrage.

We need a way out of this mess, which brings us back to Harrogate. In his speech there Chris Rennard quoted President Kennedy:

“Liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them.”

This is the case we need to make. There is no simple trade off between our liberties and security. If there were, the people of North Korea would be the safest in the world.

I had my closest brush with terrorism working in London department stores when the IRA was still blowing them up. Then all staff took part in searching their working area after a bomb threat. We did not duck our responsibility and expect someone else to protect us.

As another American, Benjamin Franklin, said: “He who gives up essential liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.” I just wish I could have argued the point over a pot of Darjeeling at Betty’s.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Messages and clear signals

One fatuous argument widely used in politics nowadays is that we should support a piece of legislation because "it will send a message" or "send a clear signal". There were two examples of it in the Commons yesterday.

First, at prime minister's questions, Tony Blair said:
I do not agree with the sunset clause, for this simple reason: it is important that we send a clear signal now that this legislation is on the statute book and will remain on the statute book.
Then, summing up the debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill itself, Hazel Blears said:
A sunset clause is inappropriate for another reason: it could send the message to terrorists, who will be watching our debate closely, that we are uncertain about what we want to do to ensure that we have a proper legal framework to tackle terrorism in our country. We have tried to establish a legal framework that balances national security with individual liberty, but it is vital that we convey the message that we want to make this country the most hostile environment in which terrorists could consider operating.
As an extreme measure like the introduction of house arrest reminds us, legal action can deprive people of their liberty and if it doesn't do that it can still land them with legal bills, months or years and worry, destroy marriages and people's health, and even shorten lives. Read Bleak House.

But to a thoroughly modern political party like New Labour none of this matters when set against the importance of image. House arrest must come in - and come in without a sunset clause - because it will make the government look tough. The audience Hazel Blears had in mind was not terrorists but voters.

I have commented elsewhere (see the column for 12 April) that Tony Blair sounds like a progressive public school master from the 1960s. Lately, with his fear of appearing weak, he has sounded more like one of Nigel Molesworth's masters at St Custard's:
You may think I'm soft but I'm hard, damned hard.

Cleobury Mortimer: Is this the end?

In case you were worrying, the Shropshire Star reports that:
Voters were out in force today to elect a new parish council for a town plunged into chaos when four civic leaders resigned. Residents from Cleobury Mortimer and surrounding villages were voting throughout the day.
Will it work? One of the "civic leaders", Adrian Pearce is quoted as saying:
"The new council will have two years to show the people that it is doing what the public expects. If it fails, residents will have the chance to elect a different council in two years time."
G. K. Chesterton writes:
But we are the people of Cleobury Mortimer, and we never have spoken yet.
Mock at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.

Guess who's working at Cowley Street

Today's Liberal Democrat eNews lands in my inbox. And who does it say it's from?

Margaret Thatcher.

Sabotage? An attempt at humour? A desperate attempt to win over disillusioned Conservative voters?

I think we should be told.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

"Being sexy is the difficult thing"

There is an article in the Guardian today by Natasha Walter that chimes with what I was saying about the Channel 4 programme X-Rated: The TV They Tried to Ban the other day:
When everything has been said and everything has been shown, being explicit is simply too easy; being sexy is the difficult thing.
The ubiquity of sex (though not in Market Harborough) has other effects too. In schools, for instance, the insistence upon children knowing more and more at younger and younger ages makes sex education seem less like a liberation than another imposition of the National Curriculum. It risks becoming for this generation of children what long division was for earlier ones.
Sex, he thought angrily, sex, sex, sex. It's all we do in class these days. Why can't we do something interesting like geography?
For more from Morris Gleitzman's Bumface, click here.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Getting the hump

The Tories' issue of the day is road humps. They have put down an amendment to the Road Safety Bill calling for them all to be removed within two years, although in his media interviews Tim Yeo has been taking a softer line. The Guardian reports:

"Our policy is not to construct new speed humps," he told the BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"As far as the removal of existing speed humps is concerned, we want to examine the arguments, the costs and so on, to see whether it is an effective way of using resources to improve safety.

For a laugh see the press release on the Conservative Party's own website:
Mr Yeo said: "We have taken a rational, evidence-based approach to the Road Safety Bill and have asked the Government to make available evidence on the effectiveness of road humps, and to have an open discussion.
In other words they have decided on their policy and then asked to see the evidence afterwards. That's a funny sort of "evidence-based approach".

No doubt the Tories think they are on to a winner, but I hope the other parties will stand firm.

When the Market Harborough bypass was opened we had all sorts of traffic calming installed in the town. There was a big fuss in the local paper and a vocal campaign was set up to have the humps removed. Their mascot was a camel called Humphrey - because they wanted a hump-free Harborough. Geddit?!!?

Yet when I went canvassing in the local elections the only people who mentioned traffic calming as an issue wanted it installed in their road too. I suspect there are fewer votes in this Jeremy Clarkson politics than the Tories hope.

The way urban streets are monopolised by the motor car is one of the chief causes of the impoverishment of social life in our towns and cities. It is time we fought back.

Nathan Barley

I have not seen much comment on Chris Morris's new series, but there is a good one on Little Red Blogger.

See also trashbat.co.ck, of course.

Those Bonham Carters in full

As I often argue, the obituaries in the Daily Telegraph are the finest thing in the newspaper. It is worth registering for its website just to read them.

I have just come across the paper's obituary of Raymond Bonham Carter from January. He was the grandson of the Liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith, the son of "Bongie" Bonham Carter (who must have been a friend of Lord Bonkers) and the father of Helena.

All of which points to the pleasing fact that Helena Bonham Carter is Asquith's great granddaughter.

Monday, March 07, 2005

X-Rated: How liberal are we today?

Last night Channel 4 showed X-Rated: The TV They Tried to Ban, a survey of controversial programmes, to launch its Banned season. Though it seemed to believe that history began with the Sex Pistols and Paul Ross made an appearance, it was instructive and frequently hilarious.

One consistent theme was the stupidity of the protestors. They did not see the brilliance of Chris Morris's series Brass Eye. They did not see that Derren Brown was demonstrating that spiritualism was fraud. Most importantly, they could not that Dennis Potter's The Singing Detective was the strongest imaginable statement of the view that casual adultery can destroy people.

Yet there was something lazy about the programme. Watching it, you would believe that the only people who ever complain about television are lower middle class racists who don't get any sex. While this flattered its audience, it is an inadequate account of what has been going on in recent years.

We were told, for instance, that modern sensitivities about race mean that dross like Mind Your Language or The Black and White Minstrel Show would never be shown today. That is true, but it is equally possible that the early episodes of Till Death Us Do Part could not be shown either. Is that so admirable?

The truth may be less that we are all far too sophisticated these days to want censorship, and more that we have merely found a new set of words and images to be outraged by. This is a thesis that the makers of X-Rated had no intention of exploring.

The other point that has to be made is simply that most of the programmes which shocked viewers in their day were not very good. I oppose censorship because it may prevent great art being produced or important truths being expressed, but their was precious little sign of them here.

No Liberal will entertain the counter argument that censorship can act as a stimulus, forcing artists to find ingenious ways of getting their meaning across, but I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be something in it.

Buy the T-shirt

Anthony Evans has e-mailed me a link to his site The Orange Filter, which is intended to spark a revival of classical liberalism.

Take a look: it even sells liberal T-shirts.

BritBlog Round Up

Tim Worstall has started publishing a weekly digest of the best in British blogging.

