Conservative Commentary
"the blogger whose youthful effusions have won him bookmarks all over Whitehall ... horribly compelling" - The Guardian
|
|
Conservative Commentary "the blogger whose youthful effusions have won him bookmarks all over Whitehall ... horribly compelling" - The Guardian |
|
|
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Migration and culture
For those who don't listen to the programme, here are three great quotes from the debate. "British society is rooted, for example, in the values of equality and liberty. The equality derives from Protestantism, the liberty derives from a particular liberal contract based on the rule of law going back to the Enlightenment. Now these are particular to British society - and one could say Western civilisation, but let's limit it to Britain. Now if you're not able to teach that history because not enough people can actually identify with it at any stage, then you're in trouble, aren't you?" - Melanie Phillips
I think there are two distinct paradigms now. One is the paradigm that we are all used to which is that our primary duty is to our family, our locality and our nation. The other paradigm which is now the sort of dominant view among the political chattering classes is that we owe an equal responsibility to the entire world, that the nation is somehow illegitimate and that instead of the nation we should have supranational laws and institutions, and this is a direct threat to liberal democracy." - Melanie Phillips
... [T]here has been economic benefits and other benefits that have come about as a result of migration. The one thing that I am uneasy about is saying to people 'These benefits have come. Now shut up and accept it' and that comes from Northern Ireland. It seems reasonably clear from our historical perspective that Ulster benefitted from the economic modernisation of the Protestant plantation of the 17th Century. Most historians would agree with that. But because of that plantation, ie. because of mass migration from Scotland to Ireland in the 1700s, we've got a huge ethnic problem now. And you thought you were being clever, Ian [Hargreaves] - and you were being quite clever - in bringing Ulster up, but Ulster is actually on Melanie's side of the argument not on yours because it proves that migration can lead, hundreds of years hence, to all sorts of social fracture." - Michael Gove Probably no more posts until Monday afternoon, I am afraid. Until then, I shall be doing this. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, February 27, 2004
Andrew Sullivan.com
EMAIL OF THE DAY (2003): After 9/11, I realised my position was unsustainable. Ever since my boyhood in Michigan, I had been a true liberal. I knocked on doors every day for months campaigning for Eugene McCarthy, and then raised over $5,000 for McGovern. I had my reservations about a President as right-wing as Jimmy Carter, but I held my breath and supported him right up to the eighties, which until recently I always looked back on as a nightmare decade. When Clinton won in 1992, I greeted it as a new dawn for America. I have long supported all the truest liberal causes. I want to see punitive corporate tax, compulsory sex education for five year olds, most of the military replaced by robed Buddhists who will disarm our enemies with a message of love, and all employment to be approved by the federal government. I want a total ban on guns and big knives, the Bible declared illegal hate speech and ultimately for America to become a Spanish-speaking Latin American country. But when September 11th came, I looked around my country, and what I saw of my party made me ashamed to be a registered Democrat. Criticism after criticism was levelled against the war on terror. People said the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. Now they say we won't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The current stock of Democrat candidates is terrifyingly left-wing, a disgrace to their country and to the liberal principles I thought they believed in. Hard as it may be for me to say this, I am going to be supporting Bush 100%. I don't think my principles have changed at all. I am the same ultra-liberal I always was. But my party has retreated into extremism and anti-Americanism, and I cannot belong to it while that is the case.
But now I see an administration entirely in the grip of the religious right and that terrifies me. I am a true conservative Christian and I still believe what I always did. But look at what we now have. A Republican President publicly endorsing God's definition of marriage and refusing to submit to the expressed will of five of the Massachussetts Supreme Court's nine justices. To take such a major issue out of the hands of liberal activist judges is to violate everything our founders fought for, is to make the war on terror meaningless and the Constitution a lie. Hard as it may be for me to say this, I shall be voting Democrat next time. I long for the day when the Republican Party will accept my more moderate vision of America, and only hope they see reason and fight the right-wing to which the party has retreated. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, February 26, 2004
Notices
1. I have had to replace the comment system. It seems to be working now. Thanks to Ron West for his help. 2. I don't know if this idea has any chance of taking off, but as it is easy and costless to set up, there was little to lose. I have set up an IRC chat room which bloggers and blog-readers may or may not wish to frequent. If you have an IRC client, like mIRC, you can join by typing in the following. /server irc.blabber.net If you want to visit through an ordinary web browser, click here to join the server, and to enter the channel type in "/join #blogs" after entering a chat name. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Quote of the Day
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. ... The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honouring - honoured and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all." - President Bush Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Was it a decision to "out" Dr Kelly - or to KILL him?
