English Conservative

Off to SquareSpace

2006-11-09T14:20:00.000Z

I'm writing at a new place.

Following my election as a London Borough of Redbridge councillor I found myself up to my ears in work and the blog suffered as a result. Now I've got over the shock and my organisational skills have improved a little (the only way was 'up' in that department, I must confess) the blogging resumes.

I'm actually paying a monthly subscription for my new site so expect to see something posted there now and again..!

Cameron's revolution?

2006-05-22T15:25:00.000Z

I am fascinated by David Cameron's acknowledgement that happiness - the thing we all, without exception, aspire to - and its attainment are more important than mere economic advancement and that a consideration to happiness - measured by something he (possibly flippantly) refers to as GWB - General Well-Being - might be an additional measure of a country's progress along with GDP. If he is serious about looking at happiness as a highly meaningful component of national life then this could represent as dramatic a revolution in mindset in our political governance as that of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s.

The full speech is available at The Guardian. Here are some highlights:

GDP. Gross domestic product. Yes it's vital. It measures the wealth of our society. But it hardly tells the whole story.

Wealth is about so much more than pounds, or euros or dollars can ever measure. It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB - general well-being.

Well-being can't be measured by money or traded in markets. It can't be required by law or delivered by government.

It's about the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our culture, and above all the strength of our relationships.

We also know that no country can take prosperity for granted.

In an ever-more competitive world, we have to be constantly vigilant in the battle to secure investment, create jobs, and spread opportunity.

But we should also acknowledge a vital truth that the pursuit of wealth is no longer - if it ever was - enough to meet people's deepest hopes and aspirations.

I think it's increasingly clear that the spirit of the age demands social values as well as economic value.

Mr Cameron hones in on the true nature of a conservative:

We hear a lot about the bracing winds of globalisation - footloose capital, buccaneering business, accelerating change.

And we are often told that we have to embrace the change, not resist it.

But that's too simplistic.

On one level, of course we have to be comfortable with change. But on another level, the human level, we have to remember what makes people happy, as well as what makes stock markets rise.

What makes us happy, above all, is a sense of belonging - strong relationships with friends, family and the immediate world around us.

That's about permanence, not change. It's about the personal, not the commercial.

Fundamental human values and aspirations have never - and will never - change. Mr Cameron recognises the inherent emptiness of rampant consumption:

We know there is a deep satisfaction which comes from belonging to someone and to some place. There comes a point when you can't keep on choosing, you have to commit.

If so much of our modern globalised consumer culture ultimately seems unsatisfying then it is because it fails to satisfy this deep human need.

Much of this speech concentrates on the world of work and how employment practise can fit in with human values as well as the need to make money. David Cameron points to examples of companies making their own decisions about providing flexible working without a need for the state to force their hands. He suggests that persuasion rather than regulation is the key to improvement - and also pre-empts the criticism his comments will undoubtedly provoke:

I believe that there is a role for politicians in using exhortation, rather than regulation, to talk up good practice and draw attention to bad practice.

I've already annoyed a number of companies by pointing out failures of corporate responsibility.

It's not done from a desire to pick a fight with business.

But I think it's right to say what you think when you see something that's wrong.

Advocacy is not a wishy-washy cop-out as some would argue.

It strikes the right balance and avoids the pitfalls of over-prescriptive government intervention.

Some will say that simply talking about changing culture is nebulous.

But let's be honest - who has done more for school food: countless government initiatives, or Jamie Oliver?

...what has had more effect on working life - the innovation of companies like Lloyds TSB, moving way ahead of government legislation or a box-ticking, lowest common denominator, one-size-fits-all piece of regulation?

It's vital to create a space in the national conversation which stands firmly between regulation and indifference.

Why should we choose between the intolerant impulse to right every supposed wrong by passing new laws and the coldly amoral refusal even to take a view on the actions of others?

As the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote as long ago as 1795, politicians "ought to know... what belongs to laws, and what manners alone can regulate. To these, great politicians may give a leaning, but they cannot give a law."

Mr Cameron has appealed to the natural, human instincts that make conservatism the fine thing that it is.

The point about happiness is, I think, that it's a by-product rather than a directly attainable attribute. To direct oneself specifically towards the goal of happiness leaves one grasping at smoke. Of course, one can learn useful strategies for improving quality of life; wise people over the centuries have made distinctions and observations about humans and their attitudes that the rest of us can learn from. But I think it is the general conditions of life - but, more importantly, what we make of them - which determines our general well-being. Government can assist but government cannot actually do. David Cameron has been quite brave in bringing up what is, for politicians, an unusual idea. It will be very interesting to see how he progresses it in the future.

Labour goes for the headlines again...

2006-05-22T10:03:00.000Z

In what has all the hallmarks of a tactical attempt by the British Home Office to restore some of its haemorrhaging credibility Labour is suggesting a populist - but ultimately valueless - policy on prisoner release: let the victims decide.

Recent months have given us a series of appalling crimes committed by people released from prison and serving parole. (A summary appears here). The argument goes - and I am not qualified to know whether the argument is right or wrong - that they were released too early and that this is a failing of the parole board.

So with the parole board allegedly doing their job badly and releasing violent criminals into the community - some of whom go on to commit outrages against us - the government's response is not as it should be - namely to acknowledge that the system is wrong and needs correcting (or 'reforming' as it calls everything it ever touches) - but to seek to turn a disaster into a public relations triumph. Therefore it is considering a plan whereby the parole board will factor in victims' views when deciding whether or not a criminal should be released. Presumably a crook will spend a lesser or greater time in prison depending on the comments of his victim. Does the word 'lottery' spring to mind?

We will inevitably be faced with situations where two prisoners who have committed more or less identical crimes in more or less identical circumstances will serve different sentences simply because one was lucky enough to have attacked a person with a propensity towards forgiveness whilst the other offended against somebody more bitter and unforgiving.

If Labour really wanted a headline grabbing policy - one that would be followed by large doses of public approval - it would simply announce a prison-building scheme and a commitment to imprisoning people early on in their criminal career so as to deter (especially) those youths who, emboldened by non-existent punishment for crimes committed, will slide further into lives of crime.

Our society's problems are serious and becoming more so and they require practical solutions that work. The government's various gimmicks seem to be little more than attempts to appear 'tough' on crime whilst resisting - at all costs - the simple expedient of properly locking up and treating the violent and destructive. Involving an angry and emotional victim in the serious and grave business of deciding whether or not to free a person smacks of government surrender to its own inadequacies - and the lure of big headlines. We deserve better. We're unlikely to get it.

The environment - who cares?

2006-05-09T12:04:00.000Z

Today some colleagues of mine were making fun of David Cameron's recent glacier-hugging exploits and casting doubt on his sincerity as an environmentalist. Their comments got me pondering this Cameron/environmental business and produced the following random thoughts.

First, nobody really cares that much about the environment. We all know it's important and most of us can carry out the necessary brainwork that leads to the conclusion that if we don't take care of it we're in the soup. But we are all content to consume and waste as much as we ever did, leaving lights on and the tv on stand-by, driving everywhere, buying packaged fruit and veg where loose is less wasteful and so on. And although recycling is now relatively widespread this is probably more due to the convenience of not having overflowing dustbins at home - and the relative ease now of recycling - than it is due to passionate concern for the environment. If recycling involved a 15 minute walk most people would stop doing it immediately. Nobody actually cares enough about the environment to make any proper effort to look after it.

Second, some evidence for my contention that people aren't overly bothered abuot their environment is contained in some second-hand information I received about a pre-election poll asking people which issues most concern them. The responses were:

1. Health care and hospitals.

2. Immigration and race relations.

3. Foreign affairs including international terrorism.

4. Education and schools.

5. Crime, or law and order.

See? We all know we should care about the environment but we actually don't that much. There will be good reasons for this but, regardless: environment does not feature.

Third, David Cameron's glacier-hugging was an act of gesture politics. Nothing wrong with that in itself but gesture politics are designed to convey a message or image about the person making the gesture and, as such, are not designed to improve the situation about which the gesture is being made. As a result of David Cameron's trip to that cold place he went to not one glacier will be saved, not one rain forest preserved and not a single ounce of carbon emission will be prevented. But he'll look like he cares and that he will take environmental issues seriously. Which he probably will. But it won't matter because we're all more worried about health and crime and education and so on.

Fourth - and to aswer the question, 'if nobody cares about the environment why does Mr Cameron do what he's doing?' - Mr Cameron's recent environmental posturings are part of a wider, quite sensible strategy - if looked at from any angle other than policy. Fact is, Labour is regarded as the caring party. It's nothing of the sort, of course, but the image is pervasive. The public simply believes Labour 'cares' more than the Conservatives about almost everything - with the gap between our relative 'caring' being a yawning one. Labour is regarded as soft and fluffy while we're right nasty buggers. The problem that this will always give us is that, if you're not really sure who to vote for, or if you're soft and fluffy yourself then your subconscious feelings will figure large in your assessment of the main contenders. When John Major won his election some centuries ago his victory was a surprise because it confounded just about all the polls. People were actually ashamed to admit to voting Conservative so they lied to the pollsters then voted for us anyway. (Since then in general elections the public has shown they don't want to vote for us at all but that's a different matter.)

The truth is - and I hate to admit it because I am almost despairing at the lack of solid conservatism coming out of my Party at the moment - if Mr Cameron closes that gap in perception so that it becomes negligible by the next election then one important portion of Labour's appeal to the floating voter disappears.