His BritBlog Round Up 3 has now been posted. You can find it here.

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Lord Bonkers' latest diary

I have now posted his lordship's latest thoughts to his website:
I attend a meeting of the parliamentary party and demonstrate the Bonkers Patent Abdominal Protector for Canvassers. It is based upon the box worn by batsmen, but has been adapted to include both a jute bag that will carry an entire Focus round and a flask that takes a couple of generous measures of Auld Johnston (that most prized of Highland malts).
Lord Bonkers' has published diary in each issue of Liberator magazine since 1990, giving his unique observations on the Liberal Democrats and British politics in general.

Lord Bonkers was Liberal MP for Rutland South-West 1906-10.

Friday, March 04, 2005

The teacher, the sheep and the elephant

Here is today's House Points column from Liberal Democrat News. The first sentence was dropped in the printed version for reasons of space.

Losing our liberties

This is how we lose our liberties in Britain.

At half past three on Monday the Commons settled down to debate the timetable motion on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill – the measure that will bring in house arrest. The motion allowed six hours of debate for the bill and the more than 160 amendments that had been put down.

A rushed programme? No, insisted the junior home office minister Hazel Blears, with the gratingly enthusiastic tone of a primary school teacher, merely a swift one.

It was worse than that. Earlier in the day the Charles Clarke had written to David Davis, his Conservative opposite number, saying the government would introduce amendments when the bill reached the Lords. In other words, the Commons was being asked to spend that six hours discussing clauses the government had already decide to drop.

It was even worse than that. Clarke’s letter had become vital to the day’s proceedings, but few MPs had copies. They asked for a suspension so they could get them. They asked how it could be within the rules to debate something that was not on the order paper. But the farce went on.

At first Hazel Blears was almost alone on the government front bench. Next to her sat David Lammy. This cannot have reassured her. Lammy was involved in December’s shambles over the Mental Capacity Bill, which also involved a letter being given more weight than what was printed on the order paper.

Behind her sat Kali Mountford, one of the home office bag-carriers. Perhaps it is appropriate that the MP for Colne Valley should resemble a sheep so closely. For centuries the wealth of the West Riding rested on the sort of fleece she wears around her head.

From the sheep to the elephant. Charles Clarke and his magnificent ears arrived, and together they spent an hour and a half at the dispatch box. He took dozens of interventions, maintaining throughout a wholly spurious distinction between deprivation of liberty and restriction of liberty.

Sometimes he even got in a sly whack with his trunk: “I’ve had decades of my life being patronised by lawyers and I don’t appreciate it.”

So between them a primary teacher, a sheep and an elephant took us a day nearer to house arrest in Britain.

Safety mania makes us less safe

I have found a new source of Shropshire stories: the South Shropshire Journal. It promises to outdo the dear old Shropshire Star in offering la Shropshire profonde.

I have a personal interest in the first story from this new source in that I sometimes go walking in the Shropshire hills.

If all is as it is reported here - a rider you have to add even with Shropshire newspapers - then this is a good example of how an exaggerated concern for safety can end us making us less safe. The best is the enemy of the good, and all that.

Anyway, here is the story:

Hill rescue team forced to disband

A South Shropshire hill rescue team, whose local volunteer members risked their own safety to save stranded walkers, has been forced to disband after eight years because of red tape.

The Shropshire Hills Rescue Team was based in Church Stretton.

A statement from the team said it had been forced to close because of the threat of litigation, new health and safety legislation, escalating insurance costs and the demand for lengthy training requirements.

Ken Spurling, former treasurer, said: "It was all about us trying to be helpful. It would be a shame for someone to be lying up there are we were all sat in the warm."

Read the rest for yourself here.

Andrew Neil dumbs down

Thursday night and I settle down to watch This Week on BBC1. It's the best political programme on television, I often tell people. Andrew Neil and the Michael Portillo/Denise Abbot double act. Unbeatable.

Not tonight.

They had a feature on house arrest, taking the angle that the general public don't see what all the fuss is about. A legitimate approach. But who did they choose to put the view of the man in the street.

Paul Ross.

Paul Ross???

It is hard to think of anyone who is less in touch with ordinary people. Ross speaks in stage school cockney and his whole life is lived on television or trying to get on television. Turn the set off and he no longer exists.

He is or has been the compere of All Over the Shop, A Slice of the Action, Endurance UK, It's Anybody's Guess, Jeopardy!, Life's a Punt, Mind the Gap, Tellystack, Upshot and You Don't Say.

His appearance on any programme is a guarantee that it will be crap. You settle down to watch Jimmy Carr's 100 Greatest Top 100 Shows on Channel 4 and up he pops. "Blue Peter was for posh kids. We watched Magpie."

Only someone working in television could think that Paul Ross is qualified to speak for the general public. In reality, anyone else living in Britain today would have been a better, more representative choice. And that includes Basil Brush.

I don't blame Ross for appearing - as one of the BBC's own sites says He "has been known to say 'I'll do absolutely anything in TV for the money'."

I do blame Neil for inviting him.

Thursday, March 03, 2005

School uniform and human rights

For a liberal I have a surprising number of doubts about the concept of human rights. Yesterday's case involving Shabina Begum has helped to crystallise them.

I am not so much interested in the details of the case, though it is worth pointing out that this is not a case of a young Muslim woman being forced to wear traditional dress by community elders (as Western liberals tend to assume happens) but rather of her demanding it with great energy and resourcefulness.

What interests and worries me is the idea that an appeal to human rights can be used to settle a case like this.

There are good arguments for school uniform in terms of corporate spirit and the avoidance of bullying over fashionable labels. There are good arguments against in terms of individualism. When I was a primary school governor in the 1980s the school did not have a uniform and I was happy to defend this because I had been to such a primary school myself. Today I might well take the opposite view.

For this is just the sort of question which does not have a single right answer as it involves reconciling two desirable but conflicting ideals. Different people of good will, different families and different communities will strike the balance in a different place. It seems odd to believe that any position can be shown to be irrational or morally wrong.

Part of the problem may be the left's distrust of choice and diversity in education. If you want a monolithic State-run system of schooling then I suppose you do have to have a universal policy on uniform. But it seems far better to have a diverse system and let parents and pupils choose the sort of school that they feel most comfortable with.

I also worry about the status of these rights that are appealed to. Although they are given a quasi-religious aura, when you look into it you find they were drawn up by a committee of the great and good. So the appeal to rights, which at first sounds liberal and radical, can easily become instead the assertion that important people have looked at this question in the past and we have no business questioning their conclusions. It is hard to imagine any argument less radical than that.

Appealing to rights in this way can also undermine our faith in our own moral judgement. I suppose you could say "Fancy that, school uniform has been immoral all along." But it seems to me more compelling to say that if the set of rights we have drawn up rule out a well-accepted practice like requiring pupils to wear a uniform then there is something wrong with that set of rights.

After all, good liberals have read Karl Popper and believe that in politics and science to be rational is to be prepared to amend your theories in the light of experience. Why should ethics be any different? As these rights are human artefacts, we must accept that they may be less than perfect. And what can show they are less than perfect other than their leading to conclusions we find questionable?

Perhaps the last word should go to my old philosophy professor, Ronald Atkinson, at York. After my tutorial partner had read out an essay struggling with the idea of human rights he said something like:
It is tempting to support the idea of human rights if it makes people behave better to one another, but if, as philosophers, we think they are nonsense, it will probably be better in the long run if we say so.
I think he was right, but I am in a tiny minority among my liberal friends.

