:: Conservative Revival ::

:: Thursday, August 30, 2001 ::

The National Education Commissioner?

If I had to pick one man to oversee the transition from LEAs to local Education Commissioners that I recommend, it would be Chris Woodhead. In The Daily Telegraph today he speaks a lot of sense about teacher recruitment and retention. He also addresses a very important point I forgot:

"I would want, too, to earn a decent salary for a decent day's work. The Government has made it possible for good classroom teachers to earn more. It has not had the courage to address the problem of a national pay scale. Houses in the North-East are affordable. In the South-East they are not. It is particularly difficult to recruit teachers of mathematics and physics and foreign languages."

National pay scales are a major obstacle to proper localisation. They should be first against the wall when the revolution comes...
:: Swordsman 8/30/2001 09:23:00 AM [+] ::
...

Whitehall Farce

Anger at Whitehall pay leap, reports the Telegraph. I'm not surprised. In some ways, senior civil servants do need ti be compensated more. The old perks of the job -- substantial power and autonomy in decision making (although that may not have been a good thing), honours and gongs, and a good chance of a nice little earner following retirement -- have either gone by the wayside or are being phased out. Compensation is the obvious replacement if top quality people are to be retracted and retained. However, there are severe problems with the way the senior grades are selected. The civil service still retains an officer class mentality, recruiting "chaps" who are in the mould of existing "chaps" to replace them, regardless of whether or not the existing chaps are exactly what the country needs. Moreover, that system promotes to the level of the person's incompetence -- ie you keep getting promoted until you can't do the new job anymore, at which point you keep doing that job until retirement. Both these problems need to be ironed out before ladling great steaming piles of cash into people's pockets.

The solutions are: first, abolition of the "Fast stream" entry qualification and, at the same time, of the SEO grade except where supervision of large offices of clerical staff is still necessary (but most of those functions should be in Next Steps agencies, anyway). New graduates are recruited at HEO grade, where they will compete on an open basis with existing staff who have come from the ranks for Principal positions (bottom rung of senior management -- I know I'm using old terminology here). No special training beyond what the existing HEOs get. If class will show, then let it prove that in free and fair competition. Oh, and the HEO grade gets a big pay rise equivalent to the senior grades pay rises, making a real incentive for people of lower grades to work hard enough to reach the level, which is not distant like the Principal grades are/were. New recruits get much less solid contracts, ending the job for life mentality, compensated by other benefits.

Second, management needs to get tough on poor performance. No shunting useless senior staff into meaningless jobs created for them. The phrase "we're going to have to let you go" needs to used whenever necessary. Jobs thus freed up should be advertised externally as well as internally and independent external appraisers should be a part of every selection panel (let's drop the word "board"). In short, if the civil service is going to compete for the best people on an equal footing with the private sector, it needs to have human resource management policies like the private sector.

Finally, we should bite the bullet and examine whether there's an argument for parachuting in political appointees at Undersecretary level and above, as is done in the US and the EU. I'd hope there isn't, but a review could be useful.
:: Swordsman 8/30/2001 08:53:00 AM [+] ::
...

Nil desperandum!

Fresh poll puts Clarke in front, reports Ananova. But get this -- this "poll", of 1200 local councillors, was conducted by Clarke's own staff, although they claim they selected the councillors randomly. Ho yus. This is a sign of increasing desperation by Fattie Clarke. All the signs are going against you, so make some up that are favourable and then claim this shows you've been winning all along.

Having said that, the ICM poll referred to here that showed a commanding lead for IDS was equally useless. Half the constituencies canvassed in the industrial North-East? Whey, man, as my Grandad would say.
:: Swordsman 8/29/2001 01:44:00 PM [+] ::
...

Compassionate Conservatism: tautology or oxymoron?

Great article by my acquaintance Sam T. Karnick on the politics of compassion on National Review Online. It echoes what Peter Hitchens has been saying for some time now: the only virtue is caring, measured by how much tax you are willing to pay. As Sam says, there are good, strong arguments against that view and we should be making them. Why else is there a proverb, "charity begins at home"? The stronger civil society (not NuLab's version) is, the better off the less fortunate are. And civil society is strengthened by strong families, earning and keeping a wage that comes from good work, and raising their children to the same standards. We've weakened all three with disastrous social, economic and education policies. Time to reverse course.
:: Swordsman 8/29/2001 09:13:00 AM [+] ::
...

Five Steps to Heavenly Education

Another leader on the education mess in The Daily Telegraph. Good as far as it goes, but it falls short of providing suggestions for a coherent schools policy.

Luckily, Chester E Finn jr, former assistant secretary of Education here in the US, confronts the similar US education crisis in the latest Weekly Standard (article not on-line, I'm afraid). He suggests five steps to a better policy, all of which could be usefully adopted by Tories:

1. Stop defining public education as a bureaucratic system of government-run schools. Instead, let it mean educating the public: ensuring that all children gain the skills and knowledge they need from whatever sources suit them best -- physical or virtual schools, governmental, private, charter, non-profit, for-profit, home, or hybrid. ISM: this is a useful first step. The idea of charter schools is one that should be explored. LEAs (insofaras they should exist at all, as opposed to a local Education Commissioner) should be given much more leeway over what sort of schools they can deal with.

2. Stop assuming that the "experts should be in charge." Rather, acknowledge that education's big decisions are best made by parents and public officials such as governors and legislators. ISM: more parental involvement in school governance is essential. Education commissioners appointed by and responsible to local authorities would be more accountable than LEAs.

3. Stop insisting that all teachers be ed-school graduates who are "certified" by state bureaucrats. Instead, let schools hire -- and deploy, retain and compensate -- anyone who knows the material and is willing to teach it to kids. ISM: teaching is one of the last great closed shops. Abolition of the PGCE and introduction of local on-the-job training is essential to weed out the apalling educational "theories" that have caused so much harm over the years.

4. Retire the faux-progressive notion that education's main task is developing children's self-esteem and self-awareness. Affirm instead that the crucial work of teachers is to infuse specific skills and knowledge into their pupils along with good behavior and decent character. ISM: Absolutely vital. This would go hand-in-hand with the abolition of the PGCE. The purpose of education here outlined should be made explicit in every LEA's "constitution", every school's "mission statement" and every teacher's contract.

5. Quit treating "accountability" as a meaningless mantra and start putting it into practice. Children who learn what they should ought to be promoted and graduated -- and the rest should be tutored until they do. Adults who teach them successfully should be properly rewarded. Those whose students don't learn should find their own lives less pleasant, their pay less generous, and their jobs less secure. ISM: this will go hand-in-hand with the abolition of the teachers' closed shop. I'd go further and make Headteachers answerable to parents' councils as well as governing bodies and the local Education Commissioner.