Let's see what the Guardian forumers have to say. Rokossovsky: Hutton whitewashed "suicide," but we know: Blair was at the Kelly meetings and minutes were not taken; "Operation Mason" (including shredding Kelly-related documents) started when Kelly left home and ended around his death; the Blair regime had already tried to intimidate "rogue elements" in British intelligence; and many pro-Blair groups have the expertise to murder a Kelly. Dragonslayer: The official account of Dr David Kelly's death is so full of holes any amateur detective could spot the gaping discrepancies. Not to mention "Operation Mason" and all the conflicting evidence and statements. Liam: whether or not the government orderd the killing of Dr David Kelly I'm just hoping that thier isn't another inquiry Rokossovsky: you have an "authorised" political death squad running around Britain. This is like El Salvador! It is sad the SAS ... and Britain ... has come to this. Sydneysider: There never was a reason to believe that Kelly committed suicide. What's in question is who gave the order to have him murdered and what was the real reason for the order. I am 90% sure the order can only have come from Blair. adimaaya: I think it's a disgrace that the powers are literally getting away with murder. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, February 24, 2004
The price we all pay for high taxes
High taxation is economically illiterate because it works directly against the principle of 'Division of Labour' that enables members of all modern societies to generate the wealth required to finance acts of charity to the needy. The result of the 70's taxation the bishops hanker for, where the state takes two-thirds of a person's income, is that someone has to be three times as efficient as you before it is worth paying them from your net income to do work for you instead of doing it yourself. This is a simplified account, because it bypasses comparative advantage (even if your secretary is much less efficient than you at typing letters, it may still make sense to employ her because you can be earning more than enough to pay her in the time you save) and the differing values people put on money (one person may value his net income of £333 at more than his rich employer values the gross pay of £1,000). But as a general principle, all other things being equal, the point is very important. When government creates a wedge this large between what one person pays for a job and what another person earns for doing it, then division of labour - the cause of the wealth of nations - perversely becomes less and less economic. You may be happy to work for x amount of money and your employer may be happy to pay it, but once the mega-state sticks its claws in, you have to start charging a price of 3x to take home that much pay. Small wonder if people turn away from economic transactions and resort to doing such jobs themselves, and badly, with the resultant fall in living standards going far beyond the amount one loses to the taxman. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, February 23, 2004
Quote of the Day
"Just for the record, Canadians are not humorless. We're humourless, OK?" - Mark Steyn Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
The 'Yanks' are the nuts here?
In this week's Observer, Oliver James explains: About one in seven Americans believe they have seen a UFO, and 3.7m claim they have been abducted by aliens. Half agree with the statement: 'The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.' OK, the Yanks are nuts. Can you tell he isn't a proper psychologist? I thought so. But let's examine his case despite his absent credentials. One in seven Americans believe they have seen a UFO. Well, while this is may be a point of interest to plane-spotters and astronomers, I don't think much of a conclusion can be drawn about sanity in the United States. Like one-seventh of Americans, I have myself seen a flying object I could not at that moment identify. But this is less grounds for consignment to Bedlam than for better general education about the various aeroplane shapes and sizes. If the more pertinent "Do you believe the earth has alien visitors?" had been asked, I suspect a somewhat lower figure would have resulted. The 3.7 million who claim alien abductions is certainly worryingly high, but if Oliver James were a real psychologist, he might know about the phenomenon of sleep paralysis and the reasons the experience can lead to delusions of such abductions even in quite sane people. But it is the last point that really clarifies his argument. If anything is liable to horrify liberal opinion it is a firm and unwavering belief in the Bible. 'Native' Americans can claim that all of their ancestors, however far back one goes, lived on the American continent, and you won't hear a peep out of leftie multiculturalists. Countries from all over the East and South of the globe can loudly assert their various creation myths and be heard in respectful silence at worst, but more often be assured by a gaggle of postmodernists that their interpretation of man's origins is an equally valid and important contribution to human thought as anything science might have to say. But if anyone declares himself fervently to believe in the Bible, then as far as liberals are concerned he automatically joins those Neanderthals he denies ever existed. The best example of this mentality is probably Anthony Lewis, the New York Times columnist who retired shortly after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, and who used his final article to compare Christians who believe in a six day creation to those who perpetrated the atrocities of September 11th. I'm a Darwinist, and I am about as sure as I can be of the validity of evolution. Further, as I noted last month, I think evolution has enormous cultural implications of which conservatives should more and more start to take notice. But I must confess to feeling none of the bile against believers in Adam and Eve, forbidden fruit and Eden. I do not think they are crazy or malign or even ignorant in a way distinct from, for example, those who do not understand photosynthesis. What is even more puzzling is the set of beliefs that seems to go hand in hand with this incredible condescension. I can understand a well grounded, commonsensical and sceptical thinker scoffing at the idea of a six day creation. But it's not grounded, commonsensical or sceptical thinkers who do scoff. It's the ones who believe that state schools are better now than forty years ago. It's the ones who think a slap on the wrist for crime works but prison doesn't. It's the ones who believe political bureaucrats are generally much better qualified to spend the money you earned than you are. It's the ones who think Britain will in a decade and a half have a climate like Siberia's. It's the ones who think fathers are superfluous to the raising of children. It's the ones who see in the United Nations and the European Union enlightened and progressive governace. Against sensible judgement and overwhelming evidence Oliver James and his fellow travellers hold to such ideas as if they were carried down as stone tablets from mount Sinai, yet they still feel fit to sneer their nostrils clear at those with a comparably credible view of the origin of species. Forgive me if I find that odd. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Someone with a traditional conception of marriage - isn't that a phobia?
But no. The only explanation for my view is that I hate dead people. People like me have a latent prejudice against those who have passed away, and want to deny them rights out of spite. That I hold this view proves I must be a bigot and a hater, that I have a phobia about the dead. If I'm honest, it probably stems from a deep-seated fear that I am myself dead. It is no good for me to say that I would similarly refuse marital status to two flatmates or a single person, and that I similarly mean no harm and feel no animosity towards them. Nor does the fact that I am defending a conception of marriage that has existed and succeeded for millennia for a moment mean I can possibly be thinking rationally. Marriage being an incubator for the next generation? An institution that protects kids needs protection? Pah! Anyone who thinks this is verging on the mentally ill and should probably be silenced by force of law. Thank goodness there are so many people on the left who are ceaseless in their willingness to point out the mental problems and personal hatreds of all those who disagree with them, who share my conception of marriage. If people were able to argue in favour of marriage as an incubator of children without psychoanalysis and character assassination, where would we be? It doesn't bear thinking about. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 22, 2004
Link of the Week
The link of this week is to the charming web site of the RESPECT Coalition, an esteemed group of people sure to change the face of British politics come the next election. Do check it out. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Great minds ...