So I suppose I have to conclude thus: a general strategy that undermines any natural advantage the enemy possesses is to be welcomed. I think David Cameron is doing this and, I assume, he'll work through the list of areas where we're perceived as weak, culminating in the real areas of concern - see the list above - as we get closer to the general election. His emphasis on the environment now may well be his recognition that environment itself doesn't matter to many people but people's general perception of us is shaped by our attitude to it. So he'll alter the perception, erode Labour's advantage and move on to something slightly more important before eventually tackling - from the standpoint of a much-improved public image - some of the trickier subjects.

I hope.

Elected

2006-05-05T13:17:00.000Z

Well this is one happy - relieved, actually - blogger. I came in third in Cranbrook Ward (London Borough of Redbridge) and am now a part of Redbridge Council. You can just call me 'sir'.

Our result is here.

Thursday was a very long day: awake at 4am (obviously more nervous than I thought), leafletting by 6am, manning polling stations on and off throughout the day, 'knocking up' (a phrase that still makes me smile) Conservative voters who hadn't yet voted and so on. Watching the count was interesting. Each elector has three votes and most chose the three candidates of one particular party. But a sizable minority produced 'mixed' ballot papers - votes for only one or two candidates or else votes for three candidates but not all of the same party. One of the Labour candidates was picking up a large number of personal votes in this category and, knowing I would be placed third of our team (since I'm new so have no track record) I became quite anxious she'd pip me to third spot and my political career would be over before it had even begun.

In the end I polled nearly 50% more than her but before that fact became known I was running nightmare scenarios over and over in my head.

The whole process is quite interesting (honest it is). I'll post more when my tired and numbed brain is more alive.

My Borough picked up a single BNP councillor at the expense of a Tory. Our neighbours - Barking and Dagenham - got 11 with a 12th seemingly likely. Yesterday I listened to a Labour councillor waxing stupidly about how that Party's voters are simply racists proving, as he did so, that at least some Labour members do not recognise that branding every white who does not like uncontrolled immigration and his own second class place in the process as a racist is actually fuel for the BNP's fire. And since the only two people who ranted on about immigration to me during this election were ethnic Indians I think all three main parties need to get their heads out of the sand and move their brains up a gear or two.

In the meantime, Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP who first suggested the BNP might do well in these elections, may be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for those comments. (See The Guardian's story here.) Once Labour has shot the messenger will they then turn their attentions to the issues? Will the Conservatives? We will wait and see.

April 23rd is St George's Day

2006-04-23T14:04:00.000Z

A happy St George's Day to everyone English, everyone who lives in England and everyone who loves England.

Prince Harry wants to fight

2006-04-23T13:33:00.000Z

I'm canvassing 7 evenings a week for the local government elections and next week will be taking a week's leave from my real job to campaign full-time. So the near-zero contributions to this blog will remain this way for another 10 days or so.

But this caught my eye:

Prince Harry has threatened to quit the Army unless he is sent to the front line.

Harry reportedly told officers at Sandhurst where he trained: "If I am not allowed to join my unit in a war zone, I will hand in my uniform."

[Source: ITV News]

So the lad's turned out okay after all.

An autumn election?

2006-03-20T14:50:00.000Z

In today's The Times William Rees-Mogg makes a case for an autumn election.[Source]

Commenting on the widely held view that Tony Blair sold peerages for cash - and also the projected losses for Labour in the upcoming local elections - he wonders whether the Prime Minister might simply resign and so pave the way for the Gordon Brown succession. If this happens, the question then for Mr Brown is when to hold an election:

Mr Brown would then have to decide whether to establish his own mandate by holding an early election. There would be a strong case for him to do so. Like all parties that have been in office for a long time, Labour’s underlying support is falling; even at the past election their vote fell by 1.2 million. By 2010, the last year for the next general election, they are likely to have become even more unpopular. The last year in which Labour could win an overall majority could well be 2006.

Mr Rees-Mogg also points out another consideration for Labour to bear in mind, namely, that the current, favourable (to Labour) boundary conditions are set to change early in 2007:

At present, Labour has a majority of 64, which means it holds 32 more seats than the other parties combined. On the present timetable about half that majority will be removed by redistribution of the constituencies. That, however, will probably not take place until January 1, 2007. Any election held in 2006 would be fought on the existing boundaries.

For all sorts of reasons an autumn election - with all three parties led by new leaders and none of them in the post long enough to have created a solid set of policies to offer the public - could be simultaneously exciting and quite unpleasant. With Labour leading the polls - just - but facing widespread disillusion in the electorate I predict panic all round. Prepare for wholesale flip-flopping and lots of Punch and Judy.

The Tory aims and values document

2006-02-28T18:57:00.000Z

As a member of the Conservative Party I will be receiving a document containing David Cameron's aims and values for the Party. I will be asked to vote on it.

A copy of the document can be seen here but I have reproduced it below with some thoughts that occur as I read through it.

Our Aims:

To improve the quality of life for everyone through: A dynamic economy, where thriving businesses create jobs, wealth and opportunity. A strong society, where our families, our communities and our nation create secure foundations on which people can build their lives. A sustainable environment, where we enhance the beauty of our surroundings and protect the future of the planet.

A nice opener which could grace the preface of almost any Party's promotional documentation.

Our Values:

The more we trust people, the stronger they and society become. We're all in this together - government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals. We have a shared responsibility for our shared future.

I agree with this. I think it separates us from Labour because it acknowledges the simple truth that people left to do things their way do a better job than the state or its various quangos. However, we are not libertarians and we recognise that the state ought to reflect the way of life of its people and support them where individual effort is not sufficient.

I would like to know Mr Cameron's view on the nature of the balance between state and individual in this shared responsibility.

Our Party:

We are an open and inclusive Party. We will act to ensure that our Party, at every level, is representative of modern Britain.

Good. That's how it should be. But this bit concerns me a tad:

We will act to ensure...

How will we 'ensure'? This might be an unfortunate choice of words but it sounds like the issue will be forced and feathers will be ruffled.

What we're fighting for:
1. A successful Britain must be able to compete with the world. We will put economic stability and fiscal responsibility first. They must come before tax cuts. Over time, we will share the proceeds of growth between public services and lower taxes - instead of letting government spend an ever-increasing share of national income.

It seems that the accepted wisdom is that you have tax cuts or economic stability. What about the idea that tax cuts lead to economic growth and stability? Have we adequately refuted this theory? We need to have because if we have not then we might be wrong-footed - in public - by people who know otherwise.

And we need to clarify, perhaps, that you don't just cut taxes on a whim; you stop the state from doing those things it does badly and at great expense and then cut taxes with the savings. It works in that order.

2. There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state. The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich. We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities - instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness.

Well, the 'we' that is going to do the empowering is the state, I assume. I tend to think that the state does not often empower by doing things but by not doing things. But he's right - there is such thing as society (and Mrs Thatcher knew that too - she is being misquoted when it's suggested otherwise). But whether the right test for us is when our policies help the most disadvantaged is questionable: is personal 'failure' - laziness, dishonesty, lack of confidence, lack of inspiration, preference for a measure of success based on some other criteria - usually the result of government policy?

3. The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money. We will enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change - instead of short-term thinking and surrender to vested interests. We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives, not impose choices on them.

The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money. I agree with this a thousand per cent and I do believe that truly conservative people recognise that contentment and satisfaction in life are rarely provided by things that can be purchased. I will have to wait to see if Mr Cameron thinks the same way; he is evidently using this phrase as an introduction to his environmental ideas. I regard looking after our environment as a patriotic duty so am pleased with his attention to this issue.

I want to be assured though that he is not lining himself up with those who like to bash 'big business' because of their brute opposition to capitalism. And I at least want to hear Mr Cameron state that, having looked at all the evidence, he believes the most dangerous contribution to global warming is the man-made one. I am not asking whether he is right or wrong - I personally do not understand all the issues. But I do want to know that he has examined the arguments carefully and then taken a sincere position rather than leave himself open to the accusation that he chose a fashionable one.

4. Public services for everyone must be guaranteed by the state, not necessarily run by the state. We will improve the NHS and schools for everyone, not help a few to opt out. But public services paid for by the state don't have to be run by the state. We will trust professionals and share responsibility - instead of controlling professionals in state monopolies.

If he does not want to control professionals in state monopolies that is good; it suggests professionals will be left alone and, more importantly, the state won't be a monopoly provider of services. But we need clarification on whether Mr Cameron will embrace free-market solutions along with centrally planned ones.

5. It is our moral obligation to make poverty history. We will fight for free and fair trade, increase international aid, and press for further debt relief. But this is not enough. We will also take action to build those institutions - like the rule of law and property rights - that support development.

Regardless of whether it is our moral obligation to make poverty history is this an aim we alone can realistically achieve? The most we can do is enter into some sort of partnership with countries, partnerships where both sides work for a common outcome. The poor countries - their leaders especially - have the final responsibility because they have the advantages of governance.

6. Security and freedom must go hand in hand. In fighting crime and terrorism, we will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security. We will ensure strong defence and the effective enforcement of laws that balance liberty and safety - instead of ineffective authoritarianism which puts both freedom and security at risk.

So we will hopefully use, to the full, laws we already possess. Will we build new prisons? And will we actively seek to punish, educate and reform wrongdoers?