There we are. A five-point plan to improve schools. Any objections?
:: Swordsman 8/29/2001 08:23:00 AM [+] ::
...

You vill not vork!

I came across this in a mailing by those lovely chaps at Britain In Europe:

"4. BRITISH WORKERS WORK LONGEST IN EUROPE

"Figures published this week have revealed that Britons work the largest number of hours each week in Europe. The Trades Union Congress and the Industrial Society joined forces to publish the figures, which show that British full-time employees work an average of 43.6 hours each week, with four million people choosing to ignore the working time directive by working more than 48 hours a
week.

"By contrast, their counterparts in Germany work 40.1 hours a week and French full-time employees work 39.6 hours. It is Belgians, however, who enjoy the shortest working week in Europe at 38.4 hours. The TUC also revealed that British workers get the least statutory annual leave in Europe and the lowest number of bank holidays. British workers enjoy only eight bank holidays a year compared to 12 in Italy, 13 in Austria and up to 14 in Spain and Portugal."

So the BIE crew want to argue that if we integrate more, the working man will get more time off! Woo-hoo! But then you notice that little word "choosing". Over ten percent of the working population in the UK chose -- they weren't forced -- to work more than the Brussels geheimestaatspolizei want them to. Presumably by doing so they were paid more, and thus enjoyed a higher standard of living than their fellows who chose to work less. The whole working time directive business would be important if we were still working in Dickensian conditions, but we sorted that out some time ago. It might also make sense if you have vast unemployment rates and you want to force employers to hire more people to do the same amount of work (which of course never works, because you can't afford to pay more people, so you just keep the same people and increase productivity or close down completely because your margins disappear). Hmm. I wonder who has huge unemployment rates and I wonder who doesn't.
:: Swordsman 8/29/2001 06:38:00 AM [+] ::
...

Immigrantchester

Sound lead editorial in The Times on immigration. As it says, immigration of the right people is a good thing. Our current laws ensure immigration of the wrong people. Let's get a clear policy in place which is in favour of immigration of the people we need -- skilled and unskilled. That will help nail the racism smear.
:: Swordsman 8/28/2001 09:15:00 AM [+] ::
...

Digital or digitalis?

Interesting article in the New Statesman supposedly about the future of digital television, but more about the BBC. As a NS reader responds, the complaints about digital can't really be substantiated. But what of the Beeb?

As Homer Simpson said, on being cornered into making a large donation to PBS, "it's an honor to give ten thousand dollars. Especially now, when the rich mosaic of cable programming has made public television so very, very unnecessary." If public television is for anything, it is for putting on the sort of shows that commercial channels will not. Now, however, with the advent of multiple specialist channels that first cable/satellite, now digital allows, you can see virtually anything you want on a specialist channel somewhere. You can't force people to watch a worthy documentary when they can switch over to Coronation Street, and that's been the case for years, but they can subscribe to a channel that allows them that option for a relative pittance if they want.

As ever, The Simpsons is right. Steam TV is only popular when it puts on the sort of shows that the US broadcast networks have found popular. If you want minority interests, you go to a minority channel. Public television is unnecessary (except, perhaps, in one area -- I can see the argument for a publicly funded World Service news channel, but that doesn't require the vast bureaucracy that is the current Beeb, and should be funded from general taxation). Take Homer's advice, and privatise Aunty Beeb.
:: Swordsman 8/28/2001 08:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Wannabe Hypocrisy

Jonathon Green wants to be an urban terrorist. That's the only conclusion I can draw from his article in The New Statesman about the "Angry Brigade." It's a hagiography of people who, if things had gone the way they wanted, would have been murderers. Can you imagine him writing the same way about a bunch of NF idiots who'd tried to blow people up? No, and there lies the hypocrisy. These people obviously received a fair trial -- half of them were acquitted, for goodness' sake -- so they aren't victims. They're criminals, of the worst sort, because they used terror to achieve their twisted ends. So contemptuous was society of these people that they made a made comedy show predicated on their irrelevance a hit ("Citizen Smith"). Perhaps that has added to the warm glow of hindsight these journalists see when they look back.

You see this sort of wannabe hypocrisy all over the world, most notably in the encomia to Joshka (sp?) Fischer's past as someone who happily attacked policemen. "Gosh," say the journos, "how radical! How brave he must have been to take on the state like that! I wish Mummy had let me do that. What a jolly jape it would have been!" These people need to be hung out to dry in the harsh wind of public opinion, but because they control much of the medium needed for that, they never will be.

[On an aside, the very name "Angry Brigade" always amused me. I took part in a comedy sketch at university penned by the now-playwright Tim Knapman. In it a bunch of incompetent urban terrorists announced "We've had a letter of support from the Angry Brigade, another from the Even Angrier Brigade and a postcard from the Bloody Furious League."]
:: Swordsman 8/28/2001 08:10:00 AM [+] ::
...

Exceptions that prove the rule?

There's always something in an Iain Duncan Smith speech, manifesto or article that I disagree with profoundly. In an otherwise excellent catalogue of policies published in The Times today, my gripe is with this:

"The right work/life balance is not found by the state effectively forcing young mothers out to work, by manipulating the tax and benefit system to this effect."

Unfortunately, experience from the US with welfare reform has proven that, in some cases, this is precisely how you get the right work/life balance. Underclass mothers who are stuck in a spiral of benefit dependency have only one way out -- finding and keeping work. Welfare reform forced that on them, and overwhelmingly they've been better off for it. Learning the very basic skills that work demands, that often they have not been taught before, like turning up on time, treating people politely and so on, are positively beneficial both to them and to their children, who might otherwise not be taught them. This is not attacking single mothers, it is helping them, and we must not allow it to be portrayed otherwise.
:: Swordsman 8/27/2001 01:36:00 PM [+] ::
...

999 Letsby Avenue

Perceptive leader in The Times on New York's experience with police reform and crime control. Good as far as it goes, and important in that it criticises a wrong-headed Tory policy which could have been drafted by the Police Federation, but it misses one very important point. The American system of police commissioners with political accountability is central to the reforms that have worked across the country. The hideously bureaucratic local police authorities the UK has cannot work as effectively. There needs to be change there as well as in the attitudes of the Chief Constables.
:: Swordsman 8/27/2001 01:17:00 PM [+] ::
...

Zero Sense

Read this article in the WSJ's OpinionJournal web site. Utterly astounding. Yet this is the attitude that is increasingly running the show on both sides of the Atlantic and against which Conservatives must act. I've never been a fan of his, but I do have to ask, where's Patrick Henry when you need him?
:: Swordsman 8/27/2001 01:02:00 PM [+] ::
...

Scrutiny is mutiny?