"John Kerry became the Democrat front-runner by being the anti-Dean candidate. Can John Edwards become the Democrat front-runner - which at this stage in the game means their Presidential nominee - by being the anti-Kerry?" - Conservative Commentary, 6 February 2004 "[H]aving anointed Kerry as the unDean, a significant chunk of Democrats are now looking around for the unKerry. The only guy available is John Edwards, the pretty-boy trial lawyer from North Carolina." - Mark Steyn, 22 February 2004 Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Reading material
At the London flat of a Republican friend a few months back, I was flipping through a book on his coffee table, Paul Krugman's account of currency crises. "That's from before he went crazy," the friend assured me. And indeed, that rather blunt summary is a useful way of thinking for those who doubt the almost Chomskyite or Michael Mooreite Paul Krugman of the New York Times is an especially impressive political commentator. Because he was - or is - a good economic writer, the books he wrote in the 1990s being very worthy of a read by left and right. (Indeed, I see he has received fierce criticism from some sections of the left precisely for the free-trade, moderately pro-market tone of some of this writing.) In that spirit, I read and enjoyed his Accidental Theorist a fortnight ago, and afterwards pondered whether it was worth shelling out over seven pounds to buy the book. My dilemma was answered when a quick internet search revealed that of the twenty-seven essays in the book, twenty were available online, and of the remainder four were so close to the text of the book that they were almost indistinguishable. So I've put together an online version of The Accidental Theorist, with links to all but the three essays not available on the web. I recommend it to all those with any interest in any of the areas he covers. But if you only read three of the essays, my recommendations are Unmitigated Gauls, on why governments making conditions cushy and marvellous for employees is so bad for employment; In Praise of Cheap Labour, a strident defence of third-world sweat-shops; and Four Percent Follies, which has all sorts of valuable lessons within. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, February 16, 2004
The Right Wing in America - a threat to civilisation?
Let's hear what the Guardian forumers have to say. PNACman: Anti intellectual, aggressively certain of their superiority, devoid of morality, masters in the art of propaganda and profoundly insecure. These sociopathic bullies are gaining control of America. macthebrief: I'm not so sure it is correct to say that the "last" time it happened was HitlerZeit. chimpwatch: A ferocious anti-democratic right wing political movement has seized power in the U.S. mari333: I watch the news all day, or what is supposed to pass for it.. PNACman: Mari you're right about the internet and probably represents the last chance to stop the rot. samac3303: Kissinger will probably go down in history as the worst murderer / human rights abuser all -time. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Quote of the Day
"Among the rare authentic stories of [Prince] Philip's childhood is the account of how an insensitive grown-up arrived one day on the beach with toys for all but an invalid child, assumed to be ruled out for playthings. Philip, who was five, went into the house and collected all his personal treasures and presented them to her, the latest aquisition on top. It could have been showing-off. It was more probably an early glimpse of character. One of his equerries recently came out with something on this: 'What people don't realise is that he's immensely kind. No one has a bigger heart, or takes greater pains to conceal it.'" - The Oxford Book of Royal Anecdotes Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
And now it's time for Any Questions: in the chair is Jonathan Dimbleby
JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Welcome to Hull, a beautiful exemplar of British culture and civility since the beginnings of time. We are the guests of Robert Mugabe Sixth Form College, a school reknowned for its academic excellence and community ties. So fierce is the competition for places that professional assassins are alleged to move into the area from as far away as Brazil to meet the demand for their services. Twice winner of the Department of Education's coveted 'Most Diverse Floor Tiles' prize, the college ably serves parents and students across the county. On our panel tonight; Oliver N. Message, a hard-working Labour backbencher since 1987, he rose to the key role of Food Standards Minister after the last election, before selflessly resigning last year for personal reasons. 2003 was also a time when he reached that pinnacle of political achievement in winning the highly respected New Statesman magazine's prestigious Parliamentarian of the Year award. Sir Percival Pyke, the Booker Prize winning novellist and playright, has written thirty books totalling over ten million words - and as many readers. This witty, anti-Establishment, literary giant reached controversy last month after describing the Queen as "the sort of filthy mess so vile that, if you step on it, you immediately throw away the shoe and walk home barefoot". (Laughter and light applause) Baroness Blight, a Liberal Democrat Peer, speaks for her party on Local Government. Described by none other than Jenny Tonge's constituency agent as a future Shirley Williams, and a true champion of civil rights, she has long put the boot in successfully when faced with Tory and Labour opponents. And William Hague, a little-known Tory backbencher of whom one letter to a local newspaper said "Genghis Khan would be truly appalled by how right-wing he is". And he is also the fourth member of our panel. (Applause) Our first question, please? QUESTIONER 1: Robert King. Is David Blunkett's proposal for minimum sentences of two years for axe-murderers yet another sign of this shameless authoritarian's desperate bowing and scraping towards the bastions of cheap tabloid populism? JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Oliver N. Message? OLIVER N. MESSAGE: Er ... no. I think this is a reasonable measure. I personally do worry that judges have too little power in this country (Hear hear) and I do have my concerns about anyone who would propose to let tabloid editors dictate how long these people spend in jail. But I don't think this is what the bill is about. I cautiously support this measure, because I think when you're dealing with axe-murderers - who let us not forget have chopped innocent people to pieces - a couple of years is just about right. (Light groans) JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Baroness Blight. BARONESS BLIGHT: Oooh, this just upsets me to the bones. It really is a chilling day in British justice when this sort of fascist measure - let me repeat that - fascist measure (Enthusiastic applause) can be proposed before the House of Commons. Yes, I'm sure this will get a good headline in the Daily Mail (Hiss!) but all I can think about is those poor people inside prisons who will