What is Mark Oaten's problem?

Simon Titley complains of "another piss-poor performance" from Mark Oaten on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. I was there on Monday, and it is hard to disagree. Judge for yourself here.

Oaten is not an orator. Nor, by his own admission, is he not much of an ideologue. But then many people have successful and useful political careers without one or even both of these qualities.

I would not, like some, accuse him of being a right-winger - if only because that tends to imply the existence of a coherent and shared philosophy on the radical wing of the Liberal Democrats which he rejects. I am afraid the party's beliefs are more muddled than that.

What does worry me about Oaten is that he suffers from what is known in the literature as David Steel Syndrome. That is, he is fascinated by the mechanics of politics (pacts, deals, negotiations) but has less interest in its content - in beliefs and policies.

On the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for instance, he seems to have made up his mind to reach a deal with the government. Or, if he has Steel Syndrome really badly, to be seen to make a deal with the government and so prove himself a serious politician. What the contents of this deal are will be almost incidental.

I hope that events will prove this analysis wrong or unfair, but we shall see.

Ferdinand Mount: "Mind the Gap"

I am currently reading this book. I may write about in one day, but in the mean time there is a good review on the London Review of Books site.

I have also posted a short extract to my anthology blog Serendib.

Charles Clarke's concessions

There is a good analysis of Charles Clarke's concessions on judicial oversight of house arrest, and why they don't amount to much, on The Register site.

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Headline of the week

It comes (of course) from the Shropshire Star:

Runaway Bullock charges at vicar

I particularly like the capitalisation here.

Be warned: it has a sad ending (though you may be reconciled if you have a particular liking for china dolphins).

Delia Smith encourages the crowd

The BBC reports:

Delia Smith has described her half-time outburst at a Norwich City home game on Monday as "an act of desperation".

The former TV chef and Norwich City director got on the pitch and urged supporters to show more support, sparking criticism on the club website.

Lord Bonkers writes:

In the early 1960s Fanny Craddock, famous for her cookery upon the moving television, purchased a controlling interest in Featherstone Rovers Rugby League Club and attended every home game.

If she felt the team's supporters were not showing sufficient enthusiasm she would wade into their midst and set about her with a ladle, knocking many a cloth cap to the ground in the process.

Strange the things that one remembers.

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

The best speech in the house arrest debate

Undoubtedly it was the one made by Kenneth Clarke. To read the old bruiser's contribution in Hansard, click here.

My favourite passage was:

There is a danger in our system of politics, which I have seen, that senior politicians and senior officials who have access to an exciting and hidden world of security will get carried away with their excitement. They can sometimes become vulnerable to advice to do things that, with hindsight, are not altogether wise. However, if I am not careful, that will get me back into discussions that we had last year about a war with the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) - the former Foreign Secretary - who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and others. However, the idea that the public often have - that if the security services and the police demand something, it is unpatriotic for the House of Commons to refuse it - would be dangerous for us to accept.

We had better leave the effort from Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary, to another evening.

Siôn Simon MP

This evening I have been writing a column about yesterday's Commons debate on the Prevention of Terrorism Act for Liberal Democrat News. It will appear here on Friday. (Please, form a queue.)

One aspect that I have not had room to discuss is the figure of Siôn Simon, the Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington. It is not just that he looked odd, with his long hair, his rather too colourful tie and the way he obsessively stroked the underside of his long chin. It was his intervention on the timetable that was really strange.

Opposition MPs were complaining about the short time that was being allowed for such a serious measure - someone calculated that there were two minutes for each amendment that had been put down. Simon intervened once on Dominic Grieve to ask how long he wanted if two minutes were not enough and was brushed off.

He tried again:
I am not being silly about the numbers of minutes. According to the analysis of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), eight minutes is fine, but two minutes is wrong. Conservative Members are being childish and ridiculous.
The odd thing was that Simon said this in a whining, sing-song voice that had to be heard to be believed. (For the written record click here, but you really had to be there.)

Silly? Childish? Ridiculous? I suspect there is a law that people accuse others of the faults they most fear in themselves, much as those who make most fuss about homosexuality are supposed to be repressed homosexuals themselves.

So it was that silly, childish and ridiculous precisely described Simon's performance on Monday.

Researching him further, I came across this tribute to him on the Wales Watch site. Its interest dates from the days when, styling himself "Siôn Llewellyn Simon" he was after a safe seat in the valleys.

Wales Watch commemorates in particular his time as a restaurant critic:

Boudin of guinea fowl was served perfectly warm, with a slice of foie gras on top, and a cep vinaigrette so beguilingly sophisticated that one was tempted to dab it behind one's ears.

Clearly Mr Simon is a figure to watch.

More on Fathers 4 Justice

There is an interview with Matt O'Connor, the "founder and mastermind of Fathers 4 Justice", on the Spiked website. It looks at the organisation's tactics and influence, taking it more seriously than most commentators do.

It is well worth reading.

Monday, February 28, 2005

Fathers 4 Justice

I was in the Press Gallery at Westminster today to see the shambles over house arrest legislation for myself.

On the way I passed the Fathers 4 Justice demonstrators (Batman, Robin and Captain America) who had found a perch on the Foreign Office building in Whitehall.

My taxidriver said he supported their cause but not their tactics. He said that if everyone just ignored them they would have to stop this sort of stunt.

He also pointed out that Robin was wearing a coat over his costume, so he was not as heroic as all that.

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Where do you go to my lovely?

One of the more entertaining news stories of last week was Labour's removal of Christine Wheatley from the short-list in Copeland.

If you read the Guardian or the Independent you will have come away with the idea that this was purely because she had admitted working as a prostitute in Paris in the 1960s. The Daily Ablution has read more widely, and tells a very different tale.

Liverpool lose more than the final

I have just been listening to the Radio Five Live phone-in after the Carling Cup Final. Thanks to some of the Liverpool fans, it was one of the most depressing programmes I have ever heard.

It was not that they were moaning about the referee - that was the England coach Andy Robinson's reaction today, accelerating the rate at which rugby union is coming to resemble soccer.

No, their target was their club's best target Steven Gerrard. He wasn't trying. He scored an own goal on purpose because he has already agreed to join Chelsea. He should never be picked for Liverpool again. It was ridiculous.

One of the laws of football phone-ins is that Manchester United fans are always young, sharp and arrogant, and that Liverpool fans are funny, generous and philosophical. Not any more.

Their performance reminded me of this article in the Guardian from their football writer Will Buckley:

There was a time when I loved football - when I was six. I was introduced to the game by my father, and we spent many happy years watching Chelsea together. I took a childish delight in my team. Ossie, Hutch and Charlie Cooke were my heroes. Their performances affected my weekend. For my father the results were unimportant. He went to the game to have a laugh with his friends and enjoy his son's innocent pleasure.

Now I am the age that my father was when he first took me to a football match, I am perplexed that so many of my contemparies (sic.) react to the game as I did as a six-year-old, rather than as my father did as a 40-year-old.

On today's evidence, that is fair comment.

Martin Scorsese defends British cinema

Yesterday on Serendib I quoted Gilbert Adair's review of Shepperton Babylon from the Spectator. What I did not quote was the part where he upheld the critical orthodoxy that British films are no good.

In today's Sunday Times Martin Scorsese does not share this view. The interviewer Jasper Gerard reports (you may need to register) that Scorsese is planning a documentary on British cinema:
His documentary will focus more on earlier British films that influenced him: "Everything from The Shape of Things to Come, to Green for Danger to The Happiest Days of Your Life to The Carol Reed films, particularly The Third Man." He reels off an impressive list - from film noir to Ealing comedies - with such enthusiasm you almost find yourself agreeing when he says he can't understand why so many British directors seek to ape big-is-best Hollywood style.