Alan Judd has an interesting piece in The Telegraph on the legislative history to the current European mess. He concludes that Parliament just doesn't give legislation enough scrutiny. Well of course. That's inherent in the system. Because of the way we constitute our Government, a majority of members of Parliament will always support the Executive, which has a virtual monopoly on promoting legislation. Except in the rare cases of coalitions or slim majorities, legislation will always be opposed by a minority.Nevertheless, even a minority should be able to delay some legislation. But procedural rules and their wholesale abuse by this government have put an end even to that. The only way in which legislation will ever be given the scrutiny it needs is for the Legislature to be separated once again from the Executive.
:: Swordsman 8/27/2001 08:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

Emetics can be very bad for you...

Interesting analysis of the IDS/BNP scandal in The Daily Telegraph's Leader section. They are very right about the problem with naivety, but I worry about the Norrisite idea that all those with unpalaltable views must be purged. It is one of the great strengths of the Anglo-American political system that there are parties with very broad spectra of views -- the "big tent" in the US and the "broad church" in the UK. As those on one wing of the party have always tolerated those on the other, extremists have always found their voice drowned out by more moderate views within a party, while still being able to feel at home in them.

The current trend towards centralization has, however, led to a climate in which there is the proverbial fertile breeding ground for extremism. If extremists do not feel comfortable in a party which is intolerant of, rather than having a moderating effect on, their views, then the damage they can do from outside the tent is probably far worse than from inside. The Nader phenomenon here, for example, cost Al Gore dear in his election campaign (his veer to the left in a failed attempt to get the Naderites back is probably what cost him the election, rather than the Nader votes themselves). If the Conservatives were to dump anyone who has ever expressed a racist sentiment, then there will be a significant political market for the BNP to play to. Racism sadly still exists, and while it does, I'd argue that it is better to suppress it than shun it, which brings it out into the open, with all the negative consequences of violence and hatred that engenders.

Of course, the best way to suppress such views is to adopt President Reagan's "11th Commandment": thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. Even if a fellow Tory is scum, don't say so publicly. The sort of finger-pointing IDS is encouraging in his latest press release, reminiscent of the "sycophants" in classical Athens informing on the innocent, is precisely the wrong way to go. No-one ever changed their views from being made a pariah. Instead, they should be shown how moderating their views will help get better policies in place. That's the Conservative way of doing things.
:: Swordsman 8/27/2001 08:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

Tragedy of Errors

Aide expelled from Tory party over BNP links, reports Ananova.

Urgh. This was one of those affairs that spiralled out of control. Mr Griffin had done nothing wrong, so sacking him publicly was visting the sins of the son on the father, which I think is shameful. A public sacking also made certain that he would go to the press over it (or vice versa), meaning that any extremist views he did hold would get a national airing. Surprise, surprise, he's a "hang 'em, flog 'em, send 'em back" type (few 79 year old Tories aren't). Massive embarassment ensues.

This was a very dirty trick from the Clarke camp, and the IDS camp handled it appallingly. The correct response would have been for IDS to say "I've no idea who this chap is -- he's a regional supporter-- but I'm going to find out, and if he holds the same views as his son, then that's unacceptable." In the meantime, someone in the local establishment would have already had a quiet word to get Mr Griffin a) to resign voluntarily and b) to refuse to speak to the press.

IDS doesn't come well out of all this. He's tainted with extremism (the public sacking will gain him no credit), dissuading Portillistas, and he looks like a bad manager, shaking his supporters' confidence.

Moral of the story -- don't let 79 year olds have a senior position in your campaign (interestingly, scientists at Ohio State have discovered that as people age, their brains lose an "inhibiting" function, meaning that natural prejudices resurface and people are less guarded about what they say...) Even Jesse Helms has realised that!

:: Swordsman 8/24/2001 07:18:00 AM [+] ::
...

Wow!

Forthright comment piece in The Times that actually calls for the Tories to adopt a policy of outright withdrawal from the EU. Predicating it on the MORI poll, however, may be a mistake. The poll was carried out on behalf of Paul Sykes' British Democracy Campaign, who are very much in favour of withdrawal (although I have no doubt about MORI's bona fides). But, more importantly, the 52% figure in favour of withdrawal quoted here is a slight distortion. It's the percentage of those expressing an opinion, so it's not actually an absolute majority. The real figure is 42% in favour, 39% against -- a much less attractive position.

Nevertheless, it's good to have the argument out in the open rather than hiding behind the front of "renegotiation."
:: Swordsman 8/23/2001 08:20:00 AM [+] ::
...

Big Brother is watching you

US Representative Bob Barr makes a convincing case in Insight Magazine that CCTV is a serious breach of civil liberties:

"We continually must balance gains in efficiency of law enforcement against threats to the freedoms secured to us in the Bill of Rights. Ultimately, we only should follow those policies that can increase public safety without simultaneously compromising our historic liberties."

Barr's case is as follows:

1. The settled American legal principle is that the police must establish grounds for suspected criminal activity before gathering evidence about the criminal and his surroundings.
2. Technology is not foolproof but there is a presumption that it is in many jurisdictions, so curtailing a right to dispute evidence and question witnesses.
3. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Altering traffic light patterns to catch more people to get more revenue is easy but is also a clear abuse of power, for instance.

I'd imagine all of these arguments could translate into British law. Here's a good, liberal issue for the Tories to campaign on (alongside an emphasis on tackling the real root causes of crime) that would definitely be attractive to the middle class. Presented right, it could also be attractive to the working class.

:: Swordsman 8/22/2001 11:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Times they are a-changin'

On a day when the staunchly Eurosceptic Daily Mail chose to endorse Ken Clarke, The Times endorses Iain Duncan Smith. This is significant, for it is The Times that more surely represents the former Conservatives who have supported Labour in recent years. In IDS, they see some hope. In Clarke they see disaster. Precisely the reverse of the received wisdom, but, to my mind, infinitely wiser.
:: Swordsman 8/22/2001 08:43:00 AM [+] ::
...

Where's Jefferson when you need him?

I came across this on the Eurofaq mailing list:

"I quote from a letter from a David Easton that appeared in the Daily Mail (23/5). He had recently read the American Declaration of Independence which listed the colonists' grievances with the king and the British government which sounded quite familiar.

'He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

'He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws: giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation.

'He is imposing taxes on us without our consent.

'He is taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments...'

Mr. Eaton asks 'If this was enough to cause the American Revolution, how much more is needed to cause an English revolution?' My sentiments exactly."


:: Swordsman 8/21/2001 06:59:00 AM [+] ::
...

Worth reading

I don't often do this, but there's so much worth reading in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today web site that I thought I'd link to it (although if you're not a fan of very bad puns, I'd recommend skipping the item at the foot of the page).
:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 01:47:00 PM [+] ::
...

Well, what would you expect?