7. We understand the limitations of government, but are not limited in our aspirations for government. We believe in the role of government as a force for good. It can and should support aspirations such as home ownership, saving for a pension, and starting a business. It should support families and marriage, and those who care for others. And it should support the shared experiences that bring us together - such as sport, the arts and culture.

As far as it goes this is good stuff. Government should reflect rather than direct the civil way of life. Good government knows when to be involved and when to stay out. I hope this is not a nice way of saying we will expand the welfare state.

8. We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away. We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation - whether to Brussels, Whitehall or unwanted regional assemblies - and we want to make the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales work. Communities should have more say over their own futures.

So are we leaving the EU then?
Is England going to become an independent country?

(That's me off the candidate list...)

----

The main shortcoming with this document is its lack of substance. This is not necessarily a criticism since its aim is evidently not to present policy but flavour. But it's difficult to vote on a flavour because we do not really know what this will all mean when we come to form a government. I will vote for it without knowing really what it is I am voting for (or even why we are being asked to vote in the first place). I am impatient for substance though. I hope it will start trickling through sooner rather than later.

March for Free Expression

2006-02-26T20:39:00.000Z

This is an interesting idea: a rally to take place at Trafalgar Square on 25th March. Simultaneous rallies are planned in other countries. The organisers have a blog and a mission statement:

The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time.

The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock.

We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same.

We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them.

The blog is new and I'm hoping to find time to read the few posts already written. This could be a nice idea...

[Source: Making Headlines blog]

Iraq: The Conservative Party's Clause 4 moment

2006-02-21T11:34:00.000Z

One of the reasons given for New Labour's revival in the mid-1990s was that the Tony Blair made some meaningful - and very public - breaks with his party's discredited socialist past.

The most often mentioned break was his tearing up of Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution which, basically, stated the Party's commitment to state ownership of the means of production. The British public was convinced that the state should own as little as possible and Labour had to show they were in tune with this sentiment. So they removed clause 4.

Since his election as Conservative Party leader, David Cameron has been looking for a similar symbol of his 'changed' Conservative Party. He too needs something to tear up in order to provide symbolic - if not actual - evidence of the Party's transformation into something we think the public will vote for. He needs a Clause 4 moment.

Here's an idea for one:

The attack on Iraq was in many respects a deeply un-conservative action. The country had nothing with which to threaten us - or, at least, it possessed little if any more than any other unpleasant dictatorship and considerably less than some others - and its people operated in a religious and social environment that had evolved over the centuries and which was familiar, comfortable and right for the people who were born into it.

The war showed no respect for the settled life of a proud people nor did it acknowledge the sanctity of national sovereignty - two standard conservative values. The intention of the war - to remove an oppressor in order to force onto an unwilling population an alien political creed called democracy - renders our high-minded rejection of armed incursions - by others - into other states meaningless.

Leaving aside the escalating failures of the project (inevitable partition of the country, religious sects' use of the democratic tool of voting as a means to instil non-democratic theocracies of their own particular flavour, usurping of coalition authority by the tribes and the appalling possibility of another Islamic theocracy) we have, hand in hand with the war, the shame of Guantanamo, a place where our belief in principle, justice, law, and fair play could be easily construed as sham, as little more than an affectation.

Of course, one must be pragmatic and pragmatism does not sit easily with solid principle. Principles do have to have exceptions because complex life simply cannot be lived in accordance with immutable law. But the Iraq war and the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay are not regrettable but necessary - and temporary - bendings of established principle. The prosecution of these projects by countries with huge resources and a willingness to continue for years amounts to overwhelming evidence that our belief in western values is one of convenience and that the values that mark the civilised west from the barbarian wherever have been shed wholesale and without shame in pursuit of something we are not especially clear about but which is deemed to be more valuable than living a clean and honourable life.

My suggestion to David Cameron is that he give deep consideration to his stance on the war and ask himself some searching - and difficult - questions. Leave aside (for now) the suffering of those on the receiving end of our actions in Iraq and, instead, let us ask ourselves: Who are we as a country? What do we stand for? What do we regard as right - as opposed to easy? What do we believe in?

Better still, let the Conservative Party lock itself away in a quiet room for a couple of days, remove - for now - from their thoughts the reality of the world outside and spend some time answering questions like those. Let them form a view of themselves and of their country that they find pleasing and which they can comfortably and calmly describe, promulgate and defend. Let them be idealists for a while, purists even. Let them be fantasise about how truly good a country like England could be if they only put their minds to it.

Then David Cameron will find his clause 4 moment. Because he will not be able to defend the indefensible and he will not have to try to make good out of something clearly not good and he will not have to try to appear principled in relation to a project that contains barely an ounce of principle.

Let him dissociate the UK from the Iraq war (although, for pragmatic reasons, not necessarily withdraw troops). Let him demand the Americans subject the Guantanamo detainees to standard US law. Let David Cameron show he really is different, that the Conservative Party really has changed by being bold and brave and speaking up for right over wrong. If David Cameron can think openly and clearly enough to realise the war was wrong and if he stated publicly that the war was wrong then the Conservative Party's dissociation from the project would give him his clause 4 moment and might show the British public that he might just be the man he wishes to be seen as.

Spot the difference

2006-02-20T19:48:00.000Z

If I create insulting cartoons about the Muslim Prophet I am exercising my right to free speech.

If I decide the Nazi holocaust did not take place I go to jail.

I realise double-standards are an unavoidable fact of life - and often not intended - but as I ponder the attempts to export revolutionary democracy to Iraq and the positively Middle Eastern standards of justice and treatment in Guantanamo I wonder, at times, if we in the west need sometimes to take a look in the mirror before pointing the finger elsewhere.

So take your pick:

There is no difference between David Irving's views on the holocaust and the cartoonist's views on Mohammad.

or

There's no difference between the people seeking to oppress Irving's expression regarding the holocaust and those seeking to suppress the cartoonists'.

We're nothing if not inconsistent, eh?

Church apologises for slavery

2006-02-09T11:57:00.000Z

The Church of England last night said sorry for the role it played in the 18th century in benefiting from slave labour in the Caribbean.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop, told the synod that the church ought to acknowledge its corporate and ancestral guilt: "The Body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time; it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors, and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the Body of Christ, is prayerful acknowledgment of the failure that is part of us, not just of some distant 'them'.

[Source: The Guardian]

One can perhaps justify an apology by an institution for sins committed within living memory - perhaps on the basis that some of the perpetrators currently active in that institution may well have been active in the wrongdoing itself; and also, maybe, because the victims of that sin may be alive or, at least, able to tell of their suffering to their relatives.

Here though we have people who have never traded in slaves apologising to people who never suffered from that trade.

This move seems to support the idea that a person can be a victim of something that happened not to him but to ancestors - of whom he possibly has no knowledge - many generations ago. Suffering - and, presumably, the indignation, sense of injustice and, maybe, desire for revenge that often accompanies it - can be handed down from generation to generation and treated as if it were a recent occurrence.

And guilt for the trade should not, it seems, be confined to the Church:

The Rt Rev Tom Butler, Bishop of Southwark, told the synod: "The profits from the slave trade were part of the bedrock of our country's industrial development. No one who was involved in running the business, financing it or benefiting from its products can say they had clean hands.

Imposing collective guilt on white people - most of whom abhor such a trade and would take to the streets in protest if it were carried out in their name - is patently unjust and is not going to bring the races together. Making white people stand-ins for slave traders and black people stand-ins for victims would more likely foment resentment - on both sides - than engender unity.

But since slaves were actually bought from African slave traders it seems possible that, if we pursued this apologising idea to its final conclusion, the 'victims' of the trade might find themselves having to also apologise for 'their' part in it.

Generally, people apologise as an act of taking personal responsibility, as an admission of their wrongdoing and as a way of making peace with somebody they realise have hurt. The recipient of the apology can accept it on the basis that the guilty party feels genuine remorse or regret for what they did. Both parties play a meaningful part in the process and something good can come of it.

The Church's move is not founded on any human understanding of offence, guilt or remorse and so can achieve none of these outcomes. Instead, this act is in keeping with the general tendency to redefine right and wrong, good and bad, up and down - anything and everything - to match an artificial worldview of man and the world he inhabits. As such, the blurring of the lines demonstrated in this apology is similar to the Church's general blurring of lines in its moral stances. The Church has merely succeeded in further confusing society's deteriorating belief in the correctness of personal responsibility.

Class is good; class works...

2006-02-02T15:20:00.000Z

(With apologies to Gordon Gekko...)

Are we now sophisticated enough to realise that a class system can provide us with standards to aspire to, act as drivers to improve behaviour, education, income, manners and so on and is a way of avoiding grinding uniformity of the most levelled down kind?

Or are we still petty and so lacking in confidence that we are convinced that those 'above' us are looking down and sneering at us with the same contempt and prejudice that we below regard them?

Just wondering.

The fundamentals of life

2006-02-01T12:23:00.000Z

What are the fundamentals of life, the base requirements, the genuine needs (as opposed to desires) of human beings? If society is to be basically happy - content, perhaps - then what are the basic ingredients needed to bake that cake? Here's my attempt to list them:

Family - the most fundamental unit of society and the institution most likely to take care of you and in which a child learns allegiance, authority, responsibility and the stuff of human interaction. Family is where a person will share unconditional love; it is where a person experiences a sense of belonging and of being significant. Family is the basis of romantic and sexual relationship and provides an environment in which each can fulfil his or her roles in life. Family is where a person realises they are not all there is.