be denied justice because of it. Thank God my party, the Liberal Democrats, is here to speak for them. (Hear, hear) Because the moment we forget about them, then the terrorists have won. (Long and loud applause) JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Sir Percival Pyke. SIR PERCIVAL PYKE: You only need to look at Guantanamo Bay to see how much this government - and its moronic allies - care about justice. (Cheer) George Bush (Mocking laughter), George Bush ... well, he's a turd isn't he? (Standing ovation) .... Baroness Blight is absolutely right: what we're forgetting in all this ghastly tabloid hoo-ha about 'murder victims' is who the real victims are in all of this. They're the ones sitting in prison cells across our country! (Applause) Frankly, I couldn't give a monkeys what Rupert Murdoch and Rebekah Wade think about our criminal justice system. (Applause) And Paul Dacre! That compassionless squirt! (Laughter) It's because of people like him we need axe-murderers in Britain! (Laughter, then applause) What makes judges so skilled is that they are isolated from popular opinion and they don't need to worry about accountability to the people they serve. If we ever change that, just imagine what would happen - judges would have to be more concerned about the people outside the prisons than the good of those inside. It would be a nightmare, anarchy ... (Hear, hear) ... so help me God: Texas! (Laughter) Quite frankly, if the Sun, Express and Daily Mail don't think someone should be released, then there couldn't be a better reason to let him loose on the streets! Prison doesn't work, prison doesn't work: let everyone out! (Roars of cheering and sustained applause) JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: William Hague. WILLIAM HAGUE: I think the measure is sensible, which is why my party is supporting it. Sadly, it doesn't go nearly far enough. (Mocking laughter) We're talking about criminals who have ended someone's life by cutting them up like wood, here. These people have committed the most henious crimes and they are a danger to everyone around them. To give them a two year minimum sentence is like giving someone 50p for finding the cure for cancer. Sir Percival says we need judges to be isolated from public opinion, but that's precisely the problem: they are giving sentences without any reference to the feelings of normal people who actually have to live with crime. If the Home Secretary is needed sometimes to assert that role, then it's absolutely necessary that he does so. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Ahh! Now let me pick you up on that very controversial point. You mention people who have cut others to pieces. Does not compassionate conservatism extend to them? Or is it as selective as your critics claim? WILLIAM HAGUE: Well, obviously compassion towards killers rather compromises compassion towards their victims. You have to put the innocent first. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: (Chuckling) I see. And further, when you say judges aren't sentencing with reference to public opinion, is that just your way of demanding the Daily Mail set every prison sentence in the country? (Laughter and shouts of "Yes") WILLIAM HAGUE: No, it's a reflection of the fact that judges are ultimately public servants who need to take account of the needs and wishes of the people they serve. JONATHAN DIMBLEBY: Okaaaaay, as it looks like the audience will vote the way I want them to, I'll take a poll. Who thinks the two year minimum sentence for axe-murderers is, as the questioner put it, an authoritarian appeal to the tabloid press? ... Okay, and does anyone think it is right - or insufficient? ... Well, in this audience overwhelmingly the view is that the measure is a mistake. Can we have our next question, please? QUESTIONER 2: Angela Collins. With the Government vetoing the EU's relocation of the Crown Jewels to Brussels and the Conservatives supporting them, are the Liberal Democrats the only true opposition in Britain? Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 15, 2004
Commenting on this site
As there seems to be some confusion on the rules for leaving comments here, I have done what I probably should have done when I started blogging, which is put them up where all can see. I won't remove posts for their political content, but I will delete them if the poster in question does not follow some common sense guidelines for maintaining civil discussion. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, February 13, 2004
Quote of the Day
"Thatcherites are sometimes accused of having a lust for power and described as 'authoritarian'. But the term fits only if derived (as it generally is not) from the strict sense of 'authority' - the right (as opposed to the power or strength) to take certain decisions. Because according to the constitutional procedures of Britain, the right to take certain decisions belongs to the elected government, Thatcherites regard the handing over of such decisions to 'partnerships' with non-governmental groups as a dereliction of duty. In their conception of government, the authority of the Prime Minister, other Ministers and officials is given to them by the electorate and can be removed only by the electorate. And this conviction that the electorate as a whole and not any one part of it ought to decide whether the government has done the right thing is what makes Thatcherites averse to letting governmental decisions be shaped by whatever interest makes the loudest noise or threatens the most trouble. The Thatcherite insistence on doing 'the right thing' is thus the very opposite of a lust for power because it follows from a strong sense for the distinction between right and might and a lively awareness of whom the law has authorized to do what." - Shirley Letwin, The Anatomy of Thatcherism Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Thursday, February 12, 2004
A quick round-up
Rather than waffle or quote at length from pieces to which I have little to add, I will simply link to few pieces well worth a look. First is Niccolo Machiavelli's advice to President Bush for the November election. The Italian thinker being long dead, John O'Sullivan was a helpful conduit. The four key suggestions make so much sense electorally, let alone ideologically, that it is difficult to think of any reason to reject them. Also be sure to examine last month's piece from AIDS Galileo Michael Fumento, a response to one semi-literate critic who comes close to suggesting that making actual statistics on AIDS and HIV cases public poses a risk to people's health. The various health organisations' own most recent data, Fumento contends, works as strongly as ever in favour of his claims that the risk posed by the disease to women and heterosexual males who avoid intravenous drug-abuse is comparatively tiny. Finally, could it be that the EU props up Yasser Arafat's tyranny not out of moral obtuseness but a conscious effort to keep the Palestinian terror campaign going as long as possible? Left-of-centre German MEP Ilke Schroder believes this is the case. By ensuring the conflict with Israel continues, she claims the EU is seeking to win a role on the world stage as a counterbalance to American power. Melanie Phillips reports on these claims, while Harry's Place brings news that, coincidentally or not, the EU's anti-fraud office has just confirmed the authenticity of documents seized by Israeli soldiers proving that the Palestinians are diverting European Union funds - ie. your tax money - to terrorism. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Runner up for the Guardian Award