This Times article laments the lack of Doctors joining the NHS. Well, duh! The NHS doesn't allow Doctors to keep up with the latest advances in their profession. It's like signing on for a sailing ship at the beginning of the age of steam, only without the rum (and one would hope without the buggery and the lash). The biggest indicator is contained in these words:

"Foreign doctors would rather work in the United States or Canada, according to Edwin Borman, chairman of the BMA’s international committee.

"Dr Borman said: “The UK is definitely a less attractive workplace when compared to other countries — North America in particular. It is relatively easy to get jobs in the US and Canada. The financial rewards are greater and the career progress is easier.” "

Case closed, I think.

:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 12:57:00 PM [+] ::
...

Short memory alert

New Labour fattie Sion Simon dismisses IDS in his effortlessly arrogant fashion. Read this piece and then substitute "Margaret Thatcher" for IDS and "Willie Whitelaw" for Ken Clarke. How stupid would that seem?
:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 12:20:00 PM [+] ::
...

Language, truth and immigration

The Daily Telegraph has some apposite things to say on the call for immigrants to be required to speak English passably. Of course, the same debate is raging in the US. The law here already requires a command of English, but Hispanic activists claim such a requirement is racist. The problem in the UK, however, is inherent, given that arranged marriages will almost by definition ensure that there is a constant stream of ill-equipped immigrants re-inserting themselves into a family structure, so preventing proper assimilation.

The Telegraph is, of course, utterly right in calling for history lessons as well as language lessons. A brief syllabus should include: the Norman Conquest, Magna Carta, Simon de Montfort, the English Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, possibly the American War of Independence, the Victorian period, the Liberal reforms, the Attlee Government and the Thatcher reforms to start off with. Of course, it would be unfair to expect immigrants to know all this without our own children knowing it, so time for a reform of the National Curriculum, methinks.

Come to think of it, how many MPs could pass a test on all of those events?
:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 12:09:00 PM [+] ::
...

God's Classroom

Lord Harris, one of the earliest of England's cricket captains and a towering figure in the history of the sport, once called the cricket pitch "God's classroom". But it seems that cricket writers are the only ones learning the lessons. Michael Henderson's Telegraph Commentary, "England `the first slum of Europe'" is worth reading as the genuine cry from the heart of one who, loving cricket, loves England.The only game (pace Pele) to approach being an art form (and no-one who saw a Cowdrey cover drive can dispute that) has decliined, in England and the West Indies it seems, into decadence. And its patrons have aided and abetted in that decline. As Henderson makes clear, this is not an economic problem. The issue is cultural and the Conservative Party must address it.
:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 11:34:00 AM [+] ::
...

Is International Socialism dead?

Very interesting leader in The New Statesman. In arguing that people are best left to sort out their differences by themselves, especially in Ulster and the Levant, the conscience of the Labour Party (or is it the Lib Dems these days?) argues against the Blair Doctrine. Does the same logic apply to Kosovo and Bosnia? If so, then the New Statesman should surely be arguing that Slobodan Milosevic should be released. After all, he was only trying to sort out internal problems (I don't think Yugoslavia accepted Bosnia's secession for some time) and it was foreign intervention that prevented him from doing so. This is the reverse of what you'd expect from The New Statesman. I'll be interested to see the reaction from readers.
:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 07:39:00 AM [+] ::
...

Manifest Destiny

Lots of good sense in Iain Duncan Smith's leadership manifesto (available here on voteIDS.com). I'm particularly glad that he ties crime and welfare together, and makes the beginning of the cultural argument on these subjects. One more push and we might see the first volleys fired in the much-needed counter-offensive in the British front of the Culture Wars.

I am slightly worried, though, that he's keeping one knee-jerk authoritarian policy which I think can only be a vote loser:

"Schools should have the power to oblige parents to support the work of teachers through binding ‘school contracts’."

Giving power over parents' lives to teachers, of all people? No, if pupils are to learn anything, it is they who must be held responsible for their own behaviour. The most I'd require is for parents to sign an agreement with the school's governing body that their children's teachers are in loco parentis whenever their children are at school, and therefore the parents have no right to complain at any disciplinary measures taken against said children. If that's against the Human Rights Act (and I can't see why it should be), then the HRA needs to be amended (which it needs in any case). If that's what IDS means, he should have said that. Going any further (eg with a homework element) strikes me as being counter-productive.
:: Swordsman 8/20/2001 06:44:00 AM [+] ::
...

Free country status report

And here's exactly why it's a cultural battle. The presumption of law-abidingness is very important to a free society, but the more rights and duties are codified, the more that presumption disappears. The old "if you're law-abiding you have nothing to fear from state surveillance" idea is one that is widespread in the UK and one that we can use examples like this to counter.
:: Swordsman 8/17/2001 09:29:00 AM [+] ::
...

A debate on liberty

Great article in The Daily Telegraph Opinion section today. John Wadham, director of Liberty, and Clare Fox, of the Institute for Ideas (which is linked with Spiked), debate whether laws are good or bad at protecting freedoms. Wadham gets close to a useful idea with the distinction between "human rights" as he terms them and "civil liberties." But what he call human rights are really matters of process: everyone has the right to a fair trial, but the methods of guaranteeing that can vary. For instance, why are lawyers necessarily part of a fair trial? If the law is restricted enough that evryone can understand it, lawyers become irrelevant, unless they are thought of as advocates, which is a different thing. And there's a debate in America over the quality of lawyers, with some essentially arguing that the right is to a good lawyer. Where do you draw the line with these questions of process? That's why I prefer Clare Fox's position, that extensive codification of rights is prosecriptive and problematic. General descriptions of rights and liberties are then, however, dependent on us making sure good people are in charge of their oversight. Which is why, at root, this all comes down to cultural values and desires. That's where the battle has to be fought.
:: Swordsman 8/17/2001 09:23:00 AM [+] ::
...

Ye Gods!

Mark Steyn, writing in Conrad Black's Canadian organ The National Post, shows how insane (and inane) the "debate" over extending "relationship rights" is getting. Animals should be recognised as spouses, reckons Peter Singer, Professor of Ethics (ha!) at Princeton. The slippery slope argument is an important one here. In resisting the extension of marital rights to any partners, British Tories should point to the US as an example of what happens once you start down that route. That should give "open-minded" people something to think about.
:: Swordsman 8/16/2001 11:55:00 AM [+] ::
...

Frank Field - Tory icon?

Labour MP Frank Field has an article in The Times today about his idea for "NHS International". This seems like a reasonable first step on the road to a better health service. And if more people see what a mixed private-public health service can be like in France or Germany, then perhaps they'll spread the word here. The big lie of current politics -- that the NHS is the best health care in the world -- might then be nailed. At last.
:: Swordsman 8/16/2001 09:29:00 AM [+] ::
...