Pot Noodles may not be good for you shock

Today's Observer leads with this story:
Food giants told: clean up or face prosecution
Britain's food safety chief issued a stark warning last night to the country's multi-billion-pound food industry to put its house in order or face plunging public trust and prosecutions for failing to protect the nation's health.
Two things are worth saying here. The first is that the Sudan-I scare is being blown out of all proportion. The Spiked website's Don't Panic section makes two important points:
Sudan-I is not, as frequently stated, a 'known carcinogen' in humans. In large quantities, it does increase the frequency of liver tumours in rats, but not in mice. It is classified as a 'category 3' carcinogen - that is, something for which not enough information in relation to humans is available to make a firm judgement but which has carcinogenic potential.
And
The quantities contained in these ready meals must have been tiny. The chilli powder must only have contained a small fraction of Sudan-I. In turn this was added to the sauce, which therefore only contained a small fraction of the chilli powder. Finally, the finished products will have contained only a small fraction of worcester sauce. The quantities of Sudan-I in the end products must be measured in micrograms.
In other words, we are panicking about nothing.

The second thing worth saying is that most of the dishes which are believed to contain these microscopic traces of Sudan-I are, in the words of Liberal Dissenter, "overpriced muck".

Over in Shropshire, the Star reports that:

Telford business owners caught selling food contaminated with the cancer-linked Sudan 1 dye could face £20,000 fines or two years in prison ...

The warning comes after a Shropshire Star investigation revealed contaminated products, namely beef and tomato Pot Noodles with best before dates up to November 2005, were still on sale in stores in Dawley, Hadley and Trench.

I speak with all the authority of a former member of the Pot Noodle tasting panel (I worked for Golden Wonder when the company owned the brand) when I say this. If people are buying Pot Noodles because they think they are good for them, it will be a thoroughly good thing if the Sudan-I scare disabuses them of this ridiculous idea.

Saturday, February 26, 2005

The Rank Organisation has lost its charm

Sad news in the Guardian: the Rank Organisation has severed the last of its links with film industry by selling "its Deluxe unit, dedicated to DVD distribution and technical support".

As the report emphasises, Rank's involvement in the movie business was once huge:

By 1946, the Rank Organisation was as big as any Hollywood studio. It had a staff of 31,000. (By comparison, the National Health Service employed 34,000 people on its inception.) Rank invested in every aspect of the film business, from labs to distribution, from meteorologists (to predict when it would be sunny enough to shoot) to its eccentric Highbury-based "charm school", where various good-looking women and statuesque men were taught diction and deportment in the hope they would turn into stars.
This scale of the Rank Organisation's film business will not be a surprise to anyone who has read Shepperton Hollywood, the book I have been enthusing about recently.

Matthew Sweet writes so well that I wanted to quote great chunks of it on my anthology blog Serendib. Conveniently, Gilbert Adair's review in the Spectator puts together some of Sweet's most striking facts into one paragraph, so I have posted it there under the title "You Tickle Me Spitless, Baby". You'll have to read it to see why.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Teach yourself DCMS

Here is today's House Points column from Liberal Democrat News.

Art for all

As John Prescott’s career shows, you can survive as a minister without being fluent in English. But to last long at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport you have to master its unique language.

For, once there, you will be called upon to praise “the excellent work done by the north-east regional museums hub” or asked what discussions you have had “with regional cultural consortiums on policies to promote social inclusion”.

Fortunately, on Monday the Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay was on hand to translate. Social inclusion in the arts, he explained, refers to the fact that some of the poorest and most deprived children do not have access to quality classical music, the ballet or the opera.

Mackinlay wanted a manifesto pledge that every child will have access each year to a performance of classical music and other arts, including opera. Opera for all? That is the sort of socialism House Points is happy to support.

But it is far too committal for New Labour, and Estelle Morris, the arts minister, placed the problem squarely in the psyches of the poor. “We are determined … to give them the confidence to ensure that they access the arts.”

If MPs ever had the time (they tend not to be short on confidence) to look around them, they would find that they have more access to the arts than most. For as well as resembling a Victorian railway terminus and a public school (the buildings are magnificent but parents worry increasingly about the academic standards), the Palace of Westminster is a splendid art gallery.

There are murals depicting the sort of scenes from British history that every schoolboy used to know: “The English People Reading Wycliffe’s Bible,” “Sir Thomas More Refusing to Grant Wolsey a Subsidy”. There are busts and statues of great parliamentarians, cartoons by Hogarth and Gillray, and paintings and drawings by Van Dyck, Sir Thomas Lawrence and many other artists. And much of it is freely on show to anyone with business in the place.

The ethos of Westminster still betrays its origins as a royal palace. But its advisory committee on works of art has done as much as any regional hub or cultural consortium to bring the art to the people.

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Christian Voice

Nick Barlow gives this nasty organisation a good hoofing on his What You Can Get Away With blog.

It is not clear that the group extends far beyond the imagination of its self-publicist organiser Stephen Green. But the combination of happy-clappy religion and far-right politics which it embodies is particularly toxic.

For the health of British society and politics we must stand up to Christian Voice, not cave in to it as a number of people who should know better have done in recent days - see here and here.

The Power of Nightmares

In the autumn of the last year the BBC showed Adam Curtis's documentary series The Power of Nightmares. It examined the extent to which the threat of terrorism to the West is a politically driven fantasy and whether al-Qaeda really is an organised network. It was far better than anything Michael Moore has come up with.

I have just discovered (via www.perfect.co.uk) a page on the BBC site where Curtis answers viewers' questions. It is well worth a look.

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

How to bring down Blair

A new political blog The Returning Officers points out that, were one of the candidates in the Sedgefield constituency to die during the campaign, then the poll in that constituency would have to be postponed "possibly until as late as Thursday June 23 (assuming polling day was originally 5 May)".

Not only that, as the first comment on the posting says:

The Queen could still appoint Blair PM but it would be such a drastic change to the current constitutional position that I can't imagine her doing so.

And while Blair would be out of office for just a few weeks if re-elected, a by-election in Sedgefield with him as a candidate would be a seriously different matter from a regular parliamentary election there, or indeed any by-election in the past.

It makes you think.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Hunter S Thompson

So farewell to the great gonzo

journalist

Liberal blocks identity cards

Simon Titley at Liberal Dissenter praises a forgotten Liberal hero - Clarence Willcock. In 1950 he refused to show his identity card to the police when asked. He won the resultant court case, which led to the abolition of the cards.

Monday, February 21, 2005

Shepperton Babylon

A couple of weeks ago I wrote an enthusiastic post about Matthew Sweet's new book Shepperton Babylon. I have now read it and am just as enthusiastic.

Sweet offers a history of British cinema in ten chapters, arguing that the conventional critical wisdom that home-grown films are irredeemably second rate is based on simple ignorance. He sees that history as far more interesting than is generally realised - hence the subtitle of his introduction "Strange England".

The first chapter - in many ways the most interesting - looks at the lost history of British silent films. Not only are the stars, who in their day were as big here as anyone from Hollywood, forgotten but their films are lost too. As the recent television series on the films of Mitchell and Kenyon showed, the early cinema was run by travelling showmen and local entrepreneurs. Only with the advent of sound did the theatrical profession move in.