Work - preferably satisfying work (although I firmly believe beauty is where you look for it) but certainly some task which gives a person a purpose and a reason to apply themselves to something. Regular work and income enforce a feeling of self-reliance in a person and is also the basis of good family life. It is more important that food and shelter be provided by the person's own work than be given to them by some third party.

Education - literacy first and foremost since being able to read well, write clearly and speak with a degree of articulacy are the basic building blocks of further learning, skills acquisition, human interaction and involvement in civil and democratic life. But the ability to learn - an ability which can be taught - is enormously important if one has any ambitions - career or otherwise. Learning for its own sake is a primary means of being happy.

Order - always sounds so totalitarian or stifling but, I believe, it is when humans experience a degree of certainty that we can truly be free. Confidence that one's self and one's family is safe, that laws uphold agreements and contracts, that behaviour which damages people or property is punished, that officials are accountable for their actions, that rules are obeyed - that civil society is not random or anarchic, in effect - provide the basis from which all other human ambitions can best be pursued.

Tradition - or social habit is the means by which people remember the generation before themselves and connect with the generation after themselves. It is an integral part of belonging to a culture and a society. Even when the tradition sheds its original utility preserving it maintains the spiritual link with people and a time that the individual never met and did not live through. Tradition is also known as ritual and is one of the oldest and most fundamental human practices.

Health - mental and physical well-being can affect a person's quality of life enormously. Bad health colours one's entire view of the world whereas good health helps make all things possible.

Spirituality - is something even atheists can manage and is the understanding that the world does not simply consist of the individual and what the individual does. The recognition that humans live in large, complex webs of interaction and that people who are superficially different are actually fundamentally the same underpins a spiritual outlook. We are differentiated by what we do rather than what we are and this understanding allows people to empathise - and so live - with each other.

Personal happiness is, I think, one of the bases of a contented society and I think my list contains some of the more important contributors to personal happiness. Feel free to differ.

Thinking about education

2006-01-29T18:04:00.000Z

By many accounts - if not all - the government's education white paper is vague, meaningless, whimsical or just plain confusing. Several commentators have remarked that they are unsure what it actually means - which makes one wonder how Labour's left know what it is they are objecting to or the Conservative Party what it is they're supporting. Nevertheless.

Of course, the idea of selection by ability which the paper's proposals may - or may not - lead to is anathema to the left. That some schools could improve is unacceptable if others will not. Better, it seems, they all stay where they are than only some get better.

Selection already takes place, of course. If you are sufficiently well-off you can afford the premium rate houses that are situated within the catchment areas of good schools. If you are poor you cannot. Ambitious parents (and they are not all middle-class, by the way) fill schools with their off-spring making the school better by default. (More on that in a moment). Selection by ability might allow bright, poorer children access to schools that selection by wallet-size disqualifies them from.

Today's education system is, in some ways, a useful example of how political arrogance and central planning are, in the medium and long term, the worse things possible for a country.

The belief that politicians know what people need - university degrees, in this case - and that they, the government, can provide the system to supply them is not only being proved wrong (the British university degree is now becoming devalued at an extraordinary rate) but, to my mind, is most destructive of the people this misguided ambition was designed especially to help. Thousands of children are being shepherded into degree courses that they either don't need, won't pass or can't afford.

But one of the reasons the education system is not producing the hoped-for goods isn't to do with government mismanagement at all. Here's a question: what is the education system's most important resource? The teachers? The buildings? Books and equipment?

I think it's none of these. Given a level playing field throughout England - identically skilled teachers working in identically resourced buildings - you would still see a disparity of outcome and you would still see, over time, a high degree of parental selection taking place. Because the difference that makes a difference is the children themselves. When we speak of better or worse schools we actually mean better or worse pupils. Motivated, disciplined kids whose parents aspire on their behalf, read to them at bedtime, talk to them during the day and make sure they do their homework produce better pupils for the schools to work with. Fill Eaton with the illiterate, the disruptive, the anti-social and the violent and then watch that school become a failing one.

Poorly performing schools are partly the result of poorly performing pupils and the pupils are the result of poorly performing parents. Yet nobody addresses this issue at all. Why might that be?

Because, as with the Prime Minister's 'respect' agenda (which I wrote about here), Labour seem totally unwilling to address underlying causes. The behaviour that leads to yobbish and criminal activity in teenage years is first witnessed in 11 and 12 year old miscreants at school. What underlies the breakdown of civility, consideration and 'respect' on the streets is the same as which underlies the breakdown of civility, consideration and 'respect' in schools. The government behaves as if children spitting at teachers and children spitting at police officers are separate problems. One is labelled 'school discipline and the other is called 'criminal behaviour'. But they both come from the same source - a rights-based state-dependent culture which, year by year, becomes more confident - or cock-sure - and more untouchable.

Mr Blair could ameliorate many of the problems he's now tackling if he would just address the central problem of social breakdown. He would not create perfect country - one is not possible - but, in time, he could set in motion the attitudes and outlooks that ensure some order in society and, hence, the necessary framework for fulfilling lives. It is too late for him now. Tragically, it is also too late for many of our young people.

The British union: for and against

2006-01-25T16:33:00.000Z

Are there any advantages to there being a united kingdom?

What does England and the English derive from its existence?

Ideological conversion or opportunism?

2006-01-25T12:54:00.000Z

A Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidate has jumped ship to David Cameron's Conservative Party. [Source: The Independent]

Adrian Graves, who stood at the 1997 and 2005 elections for Suffolk West, said his decision was a response to David Cameron modernising the Tories rather than the "catastrophe" in the Liberal Democrats after the resignation of the party's leader Charles Kennedy and home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten.

The Independent speculates that several actual MPs may defect to the Conservatives.

Of course, the Conservative Party is the only party of the main three that offers any sense of certainty about the future. The Liberal Democrats have suffered terrible set-backs with the resignation of their leader, Charles Kennedy, due to alcohol problems and then the resignation of the leadership contender Mark Oaten who seems to have engaged in extra-marital sex with a male prostitute.

The Labour government of Great Britain is in some disarray with important policy bills being challenged from within while the quality of British society is in decline on all fronts. New Labour's leader-in-waiting - who will replace Mr Blair towards the end of this term of office - may inherit a country so frustrated at Labour's years of failure that he stands every chance of losing the election.

In the meantime, the Conservative Party's honeymoon period is far from over with polls putting them ahead of Labour for the first time in years - not by much, but ahead nevertheless.

The immediate questions that arise as a result of this defection - and of others, should they occur - will include: are these people simply looking for a winner and regard the Tories as it? Has Conservative policy moved so much that Lib Dems now feel it is no longer conservative any more - so can happily associate with it?

To answer the second question we can listen to Mr Graves himself:

Mr Graves, who joined the Liberal Democrats in 1990, said he started to reconsider his position when he heard Mr Cameron's pronouncements on issues such as health and Europe. "I thought, 'hang on a minute, that is what I have been saying'. He has caught the imagination. I haven't changed. I have stayed exactly where I am. This is a seamless transition for me. I still passionately believe in the things I believed in years ago. It is David Cameron's modernised, compassionate Conservativism that has changed."

Mr Graves even believes some Labour MPs will move to the Conservatives.

All else aside, this is an astonishing about-turn in the Conservative Party's fortunes but future Lib Dem defections will be interesting, if they occur. As their ship sinks perhaps the economically socialist will abandon it in favour of Labour while the economically liberal choose the Conservatives. Whether Lib Dems have any social conservatives I do not know but I do wonder where they might go.

If the party really does fall apart might there be a new left-wing party, perhaps led by Sir Menzies Campbell? For conservatives that can only be good news. Such a party may well split the Labour vote giving the Conservative Party a clearer run to election victory. Then all we need hope for is a realignment with the New Lib Dems to the left, New Labour in the centre and a newly confident (but not 'new') Conservative Party where it belongs - on the right.

Politics could then become very interesting indeed...

Whose business?

2006-01-23T08:25:00.000Z

Mark Oaten was a contender for the vacant position of leader of the British Liberal-Democratic Party. He pulled out of the contest last week stating that he did not have enough support to pursue his leadership bid. This weekend it has been suggested - and Mr Oaten has not denied - that he had a homosexual relationship with a young male prostitute. Mr Oaten is married with two daughters.

The lurid details can be found here [News of the World].

A question which arises from all this is where does Mr Oaten's obligation to explain to the public - and, if necessary, apologise for - his behaviour begin and where does it end? Where does what he's alleged to have done stop being private - which is where it starts - and start becoming public? To what extent should we be delving into and reporting the activities of his private life?

To compare: one of the objections to the government's attempts to ban smoking in pubs is that pubs are legal and smoking is legal. Therefore smoking in pubs - a cultural habit centuries old - should be legal. Banning a legal habit in a legal establishment seems a step too far.

One might apply similar reasoning to the Mark Oaten case. His activities, whatever else one might feel about them, are legal. To what extent is public outrage justifiable? Of course, one feels very sorry for Mr Oaten's wife and children who may suffer horribly at the hands of tabloids and other gossips and snipers but surely only their outrage is truly justifiable?