Language Lesson

A-level pass rates best for 50 years reports the Telegraph, again. But just take a look at the "results by age and gender" graphic linked on the right of the article (can't link to it directly from here, sorry). The large number of A grades seems to be driven primarily by huge numbers of A grades in the modern languages. Are students getting better at languages? Possibly, in these Europeanist days -- after all, most of them are exposed to the languages regularly on holidays, from a young age. But are the standards the same? In other words, are students still required to read Beaudelaire and Goethe in the original like my friends were, or is the emphasis now primarily on conversational usage? I'd be interested to see how the trend for A grades looks with languages excluded.
:: Swordsman 8/16/2001 07:41:00 AM [+] ::
...

Germane to the benefits debate

According to The Washington Times, a German province/ state/ lander (whatever they're called) is planning on introducing US-style "welfare reform" (ie requiring benefit recipients to work, whoever they are). Interesting. If it works in Germany, with its different economic structure to the US, it will definitely work in the UK. We really have to bite the bullet on this one and recognise that leaving young people (especially young single mothers) to wallow in welfare-dependency is simply evil. It should be a simple process to paint the welfare staters as the real enemy of the lower class in this. And if we win the argument, it may attract back the guilty middle class.
:: Swordsman 8/15/2001 12:12:00 PM [+] ::
...

Education, Education, Education

It seems to me there are three pressing questions in education policy. The first is the question of cultural attitude to education that I've discussed before. The second is the question, "who educates the educators?" to which I shall return soon, I hope. The third is the question of how to measure whether educational standards are rising or falling.

The Scottish debacle reported in the Telegraph story "Scottish higher exam statistics fail to add up" reveals how unsatisfactory current methods are. I think the time may have come for us to introduce a version of the American SATs (Scholastic Assessment Tests). These are multiple-choice exams in verbal and numeric skills, standardised across the US and easily comparable year to year. So reliable are they that, despite the plethora of individual state tests, virtually all universities use them as their best guide to selecting new students. SATs taken at 16 alongside GCSEs could be the best guide to how well our educators are really performing, and would also provide a better guide for employers as to the basic skills of school-leavers (at least compared to three GCSEs in Woodwork, Media Studies and General Studies). Part of the requirement on the authority regulating them should be that the "difficulty" of the questions does not vary year on year, so that the benchmark is always the same. If results rise (or fall) too much there may need to be re-benchmarking -- this has happened in the US -- but generally one year's results should be directly comparable with the results ten years later or ten years earlier.

These tests will of course come in for a lot of criticism, but that should be both expected and resisted, based on the American experience. For an interesting discussion of the attacks on the American SATs from the usual suspects, check out my colleague David Murray's Commentary article.
:: Swordsman 8/15/2001 07:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

Our duty to civic duty

Iain Duncan Smith gets better and better. His remarks yesterday on local government and municipal pride reflect what I've been saying here. This is a winning policy:

In Maidstone, Mr Duncan Smith spelt out his promise to decentralise power, saying: "I want to see local authorities grow in importance, not by taking powers upwards from the citizen, but by drawing them down from Whitehall.

"For too long our party has been seen as, if not exactly hostile, at least sceptical towards local government. There should be no room for ambiguity or doubt, the Conservative Party is pro-local government. Conservatives favour the decentralisation of power."

"IDS 4ever!" as the teens might say...
:: Swordsman 8/15/2001 07:18:00 AM [+] ::
...

A taxing question

The ever-sensible Janet Daley asks the right questions about tax in The Telegraph. This is precisely how we should be framing the debate: do you want us to give more of your money to hospital administrators and local education authorities who've shown time and time again that they'll just waste it? It's not "more money for education," it's "more taxpayers' money for the bureaucrats." And then point out that much of Labour's support comes from the people who have those nice cushy jobs for life that are devoted to spending that money. Labour is the bureaucrats' party. The argument that tax and spend is all a giant racket might just work again...
:: Swordsman 8/14/2001 08:56:00 AM [+] ::
...

Who polices the police?

Perceptive leader in The Daily Telegraph today on the subject of speed cameras. Several states are trying to introduce these over here and there is a constitutional debate going on over their propriety. There have even been a few court decisions against them already. But the article raises a wider point. It has been a complaint by the middle class for years that the police are more interested in prosecuting traffic offences than catching burglars or muggers. I have to say that does seem to be true. So the answer should be relatively simple. Hive off the traffic functions of the police to separate bodies responsible to local transport commissioners. The police would retain the right to intervene in the event of them noticing a clear risk to safety, but this would not apply in cases of small breaches of the speed limit and so on (in other words, make clear what offences are civil matters and what are criminal, with the police being able to intervene in criminal offences like (really) driving). Of course, local enforcement officers would be able to refer drunk-driving incidents and other criminal matters to the police, but the police would not be sending out patrols looking for traffic offences. That should free up a lot of police to start building the community relations that have been so influential in reducing crime whenever they've been tried. And the policy should be attractive to the middle class as well...
:: Swordsman 8/14/2001 08:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

Cave the Beak? No, Caveat Beak

Teaching fails to impress graduates is the unsurprising finding of a new MORI poll. Interestingly, one of the most important factors in putting off teachers according to the poll and the teachers' unions is bad discipline in schools. Yet the Education Department spokesman said:

"We are working hard to make teaching a more attractive profession for example, by providing extra funding to reduce pupil-teacher ratios, by reducing bureaucratic burdens and by increasing the number of teaching assistants by 20,000 by the end of this parliament in addition to the 20,000 outlined in the Green Paper."

Not a word on discipline. None of this matters if people are still afraid that they're going to be faced with inattentive and violent pupils while lacking any serious means to discipline them. As I've said before, school discipline is primarily a cultural issue, but teachers should be given a few weapons (perhaps literally) to make their life easier.

:: Swordsman 8/10/2001 02:13:00 PM [+] ::
...

Cell Out or Egg-head?

The Symposium on National Review Online on Bush's stem-cell decision contains many interesting points of view from all sides of the debate. Personally, I'm with Mike Fumento in thinking that the decision was a pretty good one. Michael Novak is probably right in saying that the decision puts him on slightly less defensible ground when the pro-embryonic research crew press for more, but I think this decision actually lessens their firepower too.

This is, of course, exactly the debate the UK did not have before its decision on the issue. And, as a Pope (Alexander -- no, not the Borgia) once said, a little of learning is a dangerous thing. The President obviously thought long and hard about this one. I wish the same could be said of Tony Blair.
:: Swordsman 8/10/2001 02:05:00 PM [+] ::
...

Songs of Praise

The Times gives its take on the "nationalistic" hymns controversy. Well said.
:: Swordsman 8/09/2001 11:33:00 AM [+] ::
...