The results of the Guardian's poll on the best British political blog from a shortlist of twelve were announced today. The winner and runners up were:
When I heard that the turnout was in the hundreds, I wrote off my chances of doing well, so I was very surprised to get such a high number. My thanks to all those who voted for me, or considered doing so, and to Guardian Backbencher Ros Taylor for organising the poll. I was especially pleased to see some people on the left voting for the blog because they enjoyed reading its content even while disagreeing with most of its posts. For a one-man operation run by a Tory student in his spare time to come within just 32 votes in a Guardian poll of a blog which had behind it the keen campaigning of top homosexual site gay.com was very pleasing. My thanks again, and don't stop reading! Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Quote of the Day
"On average, as of early 2003 Bill Clinton's deficits were larger than George W. Bush's. On average, the Clinton deficits over the first three years of that administration were much larger than Bush's. The 2004 deficit, adjusted for inflation, is ranked 12th since 1940. The 2004 deficit, as a percent of GDP, is ranked 21st since 1940." - Jerry Bowyer, The Bush Boom Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Visit these pages
I normally try to reward those who link to me with a referring link at the top of my left sidebar. But as everyone and his dog seems to have chosen the last day or so to link to me, I've become rather overwhelmed. Instead, I'll just give them all (I think!) a quick plug here. There is some great content at these blogs, so do check them out. Anthony Wells gives the occasional quick link to various bits of news, and now and then produces a really sterling argument on an issue of concern. He stands out most, however, for his regular opinion poll analyses, which really cut to the chase and give those without statistical training a good understanding of what the figures and trends suggest about the sands of public opinion. Drake's Drum examines the British and American political scene well, providing much informed and original commentary of his own along with the stories he links to. Harry's Place probably needs no introduction. A very comprehensive coverage of issues from a generic leftist perspective, with a dash of socialism and extreme political correctness thrown in for good measure. Jackie D uses good political instincts to root out some of the dafter and less savoury elements in politics. James Mills seems to be Britain's first and only blogging Conservative politician. A West Oxfordshire Councillor, his blog is very centred on local affairs - but if you live nearby, that is all the more reason to read it. Leftie John Durkin calls me a national treasure. Too kind. His own refreshingly cynical perspective on leftist politics would perhaps merit a similar commendation, if only he posted more. Matthew Turner is always wrong about everything, but certainly witty in the way he goes about it. Plastic Gangster talks a lot of good Tory sense on a whole range of issues, and his military knowledge in particular really adds something to the blogosphere. Southern Cross is mainly focused on the interesting case of South Africa, but diverges from that focus now and then to comment on other issues of note. Labour's Tom Watson was the first blogging MP, and is the only one I visit regularly. A good mix of posts is up there, and the blog also serves as a new and accessible way of getting an idea of what life as a British parliamentarian is like if you don't feel up to trundling through another set of self-serving political memoirs. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, February 09, 2004
The choice before you
This post will remain at the top of the page until election day. Scroll down for new posts.
Cast your minds back to January 1st and the Radio 4 poll on which popular law should be pushed through parliament. A whole host of nannying, leftist laws were suggested, and everyone expected that the charmingly civilised Today programme listeners would vote for such a bill. Instead, to chattering class horror, what they supported was a bill giving a right to defend one's home against intruders using lethal force, if necessary. The angry reaction - "bastards!" - was in itself worth that vote. And now, on a smaller scale, there seems to be an opportunity for just the same. Alongside eleven blogs that uphold to varying degrees the chattering class consensus on every issue from Bush to crime, from Israel to the NHS, Conservative Commentary stands alone in fighting for less government and more common sense, against political correctness and in support of gut-driven but intellectually-supported conservatism. There's only one way you can give a bloody nose to those who savaged Kilroy but defended Paulin, who want to open the prison gates for burglars but shut down free speech for Christians and social conservatives, who think the Queen symbolises all that is wrong with Britain but who wish Cherie Blair had more influence, who are Eurofederalist but sceptical of free international markets. Expect every Guardianista, Blairite, statist and Chomskyite aware of the election to vote for one of those eleven. Whether their favourites can be pipped to the post by something altogether different is down to you. Ballots must be sent by Monday, 9th February. Vote wisely. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
An encouraging precedent
Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer, is being prepared for a move to Wakefield jail, the prison where Harold Shipman hanged himself last month. Yes, I had the same thought. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Barely a party at all