The problem with setting moral (for want of a better word) rules and standards - which, incidentally, I believe is essential for a properly functioning civil society - is that these rules and standards can encroach too much into the stuff of people's private lives. Conservatives generally do not support government interference in the day to day matters of family life. Further, these standards are set by people who, in the fullness of time, themselves may fall short of them - or similar ones. The resulting outcry then brings the standards themselves into disrepute.

One of the keys to morality is identifying where public and private spheres begin and end. In the public sphere government may involve itself in setting standards - as they already do. It is immoral to, for example, kill or steal or rape so we expect our government to punish, on our behalf, people who do these things.

But legal acts carried out with full consent are next to impossible to legislate for and the attempt should not be made. Humans, in all their imperfection, will do all sorts of things wrong but it is for them and their families to resolve the wrongdoing in their own way.

In a general sense, many of the exposes of celebrity wrongdoing - infidelity being the favourite - are presented not to outrage but to titillate. These goings on are, in the public sense, more harmful for being exposed since, over time, they create the impression that infidelity (or drug abuse or tax evasion or whatever the scandal of the moment is) is commonplace, ordinary and simply the subject of lighthearted entertainment. People reach maturity believing that, rather than fidelity, dishonesty in relationships and finances and elsewhere is the norm. The personal carnage, the individual tragedies and broken lives are impossible to convey in shock-horror tabloid stories.

If we are going to be morally outraged then aiming our fire at the misbehaviour of imperfect humans, while understandable, is to misdirect it. The damage to our society is not carried out by individuals but by those parts of the entertainment industry that thrive on it. There is no genuine public need-to-know when a politician/pop star/bloke down the street involves him/herself in some sordid affair. There may be public want-to-know but this is not the same thing. People who consume scandal sheets are complicit is the coarsening of society. Before professing outrage at others' behaviour they may wish to examine their own first.

Conservatives and selfishness

2006-01-20T23:33:00.000Z

Selfishness, measured only as the pursuit of material wealth gives a distorted picture of the nation's well-being. In fact, the diminishing quality of life experienced by many people has no economic source at all but is due to the decline of English civil society.

One of the accusations commonly levelled at conservatives is that we are a party of greed, a party that pursues the interests of the better-off and cares little for the worse off. This gives rise to the myth that only 'rich people' vote for the Conservative Party and 'poor people' vote for the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats. Because being rich is associated with being greedy the rich - and, by association, conservatives - are considered to be selfish.

The narrow definition for ‘selfishness’ - namely, material greed - coupled with the to-be-expected fact that, with wildly differing motivations, talents and ambitions, wealth inequality – also known as ‘unfairness’ - actually exists provides the happy circumstances in which the liberal-left may ply their trade.

Yet 'selfishness' is simply the act of considering one's own needs, responding to one's own whims and pursuing one's own agenda without regard to the effect such action might have on others. There is no necessity that the definition be confined purely to the economic realm. I would suggest that there is a steady increase in the extent to which England is becoming a country that exhibits selfish - that is to say, insensitive and harmful - behaviour but that this burgeoning selfishness has relatively little to do with the pursuit of money or material gain.

Conservatives are concerned with a range of issues affecting society where the acquisition of wealth is only one of many. At least as important is the maintenance of peace and order and the avoidance of upheaval generally. The reason why the wealthier tend to prefer conservative administrations is simply because, as a result of conservatives’ tendency to interfere less in the workings of either the market or society - and hence the relative decrease in regulation and taxation - the wealthier members of society become and then remain wealthier.

Conservatives generally believe that, in many areas of life, people make better decisions than politicians. For this reason, conservatives would tend to interfere less in economic and social life than would socialists or their colleagues on the left.

That certain individuals prosper under conservative administrations is not actually because conservatives necessarily prefer the entrepreneurial or work consciously in their favour; it is entrepreneurs themselves who make the most of the conditions present during conservative administrations. By their efforts it is, ironically, those with pronounced entrepreneurial skills who exacerbate (if that’s the right word) wealth inequality by the success of those efforts. But it is not a situation sought by conservatives. It is one created by ordinary people.

In truth, conservatives believe there can be no equality of anything. Because we start out unequally endowed in all the human attributes - intelligence, diligence, confidence, experience, drive, passion, belief, values - our results are correspondingly diverse. But if one measures selfishness in such narrow terms – income inequality, mainly – one will always find it.

It is conservatives who realise though, that brute inequality is not, in itself, particularly important. If the poorest can afford small mansions to live in is it especially troublesome that the richer can afford large ones? These days, almost everybody is far wealthier than their own grandparents were at the same age and would expect this differential to increase over time.

Happiness - surely the attribute after which we all strive - comes from the fulfilment of a range of wants or needs; the relative strength and urgency of those needs changes over time. It is the experience of meaningful relationships, interesting work, sufficient wealth, good health, enjoyable spare-time pursuits, security, esteem, belonging, fun, excitement - and so on – that contribute in differing amounts to the general well-being of any particular individual. We strive for balance across the range and imbalances can occur in any one or more of these areas. Conservatives realise this and regard man's needs as being more than just economic; but they are branded as selfish for not focussing all their attentions on income differentials or 'relative' poverty.

Conservatives appreciate what man creates for himself - life, work, traditions, art, pass-times and so on. It is usually imperfect but it's his and conservatives would normally seek only to formalise some of the rules by which man lives rather than seek to tell him how to live. The liberal-left believe that the application of intelligence can cure all ills and so set themselves the task of doing just that. When the process comes up against reality it is reality that must give way since leftist ideology and the real-world are incompatible. It is in this antagonism between their ambitions and man's needs that many of our current woes were created.

Selfishness - the wanton disregard for others in the pursuit of one's own aims - increasingly pervades English life and it is steadily worsening. It is criminal behaviour – and, specifically, the low-level swaggering insolence and arrogance of a certain section of our communities – that gives us our starkest examples of self-regard and inconsideration for others. Vandalism, coarse language, litter - and worse - smeared across our streets, the disappearance of once-common courtesies and the readiness to move form disagreement to violence increasingly mark our civil life. No longer is selfishness' most obvious manifestation the rich landowner exploiting the powerless labourer. It now exists in the fabric of our society. In the parlance of New Labour, selfishness has been modernised.

The battle against poverty was, to a greater extent, won years ago. A mixture of free-market economics, social conscience and advancing technological advancement were the main weapons used. But the inconsiderate society persists and, indeed, seems to be strengthening. The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is said to crave a legacy before he leaves Number 10. He will have a legacy but it will not be one he wished for. Too many English people exhibit callous disregard for their fellow citizens and the sum of human degradation is increasing. His government detached itself from the roots of civil society in 1997 and is, in turn, cutting us off from what previously held us firm.

Mr Blair's legacy might simply be that, so damaged has our culture become, so self-absorbed, disrespectful and plain selfish there might be too few people left in the end to remember how to be decent.

Gordon Brown and 'Britishness'

2006-01-15T20:07:00.000Z

Gordon Brown wants us to celebrate Britishness. He wants us to have a 'British day' and to plant Union flags in our gardens - rather like the Americans do.

When we suddenly become patriotic Britons, what is it we will be patriotic about?

"We would welcome such a recognition and celebration of Britishness which itself is of an inclusive nature. It recognises the diversity of our communities in our country." - Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

"We welcome the idea of a British Day if it gives people in Britain the opportunity to celebrate the positive aspects of our culture and the diversity and vibrancy of Britain today." - British Council

Patriotism is the sense of allegiance that one feels towards their country. It is an emotion and, as such, is difficult to peg to particular social movements, historical facts or current trends or fashions. In the same way that people love their spouses in private, unique ways so do they love their country.

Gordon Brown misunderstands patriotism in the same way Tony Blair misunderstands respect. [I posted here on the topic of Mr Blair's 'respect' agenda.] Mr Brown believes patriotism is a manufactured quantity, that if a politician decrees it then it can not only come into being as and when required but it can come into being in the form and shape preferred by he who summoned it. And so if patriotism is decreed to mean, for example, celebrating 'diversity' or praising the Empire then not celebrating diversity or being critical of the Empire could then mean you are not considered patriotic.

Of course, one might place a slightly more cynical slant to Mr Brown's call for British patriotism. He himself is Scottish and, as Scotland more and more takes on the trappings of an independent country we, the English, are becoming increasingly aware of how 'Britishness' is becoming a faded glory. Instead - Mr Brown might fear - we may in turn look towards our Englishness as the national identity, identifying ourselves, perhaps, in opposition to Scotland. This being so, Mr Brown suddenly finds himself being one of 'them' rather than one of 'us'. He would understandably want to ensure that he is part of the 'us' come the next election.

Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are using natural, human sentiments - respect and patriotism respectively - as means to ends - tools - when in fact these feelings are grown from within the person rather than manufactured from outside. These feelings contain both their own means and their own ends. And Mr Brown's call to 'British' patriotism may yet backfire. Many will regard this as a cynical ploy from a party not known for its appreciation of anything British. But more than this, it might just prompt sufficient debate to have the English wondering, 'Just who are we?'

Mr Brown may not like the answer to this question.

Tony Blair does not understand 'respect'

2006-01-11T16:47:00.000Z

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has a fairly accurate sense of what is wrong on England's once peaceful and civilised streets. In his 'Respect Action Plan' - an attempt to combat these problems - he outlines the reality of 'modern' England:

Mr Blair says that the underlying theme of [the] "Respect action plan" will be tackling the "root causes of antisocial behaviour, which lie in families, in the classroom and in communities". He is dispatching 16 ministers to promote the Government's new plans to combat yobbery and low-level disorder.