Kosowoe

Boris Johnson gets asylum and immigration policy right in The Daily Telegraph. His point about Labour being unable to make up its mind whether it's a touchy-feely kindly party or a tough-nosed efficient party is a valid one and one that we should be making whenever we speak to the people who deserted us. Labour isn't simply implementing Tory policies with a smile on its face, its smile actually distorts those policies and, in many cases, makes them worthless.
:: Swordsman 8/09/2001 11:28:00 AM [+] ::
...

Ignorance is Bliss?

Wedding couple banned over 'nationalistic' hymns reports Ananova. The vicar, who refused to accept lottery funding and will not bless babies of unmarried parents (both of which seem perfectly acceptable points of view to me), considers Jerusalem and I Vow to Thee, My Country to be nationalistic. Poppycock. Jerusalem is about building the Kingdom of God in the land where the people who are singing it happen to be, while I Vow to Thee, My Country is all about "another country," whose ways are better than ours -- again, the Kingdom of God. His sermon could be about that! No wonder the church is in a state if blinkered fools like this are its representatives.
:: Swordsman 8/08/2001 08:56:00 AM [+] ::
...

MMR: Mothers Might Rebel

The Times editorialises that the State has a right to require that parents get their children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella in order to protect public health. So far so good. I agree. But The Thunderer goes on to argue that this means that the government is right to require that parents use the MMR vaccine, for the following reasons:

"MMR was introduced in 1988 as a more effective alternative to single-dose vaccinations against each of the three illnesses. It provides instant protection, whereas single vaccinations involve a delay of several months before children are fully immunised."

The public health benefit of MMR as opposed to single vaccinations seems to be marginal, although I agree with The Times that there is no rational reason for parents to fear it (my own daughter will receive it in a couple of months). But unless there is a clear and established public health cost, I would argue that allowing those parents who would otherwise NOT get their child vaccinated to opt for single vaccinations, (possibly on the understanding that the NHS pays only for the MMR option, and that the other course must therefore be paid for privately) would produce more benefits to society.

Interestingly, the Times does not say how it would require parents to use the MMR vaccine, other than to write approvingly of a Health Authority undertaking disciplinary proceedings against a doctor who offered the single vaccines. Is the sub-text that the parents who do not use MMR are criminals? If so, this is a very dangerous opinion.
:: Swordsman 8/08/2001 08:08:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Grandeur of Grandmothers

The infuriating Mary Ann Sieghart of The Times (I call her infuriating because so often she veers close to excellent ideas, only then to tack away) repeatedly argues that the elderly of coming years will not be as conservative as previous generations because they have been taught from birth that prejudice is wrong. I find this assumption questionable, as research here in the US has shown that the elderly tend to lose the inhibiting function in their thinking, meaning that natural prejudices tend to come to the fore. Now, Mary Kenny in The Daily Telegraph gives us a theory on the positive reasons why grandmothers become conservative. It seems to make perfect sense to me. For countless generations, until this one in power now, mankind has recognised the wisdom of the ages for what it is -- the clarity of vision that experience brings. Perhaps we should realise that the conservativism of the elderly is not down to prejudice, it is down to the realisation of how the world really works.
:: Swordsman 8/08/2001 07:21:00 AM [+] ::
...

Spot on!

Daniel Johnson in The Daily Telegraph gets it spot on, saying, far more succinctly than I could, exactly what I've been arguing here for the past couple of months. A must-read.
:: Swordsman 8/08/2001 06:57:00 AM [+] ::
...

Hollywood = Eurotrash

Jonah Goldberg, on Hollywood Liberals on National Review Online, hits another one for six. His argument is basically that Hollywood stars are the equivalent of Eurotrash. They live like moral reprobates because they can afford it. We should make this point more often. The next time Geri Halliwell says she's voting Labour, the official response should be "It's all right for her, because she can afford it. What about the small businessman and the shopworker, the hairdresser and the fisherman?" This should go equally when some Breakfast TV presenter speaks out on social policy. They don't have to live in the moral squalor created by the 60s. And even if they did once, they're betraying their kind by helping to prolong the agony.

Of course, we'd theoretically lose the support of some celebrities by attacking their cult, but the only one who supports us these days is Jim Davison. I think we could do without him...
:: Swordsman 8/07/2001 01:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

This is the best Oxford can offer?

A bizzarre and confused argument from David Coleman in The Daily Telegraph. Coleman is a Reader in Demography at Oxford and he argues that Britain needs more workers to support the ageing population we will have in the mid-21st Century, that immigration is not the answer because immigrants don't work, that therefore we must up the birth rate and that therefore we must make sure that mothers can work so they have the flexibility they now feel they need to raise more than one child, and also accept that women want to have children outside marriage (I think -- he only mentions this point in passing).

There are so many things wrong with this argument I don't know where to start. Perhaps the most obvious is his point about immigrants:

"Most immigrants are not workers; since the Sixties, most have come as dependants, spouses, students and, more recently, as asylum claimants. Like immigrants throughout Europe, Britain's ethnic minority populations have about double the national unemployment level."

Well, if you only let in the unqualified (family members) and then don't let them work (asylum seekers), it's unsurprising that you get this effect. A proper immigration policy would restrict family members to immediate family (spouses, children, but not parents) but have a pretty open policy towards people with qualifications, a good command of English and ability to demonstrate that they will not be a burden on the state. Command of English ought also to be a requirement for family members, as I'd guess that's a major cause of unemployment among spouses.

So that argument doesn't hold much water. Now what about the "promoting childbirth" ideas? Yes, single mothers who work are better able to support their children (and among the poorest educated, child care does have a beneficial effect for the children). But that presupposes a dysfunctional society where single motherhood is accepted and children grow up without fathers. Overall, study after study has shown that the family model that produces the most well-adjusted, productive children is the traditional nuclear family. Among the better educated, mothers who do not work produce better adjusted children. If we're talking about raising children who are more productive so as to support more people, then surely that is the model we need to encourage.

After all, a wealthier society is one better able to support an ageing population. The trouble with all Malthusian theories like this one is that they always look at the most obvious solution and ignore mankind's great ability to utilise resources in a more efficient manner than had previously been thought possible. The answer to Coleman's question "who will support us when we're old?" is the economy. More children and a ruined economy will help no-one. Fewer children and a booming economy will be able to support the old. Oh, and the future old themselves have a responsibility to provide for the future they want. It's called saving, and the British aren't very good at it.
:: Swordsman 8/07/2001 07:41:00 AM [+] ::
...

The Irish Question

It strikes me that the silence from the Tory leadership on the Irish issue is deafening. The Unionists are our natural allies, but little is heard from us on this very important issue. Thank goodness David Trimble has some backbone.

One of the few Tory voices heard on this issue is our own Michael Gove. His latest Times article is an excellent attack on the IRA. More power to his pen.
:: Swordsman 8/07/2001 07:05:00 AM [+] ::
...