The Liberal Democrat Party does not exist. Even Liberal Democrats do not exist. Charles Kennedy sits on top of a disparate, divided, ill-disciplined rat-bag of activists. They are the pick-and-mix of politics. Some are those who left the Labour Party in the early eighties and belong back in the Labour fold, their sins forgiven. Others are implacable opponents of socialism. How can we do a deal with these people? How would Kennedy enforce any kind of discipline on the local Lib Dem franchises? It would be like herding cats. I think the sheer peculiarness of the Liberal Democrats is not something a political outsider can fully appreciate. Certainly it was only when I became active in the Conservative Party that I began to appreciate what a bizarre coalition the modern Liberal Democratic Party is. To Paul Richards' words, I would myself add that a good section of the party also now lies firmly to the left of Labour when it comes to taxation and nationalisation, meaning you can find Lib Dems in camps left, right and on-target when it comes to the government's economic agenda, depending on whom you ask. And since 11 September 2001, we can further add that instinctive anti-Americanism and a general sympathy with terrorism - once the preserve of a tiny awkward squad of Labour backbenchers - now seem to be lurking quietly in many quarters of the party, making their ugly mark and extending the divisions in the Lib Dem camp. But that nothing seems to unite the party is something entirely lost on many of them. One of the most astonishing things about the Lib Dem bloggers is that the majority of them actually believe their party stands for a distinct philosophical tradition. As James Steerforth has said: [O]ne has to ask just what the Liberal Party is for. In its heyday it stood for a distinct sectional interest - nonconformists - and specific ideas: religious tolerance, free press, abolition of slavery, equality of all classes before the law, peace and international law abroad. The sectional interest is now irrelevant and the ideas are now accepted by almost everybody in the western world. It is hard to see just what connection the modern LibDems have with this tradition. I wouldn't quite expect them to agree with me when I argued here that the most reliable guide for what the party will stand for one week is what got clapped on Any Questions or Question Time the previous week. But still it's a shock that these bloggers - who seem fairly representative of their party - really appear to believe you could go into a library, pick up the works of Locke or Mill, say, and get quite a way towards a prescription for the Liberal Democrats in 2004. In fact, the party is a shambles, a weird coalition of the centre-left and the far-left, the mediocre and the bad, the silly and the nasty, and standing for few coherent ideals and representing no philosophical tradition of its own. In a fantastic post - one apparently so devastating Vivienne Raper deleted everything she has written on her blogs in response - DumbJon puts it best. I've said this before, and no doubt I'll say it again, the Lib Dems aren't a political party in the sense of advancing actual policies. Voting Lib Dem is the political equivalent of getting a tongue stud. Their whole raison d'etre is to bug the squares, shout rude words and moon at the grown-ups. UPDATE: Plastic Gangster opines: I suspect that the real problem with the Lib Dem party is that rather than being a search for a genuine alternative to the two doctrines offered by the mainstream parties it is actually little more than a retreat - a cultish sanctuary for people who can't handle the cruel harsh reality of real world governmental responsibility and the nasty choices that go with it that come with Labour and the Tories. They tell themselves and others that Labour and Conservative alike are dishonest sell-outs and bullshit merchants when in fact all that has happened is that by virtue of having been in government they have been tainted by reality. The Lib Dems are a solid bastion from which those who can't bring themselves to accept that that reality exists fight a determined siege defence. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 08, 2004
Tony Martin Bell
Yesterday's Daily Mirror piece on Tony Martin offered a surprising depth of insight (for the Mirror) into what the farmer's life has been like since he was released from jail. It also revealed his political ambitions: he is considering standing for parliament. In recent years independents and others from outside the two- and three-party structure have been rather good at snapping at the heels of the existing political class, and it isn't a wild prediction that Tony Martin would do the same if he stood for election. If I remember correctly, on his release some opinion polls actually showed him with a higher popularity rating than the Prime Minister. A very ordinary rural chap (the Mirror piece certainly debunking the idea that he is a reclusive loner), he has understandably won mass public sympathy for the way he was mistreated. "The main parties don't seem to realise huge numbers of people are being terrorised - they are living in fear in their own homes. The Tony Martin Law, which won a poll of Radio 4 listeners on January 1st, certainly shows the depth of public feeling about Tony Martin and the issue on which he plans to stand for parliament. It seems beyond doubt that he will win thousands and thousands of votes almost anywhere. Unfortunately, if he carries out his plan to stand in his home constituency, the Tory marginal of North West Norfolk, it would be astonishing if the Conservative MP for the area managed to hold on. There is probably little the Tories or any other party can do to stop him in his tracks, so perhaps a tactical retreat in this instance makes the most sense. Without endorsing or helping the Martin campaign in any way, the Conservative Party could offer to stand its candidate aside in a different constituency if Tony Martin agrees not to work to unseat a Tory MP, thereby doing for him what Labour and the Liberal Democrats did for Martin Bell in 1997. Never before has the divide been so great between the gut feelings of ordinary people, millions of them terrorised in their own homes but too afraid to go out, and those of the chattering classes for whom Tony Martin is the only killer who cannot be understood, an attitude exemplified in the Observer today. The public shouldn't be allowed to choose how long prison sentences last. Partly, I suppose, because the kind of people who respond to phone-votes in the tabloids and call in to local radio chat shows to discuss these things are, in general, what my more PC friends insist I must call 'ill-educated pikey scaffer scum'. If the Conservative Party is seen fiercely to resist the public mood on this issue, it can only do us political harm, suggesting that when push comes to shove, speaking up for the ordinary, forgotten people of Britain comes second to sucking up to the liberal elite. But with a little tactical judgement, it could be a Labour or Lib Dem MP who is unseated in 2005 or 2006 as the public flocks to the polling stations to register their feelings over this issue. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Link of the Week
With the possible exception of racist violence against white people, if any unpleasantness gets less press coverage than is proportionate, it is the Liberal Democrat Party's oddities and extremism. Necessity being the mother of invention, Cometh the hour, cometh the blog etc. etc. the very fine Lib Dem Watch is now here. Exploring every nook and cranny of the party, it's an excellent guide for those who want to keep track of their amusing eccentricities as well as their occasional pro-suicide-murderer, pro-black supremacist depths. Best of luck to all those involved. This could be an important step in keeping the public informed about Charlie's unsettling army. "In politics, being ridiculous is more damaging than being extreme" the subtitle to the blog explains. Leave it to the Liberal Democrats to be both. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Friday, February 06, 2004