Mention should also be made of the eponymous hero of Rescued by Rover who, in a later film
pounds off in hot pursuit, jumps into the driving seat of the abductor's car and, paws on the steering wheel, chugs his charge back to safety along the road from Shepperton to Walton.
No wonder Sweet calls The Dog Outwits the Kidnapper "a minor masterpiece of British surrealism".

After that he pursues a zig-zag course himself, avoiding the most critically respectable British films (Powell & Pressburger, Carol Reed) in order to recover lost films and long-buried scandals.

Chapter 2 looks at the career of Ivor Novello and chapter 3 at that of Nerina Shute, the teenage, bisexual film gossip columnist from the 1920s who died last year. Chapter 4 makes a case for revisiting the "quota quickies" of the 1930s.

Chapter 5 looks at Basil Dean's stewardship of Ealing before the War and his Kane-like attempt to make a star of his second wife Victoria Hopper. Sweet found her as an old lady, living in a cottage on Romney Marsh. He has less time for the two stars Dean did make. Gracie Fields is described as "a rugby forward in a dress" and George Formby has the face of "a human being reflected in a tap".

Trivia fans may like to note that Formby's morbidly jealous wife had Betty Driver (who is still serving her hotpots in the Rover's Return) thrown of his first picture and that Formby's mother died in 1981 at the age of 102.

Chapter 7 celebrates the female stars of the Gainsborough films: Patricia Roc, Phyllis Calvert and Jean Kent. Chapter 8 looks at J. Arthur Rank, emphasising how many of the greatest British films he financed in the 1940s.

Rank's films from the 1950s have a poor reputation, but Sweet challenges this critical orthodoxy. Dirk Bogarde, for instance, was often seen (not least by himself) as having broken out of Rank's bonds and moved from being a matinee idol to being an internationally recognised ac-tor. Sweet points out that some of Bogarde's later films were not distinguished and that he made many interesting films at home in the 1950s (such as Hunted and The Spanish Gardener).

And who needs Scum when, in The Boys in Brown, Bogarde can "suggest barrack-room bullying and buggery just by the way he leans on his mop"?

Sweet has great fun with The Singer not the Song, the impossibly British camp Western in which Bogarde starred. And he pins down the failings of Bogarde's British contemporaries. There is John Mills: "Watch his pre-war films, and you'll be struck by a salient aspect of his performances: he can't act". And there is Kenneth More:

He was heroic in a cocky, big-brotherly way - like a public-school prefect who might have saved a new boy from a beating, but expected three terms of shoe-polishing and crumpet-toasting in return.

The book ends with chapters on cheap horror films of the 1960s and the sexploitation films of the 1970s. These are in many ways the least interesting in the book, but you forgive Sweet everything when he tells you that Valerie Singleton narrated Nudes of the World in 1961.

In short, a book that anyone with an interest in British films or 20th century British history should read.

Peter Hain on civil liberty

This book review by Peter Hain, published in the Guardian last year, is full of ironies that he is obviously blind to himself. He is writing about the memoirs of the anti-Apartheid activist Hilda Bernstein:

We met Hilda for the first time in the 1960s when she called at our Pretoria home seeking help for locally held black detainees. This was the time of the state of emergency declared after the Sharpeville shootings, and by then my parents were regular visitors to black townships, as they were increasingly drawn into the same struggle, being jailed in 1961, followed wherever they went by the special branch, and then both subject to banning orders blocking them from political activity and even social contact. However, the Bernsteins had it much tougher.

At the time of the Rivonia arrests in July 1963, Rusty had already spent nine months under house arrest: only able to leave his house between 6.30am and 6.30pm (except on Sundays and public holidays, when he couldn't leave at all), obliged to report to police HQ between noon and 2pm each day and confined to the Johannesburg magisterial district.

He had been carrying out his architectural work from their bedroom since his release from jail in 1960 and Hilda's description of the family waiting for him to get home before the 6.30pm deadline on the day that he was arrested at Rivonia makes riveting reading.

Though acquitted at Rivonia, Rusty was immediately rearrested, charged with breaches of the catch-all Suppression of Communism Act (you were a communist if the minister said so).

Charles Darwin explained

The Shropshire Star reports:
A blundering badger sparked a major rescue operation in Shrewsbury after falling more than 20ft into a 200-year-old ice house on land once owned by Charles Darwin.
As every schoolboy used to know, Darwin came up with his theory of evolution after being hit on the head by a falling badger.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

BritBlog Roundup

Many thanks to Tim Worstall for putting together a Best of British blogging selection - and particular thanks to him for starting his first one with my posting Listen to Gladstone.

The least I can do is add his blog to my list of links.

Ambridge riots

Sometimes it is hard to escape the conclusion that some people working in the public sector would be happiest living in a totalitarian state.

Take this report in today's Observer about reactions to Brian Aldridge outburst at Alice's intention to leave her fee-paying school and do her A levels at a further education College. (We're talking about the BBC Radio 4 soap opera The Archers, stoopid.)

The paper quotes him as follows:
"Borchester College?" exploded Brian. "Has she been on the horse pills? It's sheer madness. The college is full of Neanderthals ... Have you driven past it lately? Half of the students don't appear to have opposable thumbs." He then claimed the only facilities it had was to teach 'advanced hairdressing and media studies'.
Well, I imagine that is pretty much what a bone-headed Tory farmer like Aldridge would say in such circumstances. But good drama has no place if you are a certain kind of public sector professional.

Listen to Anne Piercy, vice-principal of Stafford College:
his ill-informed criticism is hurtful to those who study and work at further education colleges and could have a very serious impact by dissuading people from choosing a learning environment which may be enormously beneficial to them.
Leaving aside the apparent implication that any view anyone might find hurtful should be left out of drama, look at what nonsense this is. For "a very serious impact" to be felt, hordes of young people would have to tune to Radio 4 rather than any of the music stations, catch The Archers and then sympathise with a right-wing, middle-aged character. It hardly sounds likely.

Then there is Claire Boxall, "communications manager" at Mid-Kent College in Chatham. She is quoted as saying that "this sort of coverage is not helpful". A splendidly pompous phrase that. Since when has the BBC existed to provide programmes that are helpful to Mid-Kent College?

And there is a head of faculty at Stoke College:
I am horrified: we all know that Brian is both opinionated and frequently wrong, but for the casual listener, it puts further education in a bad light.

If she finds The Archers horrifying she must have led a pretty sheltered life. Note also the implication that while she is quite clever enough to understand drama, other listeners are not up to it.

She goes on:

It comes exactly at the moment young people and their parents are choosing between the options of sixth forms and further education and the negative exchange could easily be used as evidence to base their decision.

A soap opera covering an issue just at the time when people are in the real world are considering it too? Clearly, the government must act, particularly as the public are obviously so impressionable.

The Observer reports that:

John Brennan, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, has attempted to calm the situation by offering his services to The Archers' producers as a consultant on future plotlines concerning Alice's education.

I do hope the BBC tells him what he can do with his offer.

Friday, February 18, 2005

Sayeed saved

Conservative MP Jonathan Sayeed has survived an attempt to deselect him in a row over allegations he had profited from private tours of Parliament ...

On Thursday night he won a vote of confidence by 173 to 126 votes at a constituency party meeting in Mid-Bedfordshire.

Constituency president Sir Stanley Odell resigned in protest.

reports the BBC.

Meanwhile the authoritative voice of Biggleswade Today makes it clear that the of disquiet in the local party goes well beyond Sir Stanley.