Archie Norman's Place II

More sense from Archie Norman in The Times. If I have any quibbles with this article, they're the following:

First, if we're going to attract the working class, which is what he's talking about, we have to tackle the issue of culture. Most of the problems besetting the working class are cultural, not economic (that's a mistaken Marxist notion and Archie should know that). Myron Magnet's "The Dream and the Nightmare" is worth reading for a primer on this issue.

Second, I have qualms about appointing a Super-Minister for Regeneration. That smacks of Margaret Thatcher's great mistake in centralising power to solve the Militant problem, and then failing to restore local government afterwards. Instead, the tack taken in the rest of Archie's article seems the best course: win power in local councils and solve the problem from below, not above. Then a Minister for the Regions would only have to give up his remaining prerogatives and restore them to local government and we could save considerable sums on central government control.
:: Swordsman 8/06/2001 08:54:00 AM [+] ::
...

Lib-Lab Suicide Pact

Good news. According to The Times, Charles Kennedy has decided to try to become the opposition party. If this means the break down of the unofficial alliance that sponsored so much tactical voting at the last two elections, it could mean that many Tory candidates have a much easier job. And if the Liberals decide that positioning themselves to the Left of Labour gives them the best opportunity to siphon off the nuttier Labour members, together with greenies and others, then Labour could find itself stuck as being essentially the paternalist Tory party in a couple of elections' time. Faced with the interventionist, environmentalist left in the shape of the Liberals and a Conservative party with new ideas, Labour could begin to look very tired indeed. Bookmark this page. Today could just be the start of a whole new era in British politics.
:: Swordsman 8/06/2001 08:32:00 AM [+] ::
...

Healthy Choice

Prescott says tax may have to rise to improve NHS, according to the Telegraph. Well, there's a surprise. As we know by now, the UK spends only 6% of GDP on healthcare, all of it taxpayers' money. That's the same as most European countries and (shock!) the US. But those countries supplement with private insurance in one form or another, meaning that the European average is slightly over 8% while the total US figure is 13%. That's why getting cancer is not a death sentence in these countries and why the US has the best healthcare in the world for those who have insurance.

A private healthcare policy can be sold by arguing that companies should get tax breaks for offering employees private health insurance packages, so enabling taxpayers' money to be redirected towards the less well-off, giving them access to good quality healthcare too. Hospitals should be made independent entities, responsible for their own improvement, free from political considerations, whether local or national, and therefore free to pay doctors and nurses higher wages in order to attract better staff and to invest in such specialised equipment as they can afford from charging the insurance companies the realistic cost of their services. The health insurance packages should be along the lines of the PPO (preferred provider options) that have proven so felexible and effective here in the US, and not along the HMO lines that are so controversial. Meanwhile, the hospitals would provide the NHS with services at a discounted rate, but still enough to cover their costs.

There's quite a bit of economic modelling to do on this topic, but I think the basis of a plan is there.
:: Swordsman 8/06/2001 07:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

Bluster over Blunkett

New Statesman seeks to argue that the Home Secretary isn't as bad as he's painted by the Left. It's not a very convincing case, especially from the conservative point of view.

One interesting point, however, is contained in the following sentence:

"No home secretary is going to win much praise for promoting prison education, but, as in the Bulger case, Blunkett seems prepared to put good government before good headlines."

I think a home secretary can win praise for this. It can easily be sold as a "tough on crime" measure, as James Q Wilson has persuasively argued. Equipping criminals with the basic interpersonal skills they need to succeed in society should appeal to both the liberal and paternalist wings of the party. And, in doing so, we can make a point about how teaching the (basic) skill of self-control is absolutely essential to civilised society. So why aren't our schools teaching it?
:: Swordsman 8/06/2001 06:47:00 AM [+] ::
...

Knocking up voters

This is not a story about Gary Condit. This week's MORI poll digest commentary column by my old friend Roger Mortimore looks at how well the parties communicated with the electorate in the election campaign. They didn't. In part, this is doubtless down to a dearth of activists, but that can always be made up for if people work harder. I can also understand why candidates in local elections might not want to be associated with candidates for an unpopular party in the national elections. Again, the solution is to work harder -- deliver leaflets two days apart and so on. Faint heart never won fair lady, nor an election...
:: Swordsman 8/03/2001 11:27:00 AM [+] ::
...

Publius vs Cato vs Jacques

Larry Siedentop, author of "Democracy in Europe," writes about the democratic deficit in Europe in the new Spectator. As always, he compares the lack of structured debate over the direction of Europe unfavourably to the process that led to the American Constitution (his initial Financial Times article was entitled "Where are our Madisons?"). This is a good point, which could also be made about current approaches to the British Constitution.

One thing strikes me. In alluding to The Federalist Papers, he neglects to mention the quite substantial opposition, including such luminaries as Patrick Henry, who issued what have become known as The Anti-Federalist Papers. The distinction is apposite, as Madison, Hamilton and Jay, by adopting the label of Federalists, cornered their opposition into declaring themselves Anti-Federalists. They were thenceforth seen as simply being against something, and being negative is never as attractive politically as being positive. I worry that "eurosceptic" is too negative a label for Conservatives to campaign under. We need to find a label that sums up the virtues of sovereignty, self-determination, common law and tradition that is both catchy and positive. In the UK, "europhile" at least has the dubious virtue of sounding like "paedophile," but everywhere else it sounds like "Anglophile" and is therefore a good thing. We really need to think about this one.
:: Swordsman 8/03/2001 08:55:00 AM [+] ::
...

We don't need no piece of paper... Er, yes you do

Sound leader in The Telegraph today. The girlfriend of a soldier killed in Sierra Leone is claiming full pension rights. Theirs was an 8-year long relationship, with a daughter. As the Telegraph says, it was their right, and their choice, not to visit the registry office to formalise their relationship. Why did they not do so? If it was because either (or neither) party wished to be tied down, then the inevitable consequence is that the relationship must be treated as temporary, and therefore not on the same footing as a permanent relationship. If it was because of a belief that society has no part in recognising relationships, then again the inevitable consequence of that belief is that the benefits that spring from that recognition will be foregone.

Britain (and the US, for that matter) needs a serious debate about what marriage is and what it is for. It may be that the state should butt out and leave it as a form of private contract, subject to normal contract law. That would make homosexual marriages or, indeed, "marriages" between elderly sisters who've lived together for 50 years possible and legally enforceable. Or it may be that society could recognise that it has a wider role to play in the sanctioning and approval of family life as the best way to ensure the satisfactory upbringing of children so that they become good citizens (which is, after all, the traditional view).

Conservatives could be comfortable with both models, the first appealing primarily to economic conservatives, the latter to social conservatives. It is therefore perfectly possible for the Conservative Party to start this debate without seeming judgemental. Either model, however, would be preferable to the mess we have currently.
:: Swordsman 8/03/2001 07:51:00 AM [+] ::
...