The Democrats' primary colours
Howard Dean became the Democrat front-runner by being the anti-Bush candidate. John Kerry became the Democrat front-runner by being the anti-Dean candidate. Can John Edwards become the Democrat front-runner - which at this stage in the game means their Presidential nominee - by being the anti-Kerry? Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Inflation in compound - and in perspective
The Value of Nothing The top figure, going back to the year I was born, I found the most interesting. True, the Retail Price Index briefly hit double-figures as the 1990s began because Nigel Lawson had defied the Prime Minister to shadow the Deutschemark, which he did by borrowing and printing pounds to be sold for Marks. But that apart, the entire period since 1983 has in all but the most historical sense been one of pleasingly low inflation. Yet still a pound buys today what 50p would have bought then. I understand it was Einstein who said compound interest was among man's greatest inventions. Knowing his own country's history, he might have added that compound inflation is among the worst. All those 3 per cents a year since 1983 add up. On the other hand, the stock market has on average doubled in value every six years since 1918. Seen from that perspective, the Thatcher and post-Thatcher era of inflation has been rather benevolent towards those thrifty enough to put some money aside. Set that achievement against the record of the last Labour government, during whose term of office prices doubled in just five years, and you see how far we've come. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
The elephant in the column
But wait: "the tragedy of August 17 2009 cannot simply be laid at the door of France's political elite, and its failure to cope adequately with an extraordinarily difficult problem that was challenging every society in Europe. The other half of the story ..." Ahh! So here we at last blame the perpetrators? No. "The other half of the story has to do with failures in intelligence and the political use of intelligence." The column, by the way, is entitled "Who was to blame?". Well, it's probably too much to expect even a nod from the Guardian in the direction of blaming terrorist acts on the people who commit them. But what is perhaps more incredible is the way in which Mr Garton-Ash dances around the elephant in the room: why on earth Western countries who perceive this sort of threat - this "extraordinarily difficult problem that was challenging every society in Europe" - should make no efforts to stem the tide of people coming to live in countries to whose freedom and liberal culture he believes a good number of them simply cannot reconcile themselves. All this stuff and nonsense about whether headscarves should be allowed in schools, whether more should have been done to alleviate Arab unemployment, misses out the most prosaic solution: less immigration of those who hope to move here from countries whose cultures and governments encourage them in their millions to despise Jews, Christians and liberty. It's like discussing a school bullying problem without even mentioning the possibility of excluding the class thug. Now, I don't think Arabs or Muslims generally are in any way inevitably the equivalents of a class thug. But then unlike Mr Garton-Ash I don't think they have a genuine grievance against Western societies, either. I believe, and have seen with my own eyes, that almost anyone can be integrated into normal British society. Given low enough levels of immigration and high enough confidence in a common British culture, we can achieve that. But the impotent alternative attitude proposed in Garton-Ash's column seems to entail belief that we have no option but to accept millions who come here, irrespective of their attitude to our society, and alternate between making concessions to their demands and crossing our fingers and hoping for the best. No sane person could believe it is better to see a 9/11 or worse attack on London or Birmingham than see an end to mass immigration to this crowded island. But by omission, Timothy Garton-Ash implies exactly this: that we must take our unprecedented migration levels for granted, and that any bombs that come with them must be accepted as part of the territory. Yes, these terrorist attacks can to be fought with intelligence networks and accommodations to terrorist sympathisers, but never by asking why, if in this war on terror we are in fact storing up trouble for ourselves by letting down the drawbridge to so many outsiders, some - some - of them with a loyalty that lies firmly with the Bin Ladens and Abu Hamzas of this world, we cannot examine this area of policy too. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Don't mess with Texas
Weeks into the project, the contractor hired to build an abortion clinic hit a brick wall: Plumbers and carpenters would not work for him. Drywall installers and heating subcontractors would not do business with him. Cement suppliers for miles around would not touch the job. Let it not be the last. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Wednesday, February 04, 2004
Students play, you pay
Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Quote of the Day
"It also occurs to me that there's been something weirdly self-defeating about Dean's strident criticisms of Bush -- if the incumbent is so terrible, then it seems that Democrats should be happy to pick a seemingly 'electable' nominee even if, unlike Dean, he doesn't exactly thrill us deep down in our liberal bones." - Matthew Yglesias Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Monday, February 02, 2004
Identity politics is a beast whose appetite can never be satisfied
I think all the evidence suggests that it never will be. Identity lobbies of this sort create a comfortable niche for themselves when they begin their campaigns - the smug mindset of one confident in the rectitude and necessity of all he does, often well-paid and well-respected. What happens when your reasonable demands are all met? Do you give up this lifestyle? Do you look for another career, another moral crusade? Of course not. If you're anything like the race or feminist lobbies, you announce that your quest has barely begun, that freedom and equality for your group is still a million miles away. You make further demands, you make ever more absurd claims about your victim status, you become more shrill, more extreme, more vicious. If laws permitting discrimination against women and ethnic minorities are removed, you demand laws permitting discrimination against men and white people. You force quotas on institution after institution. You start demanding new university courses that popularise a mythology of all civilisation beginning in Africa and religion all being an invention of cunning men who wanted to secure their patriarchy. If people disagree, you start to militate the language against them. Suddenly a racist is someone who believes in a colour-blind society and sexism is thinking it doesn't matter if the candidate is male or female because