Does anyone have Martin Bell's phone number?

Listen with Gladstone

Here is today's House Points column from Liberal Democrat News.

Voices over

Labour is fighting the general election with verbless slogans like “Forward not backwards” and “Your children with the best start." Soon people will not be able to speak at all – quite possibly in my lifetime.

How different from the nineteenth century! Then thousands of working men would stand in the rain for two or three hours to listen to Mr Gladstone. Lately I have been taking solace from listening to him myself.

It is possible. The other day I went to the bookshop at the British Library. That’s the new building in Euston Road that looks rather like a railway station. It is next-door to St Pancras, which looks very like a national library. There I bought a double CD (Voices of History) of recordings of the great and the good.

The quality of the Gladstone recording is poor. It was made on a cylinder in 1888 and he sounds as though he is broadcasting from somewhere far away. No doubt it could be cleaned up, but it is somehow right that it has not been. With the help of a transcript, you can hear his Victorian optimism: “wonders upon wonders are opening before us”.

Florence Nightingale is also hard to make out, but the rest are clear as day. There are the dictators Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, as well as Trotsky speaking in English. There are the royals, going back as far as George V. There are Lloyd George, Asquith, and two other Liberals: Herbert Samuel and Margaret Wintringham, who was MP for Louth between 1921 and 1924.

Winston Churchill dominates the discs, particularly when set against his Conservative contemporaries Baldwin and Chamberlain – you can almost smell the fusty overcoats as they speak. The odd thing was that for many years Churchill was not seen as a particularly good speaker in the Commons. There was so much preparation that he was unable to deal with interventions.

He also struggled with a tendency to lisp. When Churchill was home secretary and presiding over the Siege of Sidney Street, his deputy Charles Masterman was on holiday in France and becoming increasingly alarmed at the accounts in the newspapers. When he got back he burst Churchill's room at the Home Office with the query "What the hell have you been doing now, Winston?" The reply was: "Now Charlie. Don't be croth. It was such fun."

And then there is Attlee, telling us that we must show the same sense of purpose in peace that we did to win the war. This is the dream that haunted Labour for decades. The idea that socialism involved giving up our liberties for the common good. You still see its effect today, with Charles Clarke’s enthusiasm for identity cards and house arrest.

Which brings us back to the death of civilisation as we know it.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

More on Ken Livingstone

There is an article by Jennie Bristow on the Spiked website which takes a similar line to the New Statesman editorial I discussed earlier. She makes another point that is worth quoting:

Ken 'Ban It' Livingstone has spent so much of his seasoned life campaigning to censure people whose remarks could be construed as racist and offensive, this seems like a just punishment: he has fallen foul of the intolerant climate that he helped to create.

Unfortunately, this is not simply a story about a po-faced politician getting his come-uppance. It reveals the petulant and censorious spirit of our times, in which references to the Holocaust are bandied about like common swear words and the response to anybody feeling offended is to call for official censure.

Cleobury Mortimer

Last month we had to report that the little Shropshire town of Cleobury Mortimer was "strife torn" and had been "plunged into chaos".

The latest news is that it is "crisis hit". I am not sure if that it is an improvement

Ken Livingstone

There is a very good editorial in this week's New Statesman which makes the important points about the story that has been filling the papers this week:
Ken Livingstone is a fool and a hypocrite. Leaving a party to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Chris Smith "coming out" as the first openly gay MP, he asks a London Evening Standard reporter (who happens to be Jewish) if he is "a German war criminal", suggests that he should seek treatment and describes the reporter's employers as "a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots". This is foolish because doorstepping a London party is hardly on a par with running an extermination camp, and to equate the two is to trivialise the latter; it is hypocritical because, a few years ago, Mr Livingstone himself acted as the Standard's restaurant critic. It would be good manners for Mr Livingstone to say sorry to Oliver Finegold, the reporter. But it is also absolutely no business of anyone else's whether he does so or not.
and
The demand for ritual recantation and punishment whenever someone expresses themselves "inappropriately" (itself a prissy, nannyish sort of word) has become an inhibition on free speech. A football manager loses his job when he "insults" disabled people; an editor's career is endangered when his magazine "insults" Liverpudlians; a commentator is thrown off the airwaves when he "insults" tsunami victims with a feeble pun. The worst sin of all (and rightly so) is anti-Semitism; but to place Mr Livingstone's remarks in that category is another example of trivialising the genuine article.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Frank Furedi on academic freedom

There is a new article by Furedi on the Spiked website. In it he argues that academic freedom is a deeply unfashionable concept and that the threat to it comes from within the university as much as without. He points to ethics committees, learning outcomes and the fear of giving offence through one's language.

This last point interests me as it chimes with my concerns about the Standards Board for England, originally posted here.

Anyway, here is Furedi:

That academics are expected to work within such a code, which explicitly demands that the pursuit of knowledge and expression of ideas should be restrained by the need to spare the feelings of others, is a symptom of our times. Such censorious speech codes have been institutionalised through the UK, without any serious opposition from staff or students. Once upon a time, instructions on the use of language were for schoolkids; today they are aimed at restraining the speech of the academic.

Of course words can offend. But one of the roles of a university is to challenge conventional truths - and that means academics questioning the sacred and mentioning the unmentionable. A proper university teaches its members how not to take hateful views personally, and how not to be offended by uncomfortable ideas.

The Orange Book

Remember The Orange Book? I thought not, but I have posted my Liberator review of it from last autumn to Lord Bonkers' website anyway.

Liberal Democrats look away

There is absolutely nothing funny about the photograph accompanying this story from the Shropshire Star.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Rum in Brum

Labour has admitted that the behaviour of some of its supporters "may have fallen short of the high standards that the electors have the right to expect," reports the Birmingham Post. Such talent for understatement should be encouraged.

For more on the murkier side of Birmingham politics, see John Hemmings' blog.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Standards Board: latest developments

Double Standards has the latest news on the Paul Dimoldenberg case, which I discussed in my a recent House Points column:
A local politician who faces disqualification after blowing the whistle on Westminster council broke new ground after winning the right to mount a public interest defence.

Goodbyeed Sayeed?

Trust Biggleswade Today to have the latest news:

"Humiliated" MP Jonathan Sayeed is fighting for his political life after being suspended from Parliament.

Mid Beds Conservative Association is holding an emergency meeting on Thursday to discuss the MP's future.

A glimpse of the future

SUTTER, California (AP) -- The only grade school in this rural town is requiring students to wear radio frequency identification badges that can track their every move. Some parents are outraged, fearing it will rob their children of privacy.
More details on the CNN site here. The impressive thing about the full report is the level of oppostion from parents. In Britain, you fear, they would be all in favour.

Anorak heaven

Visit Vote 2005 for all the predictions, argument and gossip about the forthcoming general election.

Thanks to Paswonky's Blog for the tip.

Friday, February 11, 2005

Right to roam in Shropshire

The Shropshire Star reports that there is to be an appeal hearing on Tuesday over the designation of Bromlow Callow as moorland. (Moorland is covered by the new right to roam legislation.)

To see why it is important that the appeal fails and that people are free to enjoy the area, see this picture.

Miss Marple meets Taxi Driver

Today's House Points column from Liberal Democrat News.

Tory Blues

Imagine an English village. Cricket on the green. Blue skies. Red telephone box. The sun shining upon the ancient stones of the church, the mellow bricks of the rectory and the thatch of the cottages.