"There are still intractable problems with the behaviour of some individuals and families, behaviour which can make life a misery for others. What lies at the heart of this behaviour is a lack of respect for values that almost everyone in this country shares.

Antisocial behaviour creates havoc for communities. We will take tough action so that the majority of law-abiding, decent people no longer have to tolerate the behaviour of the few individuals and families that think they do not have to respect others."

[Source: The Independent. ]

His measures certainly seem draconian. They appear to capture the frustration felt by many of us at the seemingly endless tales of terrible behaviour exhibited by increasingly arrogant - and, seemingly, untouchable - members of our youth:

A "National Parenting Academy" will be set up where professionals, such as social workers, clinical psychologists, community safety officers and youth justice workers, will have their skills honed. Communities will also be given powers to demand tougher action from police.

Regular "face the people" sessions will force police officers and council officials to reveal what they are doing to tackle yobbery. If they think problems are being ignored, residents will be able to make an official "community call to action".

Police will also get the power to evict the worst problem families from their homes for up to three months if they refuse to improve their behaviour. The proposal is based on police powers to shut down "crack dens".

[ibidem]

His attempts to tackle the problems fail in three important respects:

He does not pursue enforcement of the laws we currently have. In fact, in the very same plan he states he will cut the length of prison terms for minor offences such as petty theft, burglary and vandalism in an effort to reduce the record prison population. Yet a meaningful punishment for first and minor offences may just be what is needed to dissuade some youngsters from going down the road to more damaging criminal behaviour. The alternatives to imprisonment - mainly the notorious ASBO (basically, an electronic tag enforcing a curfew) - is a weak punishment displayed almost as a badge of honour by some of those subject to one.

He does not, as he claims, actually tackle all the root causes. He leaves out those which the ideology of his Party refuses to even acknowledge exist. If he were truly determined to address all the sources of our discontent then he would surely recognise the damage caused to society by wide scale family breakdown, the prevalence of a system of welfare that removes from us the obligation to take care of ourselves and our families and an entertainment culture that is increasingly coarse, cynical and vacuous and which glamorises the kind of selfish and arrogant behaviours that we see on our streets.

Finally, his understanding of the very word, 'respect', seems quite suspect. 'Respect' could be defined as the consideration, appreciation and esteem felt or demonstrated by one person towards another person, persons or institution. Amongst its many manifestations would be some consideration for the well-being of that person. Mr Blair's agenda actually operates where that respect is non-existent. His measures are, in fact, simply punishment and punishment - while playing a vital role in maintaining order - will never inculcate in those who suffer it concern for another's well-being or a sense of esteem for another. Indeed, punishment's effectiveness resides in its recipient's concern for his own well-being rather than anybody else's and modification of behaviour comes about through fear of consequences rather than the development of esteem and consideration - respect - for others.

One might not doubt the Prime Minister's desire to confront - and defeat - the blight of yobbishness and criminality on our streets. For all sorts of reasons - not least of all naked self-interest - it is in his best interests to clean up English society and rid us of the scourge of foul, obnoxious and sometimes very violent behaviour displayed daily on our streets.

But his supreme difficulty lies in his wanting the cure while not being willing to suffer the medicine. Labour cannot be seen to be critical of any of the lifestyle choices known to produce much higher than average rates of delinquency, ill-health and educational failure because Labour fear being accused of blaming the 'vulnerable' for their own plight. Despite some of the tough measures he proposes against families who are regarded as disruptive of the peace Labour still does not want to appear in any way 'conservative' - especially at a time when the Left in the Party are becoming increasingly troublesome.

So, the horse has truly bolted and we're left trying to deal with the aftermath rather than the root cause of its escape. The Prime Minister will have to continue to go for effect, hoping that the mix of media coverage and, perhaps, some widely-publicised evictions or punishments will act as a deterrent on the rest.

However it works out, we can be sure of one thing. He will not in any way increase the level of respect for others in those targeted by these measures. And the underlying causes of the behaviour he wishes to alter will remain, unchallenged and, so far as the government is concerned, completely unacknowledged. Labour's increasingly radical pronouncements are, once again, the natural consequence of refusing to face up to the basic realities of life.

"The facts of life do invariably turn out to be Tory"

2006-01-08T20:20:00.000Z

I have been deliberating for a while now about writing a 'why I am a conservative' type post. It's a work in the making so, in the meantime, I will comment on the above quote. It was first uttered by Lady Thatcher and, although I know what she means, she's got things face-about.

In reality, conservatism first looks at the facts of life - society's reality - and more or less accepts and respects the basic arrangements of the people who comprise that society. One of conservatism's main aims is then to support such arrangements if possible and, where necessary, codify in law the generally accepted morality of the society in question.

Naturally then life turns out to be Tory - or conservative - since life is the Tory's first port of call when clarifying what he or she believes in.

Drug use and the failure of authority

2006-01-06T07:28:00.000Z

According to yesterday's Guardian newspaper Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, is reported to have been swayed by a report that suggests the illegal narcotic, cannabis, be upgraded from a category 'C' offence to a category 'B' offence.

Having thus decided the drug is more dangerous than he first thought the Home Secretary wishes to dissuade its use by means of 'a major public education programme about the health and legality of cannabis'. Part of the justification for the need to educate people was that his predecessor, David Blunkett's, decision to downgrade its use to a Grade 'C' offence had caused the public confusion regarding the drug's legality. [Source]

To treat the criminal and dangerous use of drugs as a public health issue - curable by 'education' - demonstrates in Mr Clarke a serious misunderstanding of human nature. The assumption is that humans are rational creatures, wont to make the best decisions for themselves based on available information. The Home Secretary seems to believe then that if he updates the information available on cannabis people will respond accordingly. While there almost certainly is a potential usefulness of 'aversion therapy' in influencing behaviour reliance on that technique alone is a recipe for failure. The smoking, sexual disease and obesity statistics really ought to disabuse Mr Clarke of the libertarian fantasy of human rationality.

In truth, we tend to do what we believe will make us feel good in the instant and are adept at blocking out thoughts of a potentially uncomfortable future consequence. Younger people, less able to resist the pressure of their peers and/or the allure of being 'cool', are the least likely to respond to the play-it-safe messages of yet another bunch of old people yet are the ones most in need of an unequivocal stance on drug use. For many, any meaningful lessons derived from the Home Secretary's attempts to educate will naturally diminish with time - helped also perhaps by the ridicule and loss of status suffered at the hands of their contemporaries.

There are few effective ways of persuading people to not do something that they really want to do but which is regarded as an activity not conducive to civil order and well-being. And the more they want to do it the stronger the persuasion needs to be to prevent them from doing so. Ultimately, the only effective method is an emphatic condemnation of the behaviour - cannabis use in this case - supported by a consistently applied and widely understood sentencing policy.

By countering the real and perceived pleasures of cannabis use with a clearly stronger downside (that is, certain imprisonment) the state exercises the power borne of its legitimately acquired authority in defence of civil order. By emphatically asserting its belief in right and wrong and backing its assertions with appropriate action the state makes its attitude clear to both would-be users and the public at large. In doing so it fulfils one of the expectations - maintenance of order - by which it derived its authority in the first place.

The general refusal to exercise power in support of the civil way of life is a major failure in modern society. The evidence of the failure of authority to do what is expected of it is experienced nationwide from seditious rantings in Hyde Park to the spitting, swearing yobs that pollute English streets. We see clearly that those to whom we have conferred authority have chosen to pursue other agendas than the ones we expect of them.

Relegating dangerous and criminal behaviour to the status of a health 'issue' - a status confirmed by an educational approach to its 'cure' - does not, I suggest, confuse anybody over cannabis use. Actually, it sends out a clear - if incorrect - message that, like consuming too much fat or having sex without using a condom, the final judge of what is right or wrong is the individual's alone.

If the Homes Secretary wishes to save society - and drug users - from the miserable consequences of drug use and abuse then I would suggest he assert an unequivocal condemnatory attitude to drug use generally and start punishing transgressors in a consistent and meaningful manner in order (to paraphrase Voltaire) to encourage better behaviour in others. A few clear examples of his intolerance of drug use will, in the longer term, send a much clearer and meaningful message to potential users thus saving them and society from the habit's sometimes appalling consequences.

And in so supporting the standards of English civil life he will demonstrate that he is worthy of the authority conferred on him by the electorate.

A Merry Christmas to All....

2005-12-23T17:38:00.000Z

...and best wishes for 2006!

PS Click on picture to enlarge - it's very nice...

Atheists in Christian England

2005-12-23T12:06:00.000Z

At some point I know I will want to write something meaningful about why, despite being an atheist myself, I am grateful for Christian England.

Until I do, I will bring to your attention this opinion piece by the Daily Telegraph's Simon Heffer who, as a fellow atheist, has nicely summed up the case for Christianity in our green and pleasant land:

I rejoice wholeheartedly as an atheist that I live in a Christian culture, and I know that, in that undeniably hypocritical act, I am not alone.

Indeed, it is not just those who, like me, were born into Christian families who feel this way: so do many Muslims and Jews, and it is one of the reasons that they are so happy to live in our country and be surrounded by that culture.