Blair as Suprahero

Great article by John O'Sullivan on internationalism on National Review Online, arguing (like Michael Gove's piece on Genoa below -- or in the archives -- somewhere) that there is a difference between internationalism and supranationalism. Conservatives can be genuine internationalists (although I recognise the principles behind the isolationist wing), but I can't for the life of me see how a conservative can be a supranationalist. The distinction should be made, and used forcibly against Blair, in party speeches on foreign policy.
:: Swordsman 8/02/2001 12:50:00 PM [+] ::
...

All gas and gaiters?

A letter to The Times sets out more possibilities for the future role of the Church -- more church schools and housing. Jolly good! As I've argued before, if the Church pays attention to its parishoners rather than bleating about economic policy, it will do its parishoners more good and, perhaps, restore its standing in the community. Who knows, perhaps Church attendance might go up?
:: Swordsman 8/02/2001 11:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

Environmental Health

The vice-chancellor of that excellent institution, Buckingham University, underlines a great point in today's Telegraph. If people own something, they treat it well. Therefore private ownership of wild land, rivers or fish stocks is an excellent conservation measure. Ron Bailey has been making this point for ages in the pages of Reason Magazine. It's a perfect Conservative policy, too.
:: Swordsman 8/02/2001 09:21:00 AM [+] ::
...

Fear the RIPA

This is a potentially excellent site that I hope is in its infancy rather than simply left unfinished. Magnacartaplus - to advance civil liberties - contains useful commentaries on the apalling civil rights abuses contained in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and the awful Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 1999.

On that latter, the Home Office is apparently "consulting" on how it is going to intercept communications. This is taken from the uk.politics.misc newsgroup, but I see no reason to doubt its veracity (I shall check when I have the time):

A Home Office consultation on section 12 of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which sets out the "reasonable
interception capabilities" of telecoms and postal services to the
public lists various requirements of both telecoms and public postal
services. The requirements for telecoms services include the
following (paraphrased):

* They must provide a mechanism for intercepting the entire contents of
the communications being sent between the warranted person or
premises, with transmission to the government or intercepting agencies
in "near real-time".

* An ability to remove any electronic protection provided by the
telecoms service.

* Sufficient security to minimise the risk of the warranted person or
other unauthorised person becoming aware of any interception.

The postal services requirements include the following:

* Intercept and temporarily retain communications destined for UK
addresses for provision to the interception agency.

* Intercept and retain items sent by identified persons where the
carrier keeps records of who sent the item in the course of their
normal business.

* To operate a system of clandestine opening, copying and resealing
of any letters carried for less than 1 pound stg.

* Operate the above in a manner to minimise the risk of the
interception being discovered by the warranted person or other
unauthorised persons.

Bottom line: The government will be able to intercept emails, phone
calls and letters travelling within the UK and want to do this without
people knowing. Companies providing internet, phone or postal services
have to comply with this.

Consultation document:

click here

RIPA:

click here (HMSO page)


:: Swordsman 8/02/2001 07:05:00 AM [+] ::
...

Didn't Marcuse play for Man United?

Another item of interest in the free speech debate. "HOROWITZ EXPOSES MORE THAN JUST BIAS... THE SORRY STATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION" is about the manner in which leftie-baiter David Horowitz' ad denouncing "slavery reparations" was dealt with by university newspapers across the US. The ambivalent attitude to free speech revealed is almost identical to the sort of attitude that dominates British universities (remember the "No Platform" campaign in the 80s?) and even much of the media. Marcuse lives.
:: Swordsman 8/01/2001 12:54:00 PM [+] ::
...

Funnier than Private Eye

Presumably the UK media would regard this as "pushing the limits of free speech." The Onion, probably the best satirical publication out there, has the last word, though. Murder Suspect To Be Tried By Media; Overworked Justice System Grateful For Help, it reports...
:: Swordsman 8/01/2001 12:27:00 PM [+] ::
...

Jenkins goes nuclear

Simon Jenkins has written persuasively that a lot of the problem surrounding foot & mouth was caused by the National Farmers' Union. In The Times today, he launches a full-scale strike on the NFU's Ben Gill. Strong stuff, but some very interesting points in it:

"[HMG] discovered that cleansing a farm in England, under central government control, was costing £104,000 a farm. Under local government in Scotland it cost £30,000. In The Netherlands it cost just £570. Small wonder the Treasury hates local government: it shows up the true cost of central control."

And, just to show that bureaucrats spawn bureaucrats:

"Before leaving for the FMD-endemic shores of South America [the PM] produced a familiar Blair initiative. He promised an army of new officials to go round trying to work out what every cullable animal is really “worth” before killing it. Extra auditors will examine invoices, dockets, pay stubs and reinforce existing red tape. By the autumn the countryside should have a new ancillary FMD workforce, over and above farmers, vets and contractors."

The Institute Of Directors, Jenkins says, estimated that foot & mouth would cost the country 20 billion quid "if it lingered until July." Still counting...
:: Swordsman 8/01/2001 12:10:00 PM [+] ::
...

A cynic writes...

Permit me to venture a few cynical thoughts about Tony Blair's increasing euroscepticism. As the Times editorial points out, there are important elections coming up in France and Germany, which his "third way" colleagues will be fighting. Might Tony's "handbag swinging" be seen as a favour to his compadres, who will then be able to point to how they stood up to evil Britain and secured the French/German way of life for Europe? Just a thought...
:: Swordsman 8/01/2001 11:48:00 AM [+] ::
...

A merrie Clarke...

Douglas Hurd is geiven a column in The Telegraph to sketch out the reasons for supporting Clarke. He does a good job with his limited resources, but the argument is, of course, at its weakest on the central point at issue:

"Ken Clarke has recognised his own problem over Europe and stretched the answer. If (as seems increasingly unlikely) there were a referendum on the euro in this parliament, Conservatives would have to have a free vote, as William Hague had already promised."

But Hague had a policy as well as the free vote. It is absurd that a major political party should not have a detailed policy on one of the central political and economic issues of the day. A Clarke-led party, with no policy, would quickly be made a laughing stock by the Blairite spinmeisters. Can't he see that?
:: Swordsman 8/01/2001 09:15:00 AM [+] ::
...

Just brass neck?

Spiked is worth reading again (I felt it became very monotonous around the election). In their article "Chris Morris - that old fogey," they argue that the Brass Eye paedophilia satire was inherently conservative. Having not seen the programme, I have just as much right to pontificate on this as the average Labour minister. The case presented seems very solid, so perhaps a word of two of common sense from the leadership contenders on this issue might help pour a bucket of cold water over the problem. After all, the accusations of populism helped Labour. Why not accuse them now of the exact same thing?
:: Swordsman 8/01/2001 08:31:00 AM [+] ::
...