A bobby cycles into view. He stops at one of those cottages and makes his way through the hollyhocks to the front door. When it opens, he can’t help noticing the corpse stretched out in the hall

“What’s all this then, madam?” he asks. “It’s a burglar, Constable McNally,” she replies. “He broke in during the night and my husband shot him.” “In that case I won’t take up any more of your time,” replies the officer, and rides off.

It’s a curious world – Miss Marple meets Taxi Driver – but it seems to be the one the Tories want to live in. On Friday they turned out in force to support Patrick Mercer’s private members bill allowing householders to use anything short of “grossly disproportionate force” to tackle intruders.

Mercer was addressing a real problem: the fear of crime in rural areas where police are far away. But rather than proposing a practical solution, such as more special constables, he went off with the fairies.

People do worry they will end up in court after defending themselves against burglars, though the figures suggest they have little cause. But even under Mercer’s law they would face investigation if a burglar was killed or injured. No real officer would behave like our PC McNally. And what constitutes “grossly disproportionate force” would ultimately be decided by juries, so some cases would still go to court.

This episode illustrates the decline of the Conservatives. To be a Tory you have to rather like life the way it is. Newspapers still reflect this. Spend an hour with the Guardian and become depressed. Read the Daily Telegraph and you come away convinced the world is full of things to enjoy.

Tory politicians no longer feel that way. Some demand the impossible, always clamouring to “bring back” something – usually matron or the birch. Others stoke fears over crime or immigration and offer solutions as bizarre as Mercer’s.

Of the old Conservative Party – that collection of contented people with a fat stake in the status quo – there in now little sign.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

The boyhood of Blair

Do you remember Tony Blair's extraordinary lies about his own childhood? How he once stowed away on a flight to the Bahamas and how he used to watch Jackie Milburn play for Newcastle?

I have come across an article by Francis Wheen which gives the details and posted a couple of paragraphs to my other blog Serendib.

Wedding of the year to take place at castle

Not Charles and Camilla, you booby.

The Shropshire Star has details of Lembit and Sian's plans. They will marry at Powis Castle in October.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005

Sayeed suspended from the Commons

Yesterday's Hansard carries a full report of the Commons' decision to suspend Jonathan Sayeed for two weeks.

Sayeed himself made a distinctly Vicky Pollard apology, and this was followed by a headmasterly contribution from Sir George Young, the chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which set out the facts of the case.

Note particularly his comment that:
The Committee on Standards and Privileges will need to reflect on whether he has responded fully to our recommendations that he apologise fully to the House in the light of some of his qualifications.

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Manners maketh man

As widely predicted, Conservative MP Jonathan Sayeed has been suspended from the House of Commons for two weeks.

This gives us the opportunity to have another snigger at the website of The English Manner Ltd, the company that got him in trouble with the Commons authorities. Here is part of the blurb for their "Seminars on Social Graces":

Etiquette is a word rarely used today. The idea of social niceties and proper protocol can seem prim and old-fashioned for the fast-paced world where we live and do business.

But many otherwise intelligent and educated individuals are lost when making a formal toast, hosting a dinner party—or even when choosing which fork to use. These people lack an important element for success in both their work and personal lives.

By coincidence, Manners is the family name of the Dukes of Rutland. Their seat Belvoir Castle hosts some of the company's events and resembles a less ambitious version of Bonkers Hall.

Democrat nomination 2008

The campaigning has already begun, reports Taegan Goddard's Political Wire (drawing upon a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer):
Former Sen. John Edwards "is already stumping for 2008 - a mere 1,365 days away - because, apparently, a minute wasted is a minute lost. His ex-partner, John Kerry, is in the final stages of setting up a money-raising machine; Hillary Clinton is talking more about religious values; a red-state senator, Evan Bayh of Indiana, is staffing up, having hired an Ohio turnout expert; and a governor with independent wealth, Mark R. Warner of Virginia, will soon headline a political dinner in Georgia.
You read it here first.

Bye bye Big Blunkett

I have removed Big Blunkett from my list of links as it is no longer being updated. I suppose the site saw its purpose as being fulfilled when the bearded authoritarian resigned.

In the last post on the blog the author urges readers to support the No2ID campaign.

Monday, February 07, 2005

Lord Bonkers' website

I have begun the process of updating Lord B's site. I had serious spyware problems last summer and then got interested in this blog. (Don't tell him, for Gladstone's sake.)

Now Lord Bonkers' Latest Diary is just what it says, even though it comes from 1906.

Only in Shropshire...

Oswestry, to be precise. From the Shropshire Star:
An old toilet block, earmarked for possible demolition, might have to stay put - because it could be holding up the remains of a Shropshire castle.
For more on Oswestry Castle in happier days, click here.

The cup that cheers

Today's Guardian carries a long extract from the new book by Peter Hyman, the former New Labour apparachik who has gone into teaching. Oddly, what strikes the reader most is not the radical break Hyman has made but how similar his new career must be to his time working for Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street.

Let me explain.

My new boss is Trevor Averre-Beeson, headteacher of Islington Green school. The first time I meet him, he is standing like a new father next to his pride and joy - his Fender Stratocaster guitar. On the wall of his office there is a Beatles calendar.
Working for someone who made his love of rock and roll a little too public to be true? That must have seemed strangely familiar.
He is over six feet tall and broad-shouldered; mid-40s, in a blue suit, a pale blue shirt and a purple tie. He is middle-class...
I think we had gathered that from his job and his name.
...yet has a classless feel to him.
That's all right then.
He radiates dynamism.
Grrr, tiger.

"Welcome," he says. "Water or coffee?" I later discover that anyone who asks for tea annoys Trevor intensely. He has coffee brewing permanently and water is easy. He doesn't want to waste time making tea.
What greater condemnation...

Let's go back into black ink.

What greater condemnation could there be of a man than that he is not prepared to spare the time to make tea? We see here, all at once, what is wrong with the modern world, the state of education and New Labour.

Up the wooden hill

A story in the Yorkshire Post neatly ties together two recent concerns of this blog.

The paper suggests that Sue Catling, recently deselected as the Tory candidate in Calder Valley, is being talked as a possible replacement for Jonathan Sayeed in Mid Bedfordshire following his recent embarrassment.

Politicians and comedians

A sign of the times.

This morning the BBC Radio 4 Today programme interviewed Rowan Atkinson about his opposition to the government's plans to make incitement to racial hatred a criminal offence.

At the end of the item the interviewer said "Thank you for your time".

This from a programme that routinely treats cabinet minister with contempt.

Sunday, February 06, 2005

Harborough woman gives birth to cat

Details here.

Nice Belvoir

The Tory MP Jonathan Sayeed is facing suspension from parliament for two weeks, has had the Tory whip withdrawn for a month and is now threatened with deselection in his Mid Bedfordshire constituency. Full details from the BBC.

But if you want a really good laugh, visit the website of The English Manner Ltd, the company run by Sayeed's parliamentary aide Alexandra Messervy.

In the words of the Guardian:

The English Manner's website promised unique travel experiences, courses in etiquette and seminars in social graces. The organiser, Mrs Messervy, promised "once in a lifetime trips to recreate a classic English country house party by enabling guests to stay with members of the aristocracy in castles and stately homes throughout Britain". She also promised "tutorials led by the British political, cultural and artistic elite".

The tours included staying at Belvoir Castle, the home of the Duke and Duchess of Rutland, and private tours round Kensington Palace and Buckingham Palace.

How much does this combination of snobbery and wishful thinking cost? A four-day visit to Britain, staying as guests of the Duke of Rutland, will set Americans back an eye-watering $4440 per person.