[Source]

I don't believe he's being hypocritical at all. Like Mr Heffer, I do not share the theological beliefs of Christians but I do value the kindness of individuals who try to live their lives according to that code which, amongst other things, seeks to do well for the poor, the lonely, the ill or the dispossessed.

...if they shut themselves off from the Christian culture, whether from the beauty of the liturgy, the serenity of church music, or from admiring the reticulated tracery of an east window, then their lives can only be deeply impoverished.

Our oldest schools and universities have intrinsic links with the Anglican Church. Our very system of justice is implicitly Christian. Our history is Christian since the dawn of the seventh century. More to the point, it is by the will of the majority, in our democracy, that all this remains so.

Mr Heffer points out that other religions are strongest where they bow to their gods rather than the latest fashions:

One of the most admirable qualities of Islam is that, in Islamic states, it makes no apology for itself, but has all the self-confidence that makes old cultures so attractive and potent. Nor should Christianity in Christian states such as ours have to go on the defensive, or seek accommodations with modern fashions, alien customs, bigotry and ignorance.

The gradual elimination of Christianity - and its festivals - is done, apparently, to avoid offending the sensibilities of ethnic minorities. Yet I have not met one member of any ethnic minority who feels England should abandon its Christian heritage - but I've met several who are adamant that England shouldn't.

The modern Left exercises a militant anti-Christianity not so much because of a cultural cringe in the face of immigrant minorities, but because of its general wish to dismantle history. Once you have erased Christianity, you have erased (or at least made appear irrelevant) much of the past 1,400 years. "Modernisation" in all its political forms is about the tabula rasa, and there are few ways of creating one of those so effective as the destruction of the traditional faith.

The Left seeks to erase Christian England for its own purposes - primarily, I assume, because their credo will better take hold if it faces no competition. However, the stock excuse given for the various 'christmas bans' in England is that Christians celebrating their faith causes members of the various faith groups to feel left out or marginalised. But then the majority culture in this country resents the minorities for what they see as the subjugation of their own culture - giving the Left the opportunity to then portray themselves as defenders of the very minorities whose reputation they actually tarnished.

Finally, Mr Heffer issues a challenge for those of us who feel that Christian England is worth defending:

All of us, whatever our faith or lack of it, should see in Christmas a reaffirmation of a way of life that a few others wish to destroy, and the wonder of our benign sense of atavism. Atheist, Muslim and Jew can be part of this civilised, free-thinking resistance movement. And perhaps, if enough of us express this feeling now, our political leaders will feel it safe to jump aboard the bandwagon, with their usual lack of shame, in time for next Christmas.

Mr Heffer suggests it is unlikely that a politician will risk his reputation by doing anything so dangerous as speaking up for English traditions or the English way of life unless he can see a sizeable advantage to himself in so doing. Despite the fact that (as I believe, at least) England's ethnic minorities are sophisticated enough to not feel threatened by English assertiveness, the Left have successfully attached a whiff of racism to any attempts to promote love for or pride in England.

That being the case, it will almost certainly require the people to insist that their traditions and way of life are valuable to them and should not be undermined in the way they are being. One can only wonder though how the English might be roused sufficiently from their apathy to actually make the necessary stand.

Return to class war

2005-12-21T13:04:00.000Z

From John Prescott, British Deputy Prime Minister:

I see a bit of 'class' is coming back with Cameron and his outfit. The Eton Mafia.

"We are always better against class. It's the Eton mob, isn't it? They used to fight their wars on the Eton playing fields. Now they win elections on the Eton playing fields.

"I always feel better fighting class anyway," he adds, laughing. "Bring the spirit back into the Labour Party."

[Source: The Sunday Telegraph]

So John Prescott has attempted to breathe life back into the dead horse of class-consciousness by declaring that the Conservative Party is being led by an Eton 'mafia'. This comment is prompted by the ascension of Eton-educated David Cameron to the Party's leadership - and, possibly, the Party's subsequent surge in the opinion polls.

But to admit that fighting class is what the Labour Party is best at not only creates the impression that he belongs to a Party whose whole raison d'etre is what it opposes but also makes one wonder if that's a form of admission that the government is currently doing what it's not best at.

Further, his comments lend legitimacy to the prejudicial writing-off of a group of people due to attributes they acquired at birth. The difference between Mr Prescott's pronouncements and those of the average racist, homophobe or misogynist seems pretty slim indeed.

To be fair to Mr Prescott, the likelihood is that he is referring to some 18th century version of class where a paternalistic sense of duty to the betterment and improvement of the lower orders grated along with an arrogance and spite which actually often kept people pretty much in their place for their entire lives.

But he must know these conditions are long gone and that his mutterings against class may well be seen as the last hurruhs of frustrated class warriors with nobody left to fight. And, importantly, nobody left to fight for. The working classes - no longer poor and down-trodden - had to be replaced. But the replacements - Muslims, women, homosexuals and so on - are a pale imitation of the Holy Grail of the political cause celebre - a whole class of people.

Mr Prescott is heading for a substantial disappointment. Nobody is excited by the iniquities of wholesale class injustice because it just doesn't exist. Labour's more pressing problems are to do with the high regulation, high tax, high spend nature of its government and the fact that, as the economy falters, it is showing that, in terms of tax-and-spend, under the veneer of 'New' Labour Old Labour is itching to get out.

Labour's job was pretty much done by 1947. Its NHS and council house building programmes were under way (partly through the use of American post-war aid) and its nationalisation programme was already becoming unpopular. Since then, social and economic improvements brought by both Labour and the Conservatives - Margaret Thatcher most notably - and the rewards of technological advancement have made life quite comfortable for most of the UK's citizens. A couple of decades of proper conservatism will deprive the Labour Party of a constituency and thus relegate them - and the others - to the status of historical curiosities.

Cameron for PM

2005-12-09T11:18:00.000Z

Well, those of us who supported David Davis and who hoped ardently for his victory will be feeling a bit hung-over after the Conservative Party's leadership contest result.

We believe our man had the gravitas, the punch, the experience and the maturity of his years to be New Labour's Grim Reaper whilst also believing that Mr Cameron lacked all these qualities - and that he may continue to lack them for the foreseeable future.

Criticism of Mr Cameron wasn't necessarily personal. If the Conservative Party was looking for an image make-over - that 'change' we have been endlessly told we need - then David Cameron was a good choice. He's young, he's got a nice family, he won't frighten the horses and has banged on so much about how we've got to change and be compassionate that, maybe, he's convinced the electorate that that's what we've actually done. Further, Mr Cameron isn't a dope, isn't an incompetent and he isn't a fool.

Trouble is, in some areas we're not sure what he actually is. More dangerously, for those of us who believe, for example, that a firm line must be taken on drug use and an uncompromising line be taken with our Lords and masters in the EU, Mr Cameron seems, so far, decidedly unsatisfactory.

So how should conservatives view Mr Cameron's ascension to the Party's leadership?

First of all - and most of all - we've got to accept the result of the leadership election and support the Party's leader. Regardless of preference before the election, we're now after the election and Mr Cameron isn't the enemy, he's an ally against the enemy. Labour is the enemy and it is that Party on whom we should train our guns. We must direct our fire ferociously against a government that represents nothing that is decent or good in England but which is, in fact, conducting a huge social trick on us, one designed to keep them in power and us in their power. We should consider anybody who opposes Labour to be a friend.

Second, there is room for optimism. I'm not talking about his maiden performance in the Commons the other day which, I understand (I haven't actually seen it), was well-delivered and scored points on the government. The optimism I'm especially referring to is with regards to the cabinet appointments - Hague, David Davis and Liam Fox, particularly. The latter two will help keep the Party - and, hopefully, a future Conservative government - in line in case Mr Cameron has a Blair flush now and again. And they'll give the Party necessary experience and gravity without appearing old and grouchy.

Another reason for optimism is that Mr Cameron takes over when the government's tax-and-spend habits and all the rest of its lunatic mentality are coming home to roost. Further, Blair's in trouble because Mr Cameron may well support parts of his education Bill while parts of his own party will vote against it. A Labour leader pushing through legislation only because the Opposition supports it is asking for trouble from his own party - and he'll get it.

But, of course, just because things aren't looking good for the government doesn't mean they will look much better for the Conservative Party if the Conservative Party doesn't (a) properly capitalise on the government's numerous failings and (b) offer a concrete, precise and compelling vision for this country's future.

Mr Cameron must now prove to those of us who currently feel he is too whimsical and vague in his pronouncements that he has solid ideas and a clear-cut philosophy on all areas of government. It is, after all, from these ideas that we would expect meaningful and effective policies to spring. The difficulty for members of the Conservative Party for too long has been that we just don't know where we stand on anything that matters. At the moment we still don't and, even if it's too early for detailed policies, we must at least have a clear policy direction. The canvas is pretty blank and we must start filling it.

The friendly, internal fight is over. The real fight now begins. Our enemy is leftist Labour and our principles are the tried and tested, rooted-in-reality traditions and values of England and the English. Whatever else we might feel there seems to be a mood - and mood matters - of optimism, renewal and possibility in both the Party and in much of the press. If that's what it takes to have our ideas listened to with anything approaching an open mind then it's all for the good. Let's use the opportunity to remove this government and install something a little more sane. Before it's too late.