the qualifications for the job are what count. We have already seen such things occur in recent decades. Just as major advances in basic human kindness and respect helped ensure it became socially unacceptable and legally forbidden to make one's choices in employment and tenants on these grounds, the lobbies who launched such campaigns switched their fire into areas no reasonable person expected: campaigning for preferential treatment, identity group rights and special legal status. It suited these people too well personally and politically to do anything else. And as new lobbies emerge and make further demands, you can expect just the same. This week's Spectator focuses on one council's document, written in co-operation with a homosexual lobby group, which advertises - advertises - the fact that it is handing over half of its adopted children to homosexual and lesbian couples and has struck off the adoption register those couples who believe a child needs a mother and a father. Both claims are in fact untrue, but that this was these people's idea of positive propaganda says it all. In an article unavailable online, yesterday's Sunday Telegraph details the story of one couple's efforts to help their deaf son to live a normal life. Their encounters with the 'Deaf Community' are chilling in detailing the blinkeredness of its proponents. The parents went to meetings of other deaf parents and grandparents and heard it asserted that children unable to hear were gaining enormously from their disability, that any proposal to help the boy was monstrous. One woman told the group: "I'm glad my grandson is deaf." There were cheers all round. When the parents decided on a treatment that could ensure their son almost normal hearing, the opposition was fanatical. Recently at a course with three other hearing parents on developing advocacy skills, our Deaf instructor asked us whose opinions a medical practitioner should take into account when treating a deaf child. "The parents," we chorused. "Who else?" he asked. "The child's, if possible," we replied. "But who else?" he insisted. We thought hard. We suddenly realised the answer he wanted. "The Deaf community?" we ventured. "Of course!" he said. I replied that, as Oliver's mother, I simply did not accept that a mass of strangers, with nothing but one physical characteristic in common with my son, should have any sort of say in his welfare. I got a pitying smile. The cochlear implant that gave Oliver the ability to hear whispers when previously loud and clear speech was all he could manage is virulently denounced by the 'Deaf Community'. They say that allowing it to anyone under the age of 18 - sixteen years after the implant is needed if proper hearing skills are best to develop - amounts to experimentation. The report doesn't detail whether they are yet campaigning for criminalisation, but it seems a reasonable expectation. It is simply too profitable in every sense to identify as a victim group and make ever more extreme demands to expect that one can reach a compromise that will result in such people packing up and going home. On grounds of basic humanity, one should of course pass laws and fight injustices if that is the right thing to do. Obviously it is wrong to turn away qualified applicants on grounds that have nothing to do with their ability to do a job, or to use the force of law to persecute people for private homosexual acts. That radical lobbies supported measures enacted to end these things does not change that. But going beyond what is reasonable and fair in hope of compromise is simply counterproductive. Such concessions only provide further incentive and hope for those who launch such campaigns. Feeding crocodiles can spare one for a while, but it works only as long as you have food for them. Run out and you face the same horror as before. Ultimately, the identity politics that seeks to define people by their skin colour, sexual preferences, disabilities and the like is a danger to liberty, to individuality and to any notion of a common culture or interest. It is antithetical to any conservative or classically liberal vision, and is by its nature hostile to moderacy and common sense. There will never be a day when these identity lobbies pack up and go home, accepting fair treatment and asking no more. All those who believe in equality under the law, individual merit, rights and liberty above group demands and sectional claims must recognise this unfortunate reality. Conservatives who believe a lasting compromise is possible are kidding themselves. Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link | Sunday, February 01, 2004
Quote of the Day
"What counts for [the liberal] is the identity of the victim of the crime, and the victim's relationship to himself. He is quite content to let whole neighbourhoods, whole cities, indeed whole countries be submerged in crime, so long as it does not affect him personally. Until he or a loved one becomes a victim, his reputation for broadmindedness is all that matters. The liberal attitude can survive only by a refusal to take the lives of others seriously." - Theodore Dalrymple in the National Review Posted by Peter Cuthbertson | Permanent Link |
Site content Copyright 2002-2005 Peter Cuthbertson
|
|
 |
|
||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
If you get the chance between now and Wednesday evening, do listen to this week's 
Ron West kindly sent me the text of a letter he wrote to the Times in response to the Catholic Church's call for higher taxes. As he notes, for any aid given to others to be moral, it has to be voluntary. Money taken by the taxman on threat of imprisonment does not qualify. He also points out the disastrous effects on incentives once the bulbous state is a part of the economic landscape.
As a Frenchwoman 
Unlike many equally deserving blogs, Conservative Commentary has been short-listed for the Guardian's 
The emergence of 
Some little stories just warm the heart. For daring to fight crime without either hand tied behind their backs, Texans are regularly stereotyped inside and outside the US as bloodthirsty. But when the opportunity arose 
When you hear it said that we need more people going to university, point out that even with existing numbers and levels of dumbing down, Wolverhampton University is now making the study of hard-core pornography videos 
Sometimes one detects on the political right a resigned attitude towards identity politics. These aren't people who feel naturally at home with the idea of Black Police Officers' Associations or talk of ensuring a 'representative' number of women in parliament. For them, race should not come into how well one polices the streets and sex should not come into how well one represents one's constituents. But they do sometimes wonder if an accommodation with this sort of thinking is possible - and whether such a thing would be so bad. "It's clear why they are fighting: surely if we give in on this issue, these lobbies will pack up and go home? If we accept racial quotas in this industry, if we redefine marriage to include two men - and eventually seven men - surely that will be the end of the matter?"