If gullible people want to stay in an aristocratic home in Rutland, I suggest that they contact my old friend Lord Bonkers instead. I can guarantee them a holiday they will never forget - and at a fraction of the price.

Friday, February 04, 2005

The Standards Board for England

Here is today's House Points column from Liberal Democrat News. It owes something to an earlier posting on this blog. Simon Titley has also taken up the cause, but I did not feel Lib Dem News was ready for a phrase like "a large festering vat of rancid goat semen".

Fighting talk

Labour came to power pledged to wage war on sleaze. In part because the last days of John Major’s government made Sodom and Gomorrah looks like genteel Cotswold villages. But more because there was little to differentiate them from the Tories on policy and they needed something else to talk about.

One of the fruits of this war is the Standards Board for England. Set up in March 2001, it describes its role as ensuring that “members of local authorities are seen to live up to the high standards the public has a right to expect from them”.

But there are increasing concerns that the Board is being used by local politicians and activists as a weapon against their opponents. Three or four thousand complaints are made about councillors every year.

More worrying is the suggestion that councils use the Board to discourage scrutiny. On Tuesday in Westminster Hall Peter Bradley raised the case of Paul Dimoldenberg, the leader of the Labour opposition group on Westminster. Dimoldenberg was reported to the Board after leaking an e-mail which countered claims that Dame Shirley Porter was unable to pay a £42m surcharge because she was down to her last £300,000. He also exposed the council’s unenthusiastic approach to recouping the lower settlement it finally reached with Dame Shirley.

Instead of being awarded the freedom of the borough, Dimoldenberg was reported by his own officers and has already run up more than £6000 in legal costs.

Most cases the Board handles are not this dramatic, but there are many where councillors are facing investigation or sanctions for what sounds remarkably like doing their job.

What is happening stems partly from our exaggerated modern concerns for others’ feelings. Politics, local politics included, thrives on conflict and strong argument. If something is worth saying, it is likely to offend someone.

And partly it arises from the centralisation of government. Local politics in Britain is now a form of community management where councils deliver the initiatives and crackdowns decreed from above. Councillors who insist on acting as representatives of the people are viewed with suspicion.

The Board clearly needs reform. In the mean time, anyone reported to it for fighting on behalf of the electors should wear the distinction with pride.

Thursday, February 03, 2005

Parents and the Guardian

There was an article in the Guardian yesterday which epitomises the agonies its readers go through as parents.

What should you do if your child uses bad language? The thought that you might tell them not to seems hardly to occur to the author, Pete May. Instead he reserves his approval for Jan Parker and Jan Stimpson who in their book Raising Happy Children, he reports, suggest having a rule that certain rude words can't be used in the house by either children or adults. At all costs, we must refrain from treating children differently from adults.

You will also find in May's article two other tactics used by those who defend such views.

There is the claim that concern with good manners and the like is middle class - always a pejorative term in the Guardian, which is odd when you consider who reads it:
"It's also a class thing," says Julie Targett. "Swearing is accepted more in upper- and working-class families. But my family is Daily Mail-reading middle-class."
And there is the assumption that the only alternative to a lax approach is something absurdly repressive:
Do any of us want grown-up kids who are terrified to swear in front of us?
I was also struck by May's conclusion:
Maybe all we can do is try to keep swearing out of the house until our children become adolescents - when parents and children will probably swear at each other as much as they effing well like.
Someone should write a history of are concept of adolescence. When did it become accepted that teenagers will be impossible to live with? I suspect it was surprisingly recently. Those who defend this view will do so in terms of raging hormones, yet they are people who would reject biological determinism in every other sphere of life.

I suspect that it has more to do with the abdication of adult authority that we see in May's article. I am reminded of some lines of W. H. Auden (full poem here), which apply equally well to modern parents and children:
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

Erewash: Where's that?

Readers who have the misfortune not to live in the East Midlands may not be too clear on the whereabouts of the constituency Robert Kilroy-Silk is to fight. This profile from the BBC will help you:
Erewash is in south east Derbyshire, and lies inbetween Nottingham and Derby, and is named after the river which flows from north to south through the seat and enters the Trent near Long Eaton. 
The seat’s main towns are Long Eaton and Ilkeston, and there also several small villages and open countryside in the area. The M1 also cuts down the middle of the constituency. 
The Erewash seat is home to many East Midlands commuters, but has a good deal of industry also. Long Eaton is still a lace-making centre, and though coal mining is no more, engineering, textile, and furniture-making industries remain. Most of the workforce is employed in manual trades, but a relatively low unemployment rate, high level of owner-occupancy and a near all-white population.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

British films: not so cosy

On 17 February Matthew Sweet will publish his Shepperton Babylon. It's a great title, promising a British equivalent of Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon. The Faber website describes it as:

a history of home-grown movies that includes the scandals, the suicides, the immolations and the contract killings - the product of thousands of conversations with veteran film-makers.

It's not just that this is a fascinating subject in itself, but Sweet is the author of one of the most remarkable history books I know: Inventing the Victorians.

In it he argues that we have got the Victorians all wrong. They were not as, well, Victorian as we imagine. They did not cover the legs of pianos because they thought them indelicate - that was a joke they told at the expense of the prudish Americans. (See this column of mine, which acknowledges its debt to Sweet, for more details.) John Ruskin was not dumbfounded by the sight of his bride's pubic hair on their wedding night. And Prince Albert did not have a Prince Albert.

Sweet is talking on British films at the University of Warwick on 26 February. Full details here.


More on the Liberal Democrats' escape from house arrest

The Guardian reports:
The Liberal Democrats will today strike out against the government's plans for the house arrest of suspected terrorists by saying they will oppose the measure in the Lords, arguing that it requires derogation from the European convention on human rights.

Veritas to change name?

Europhobia suggests that Robert Kilroy-Silk's new party may have made a poor choice of name.

Not because everyone is calling them Vanitas, but because Veritas is a trademark of the Veritas software company.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Two new links

I have added a couple more links to the list on the right - or the "blogroll", as young people call it.
  1. Edis Bevan's MKNE Political Information, which has awoken after a dormant period;
  2. The surprisingly palatable Chicken Yoghurt.

Lib Dems see sense on house arrests

"Plans for keeping terrorist suspects under house arrest are to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats," says the BBC News website.

I should think so too.

Referees, authority and David Mellor

I am writing this listening to Arsenal vs Manchester United. Like all good Chelsea fans, I am hoping for a draw.

The commentators are saying that the players and both benches are yelling at the referee every time he makes a decision. This typifies our modern inability to submit to any authority at all.

I am reminded of David Mellor and his successful attempt to reinvent himself as a populist football pundit on BBC Radio Five Live. He did two things. The first was to do affect an estuary accent - rather like Tony Blair on Richard and Judy. If you had heard Mellor broadcasting on classical music in his normal voice Radio 3, and then doing his football show on Five, you would not have realised it was the same person.

The other thing Mellor did was to acquire some attitudes that he thought would appeal to the masses. Chief among these was contempt for referees. The most one-eyed fan ringing in to complain his team had been robbed was sure of a sympathetic hearing.

If former Tory cabinet ministers have no respect for figures of authority like referees, what chance is there that anyone else will? This supports the claim I made the other day that Conservatism no longer exists as a political philosophy in this country.

Richard Sennett's Authority is supposed to be a good discussion of the subject from a left-wing point of view. I borrowed it recently from Leicester University's library, but some bastard recalled the book before I could read it.