Bad service mirrors a general decline

2005-11-29T11:41:00.000Z

From the Daily Telegraph:

Sales assistants are ruder, more ignorant and less helpful than they were 10 years ago, according to one of the biggest surveys of its kind.

Overall, customer service has fallen by 3.3 percentage points while customer satisfaction is down by 1.6 points. The biggest decline was in knowledge - which fell by seven points.

Only one in four customers were served within a minute of queuing for a cash till, a fifth of sales staff did not smile while serving customers, 22 per cent had little knowledge of their products, and 24 per cent failed to say goodbye at the end of a transaction.

The survey was carried out by a consultancy called Grass Roots and was based on 1775 visits by mystery shoppers. The consultancy's spokesman said,

...pressure on costs meant there was less money to spend on staff and training. "Staff are equally ready and willing, but less able to provide good service."

It seems odd to me that the only way a member of staff can say thank you or greet you in a mannered way is if their company can afford the right kind of training. Manners which, apart from product knowledge, are what constitutes most people's experience of customer service, are difficult to teach. If a person has them then training is of marginal use; if they don't have them then training is of no use since all the training will give them is a set of techniques - which will be eventually forgotten.

At my local supermarket cashiers are told to greet each customer and offer to help pack their shopping for them. It's a nice touch - made much more noticeable when you go elsewhere and the cashier barely acknowledges you at any point in the transaction. However, even within my local supermarket's courtesy regime there is plenty of scope for the individual to adapt the company's rules of engagement - from the cheerful, smiling greeting and enthusiastic assistance of one employee to, well, a total ignorance of the rules by another.

What it comes down to is the norms of society, the standards of behaviour that we insist on in our dealings with each other. And these have been degraded over time such that, now, it is a fairly accurate rule of thumb that if it's polite service you require the older the assistant the better. These people have, in most cases, carried their culture's habit of courtesy with them and have not succumbed to the brute insolence of today's 'rights but no responsibilities' brigade.

They also have some command of the English language which means they can convey requests or information in whole, meaningful sentences - unlike my recent experience in my bank where the person allocating appointments asked/instructed (I'm not sure which) me to 'Sit over there, yeah?'

In the end though I wonder if the decline in customer service - which may well mirror a general decline in incivility - is necessarily an increase in rudeness. For somebody to be actually rude implies they are aware of society's norms and conventions with regards to manners but chooses to ignore them. Something I detect in the blank visage of the average youth when spoken to is actually the absence of confidence, rather than the wilful ignorance of accepted courtesies. Too often the person seems to lack the conversational skills necessary to navigate the white waters of mainstream communication - and he or she appears to be acutely aware of it.

This is faintly tragic. As the wonders of cultural instant gratification erase the human ability to focus and pay attention and the evils of state-provided education keep the lower classes well and truly in their place the victims of these attacks on human potential seem aware at some primitive level that they're being marginalised, left out and deprived in a truly fundamental way.

If there is any such thing as social exclusion it is the removal of the basic ability to communicate with one's fellow citizen that is its ultimate manifestation. Unable to perform adequately in a job interview, to debate with local or national representatives, to engage in the daily affairs of their community or country or to speak up effectively for themselves or their families when the need arises it seems that some people are condemned to live next to society but not necessarily in it.

It is an affront to democracy - and a betrayal of the working classes who are least able to spend their way out of difficulty - that a significant portion of our children cannot speak, write or converse effectively and it is a crime against all our people that the means of their subjugation - vacuous and corrupting entertainment, readily available narcotics, free and easy response to criminality, the state-sanctioned demeaning of the family, removal of most structures of authority, the subordination of educational striving to the more pressing needs of meeting governmental targets, and the exalting of the satisfaction of individual impulses over the need for humans to attend to duties before rights - are becoming more rather than less prevalent. All attempts to improve people against such an onslaught is an uphill struggle and one destined to fail.

Next time your local supermarket oik responds to you with a belligerent frown and a meaningless grunt it might be well to recognise that, rather than being wilfully ignorant, he may simply be a product of a depraved society and a corrupt governing class. In a country awash with so-called victims, he might be a genuine article.

Banged up for 90 days

2005-11-10T15:37:00.000Z

A question: why does almost everybody who isn't a politician support the proposed raising of the 14 day limit on holding suspects before charging them to 90 days?

None of them want to see innocent people held in prison for 3 months only to be finally released to go back to jobs that might have disappeared, relationships that may have fractured, children that have become traumatised and the suspicions of friends and neighbours who will not have been able to avoid noticing their absence.

There must be a reason why so many people are supporting such incarceration. I think there is - and it's a simple one: whenever somebody mentions holding somebody for 90 days while they are investigated for terrorist crimes Joe Average immediately thinks of a Muslim terrorist - dark skin, souless eyes, headscarf and a sneer - who is either aiding and abetting a bomber - or actually is a bomber - and who is almost certainly guilty. All the police need is enough time to gather the evidence to prove it. Once they do we're all saved from being ripped to shreds by the evil designs of these godless devils.

Now Joe Average mostly is not making his assumptions due to any racist urges nor does he particularly have it in for Muslims. But he's got a bee in his bonnet about people trying to blow him up and he automatically assumes that this legislation will only affect people who are, basically, in the business of doing just that. He does not for a moment imagine that anybody who doesn't deserve it could possibly get caught up in what, for that individual, could be a defining moment of their lives.

And this is where, I think, those of us who opposed the 90-day measure have failed to do a decent enough job of promoting our view. 'Freedom', to Joe Average, is a given - rather like the right to vote. Nobody is excited about voting; barely half of us even bothered last time. We've got to actually lose the right to vote before one properly notices one even has it. Freedom, though, is a different creature. It's difficult to even define and probably only noticable once it's lost. Freedom, after all, is not something one does. So it's difficult to imagine not being able to do it - unlike voting.

So what are some of the objections to 90-day detention without charge? Here's a couple to consider:

1. It is wrong to be imprisoned without trial. And, while it is a subjective call, 14 days (the current limit) is reasonable while 90 days is, to my mind, straightforward imprisonment. There are prison sentences handed out for violent crime that result in the guilty suffering less than 90 days - 3 months - in prison.

2. The police are not 100% trustworthy. Most might be but not all. Some are plain dishonest. Some are not as good at their jobs as we might like. Some officers, dedicated to the cause, will hold a man who they 'know' is guilty and present their evidence imaginatively to the judge so as to secure maximum time to hold their suspect. I do not think judges will often let a man free whom the police can portray as a menace to society.

And police fishing for suspects may well pull in a likely lad simply in the knowledge that, if they don't currently have that much on him, they can still hold him for a while until they do. It gives police an opportunity to avoid the necessary up-front work on gathering evidence and put it off until a later time. In the meantime, the suspect is effectively doing time.

3. It may well not be necessary. Tony Blair ignored the question in Parliament the other day but it's a pertinent one, namely: has there ever been a case where the police have let a suspect go because they couldn't hold him longer than 14 days (although they wanted to) and he went on to do something unpleasant? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there has been. It seems that if you haven't got the evidence to charge him after 14 days you probably aren't going to have it after 90. Better, then, to watch your suspect carefully, see who he mixes with, gather intelligence and then nab him when - if - you really do have something to pin on him.

The fact remains that the police, understandably, want all the tools they can possibly obtain in order to do their job. Whether they're useful to them - or good for society as a whole - is of no concern to them. And if the police always get what they want then we find ourselves edging towards a police state because their wants will not sit easily with our liberties.

4. I don't believe the Labour government itself particularly wants this legislation. What this is, I believe, is a golden opportunity for Labour to look tough to the public and enjoy the additional benefit of making those conservatives interested in protecting an Englishman's freedom look like they're soft on terrorism. The lie that will be propogated is that we care about murderers. We don't. But we do care about our country and its liberties and will undoubtedly make ourselves unpopular defending such qualities.

5. I do not agree with pandering to the sensibilities of minorities wherever such pandering conflicts with the way of life or preferences of the majority. But nor do I agree with measures that subject a particular section of society to illiberal treatment that cannot be shown to offer any material benefits. It's inhumane to do so if the returns are not sufficiently valuable but also it's also impractical with reference to the wider, intelligence-led fight against Islamic extremism. Since this legislation may well fall disproportionately on British Muslims - and that's perfectly understandable, as far as that goes - it will be they who bear the brunt of the pain of false imprisonments.

But British Muslims, reviled generally in some quarters, are also in the forefront of our anti-terrorism intelligence gathering activities. How exactly are we going to secure the support of the decent majority of Muslims who will assist the security forces in their attempts to catch Muslim fanatics when they find the innocent amongst them being imprisoned without trial? The feeling that they - and they alone - are on the receiving end of undemocratic legislation will be hard to refute.

6. Finally, I do not want to live in a country where the powers of MPs - who are supposed to represent us - and the police - who are supposed to serve us - are so overwhelming that we become subject to their wishes and preferences. They are our servants, not we theirs. The more we allow them to do to us the more they will do - and so the more we fall into their control. This alters the character of our country in ways we might live to regret as we come more and more to resemble states we would never normally wish to resemble.

The 28-day compromise is a better deal but only because 90 days is an awful one. One has to be aware that, once 28 days becomes the norm, 35 days could be the next step.

If we're serious about catching bad people then, rather than giving the police more and more power over our liberties - powers which may, actually, provide limited benefit and are yet to be shown to be required - we should consider giving them more and more freedom from paperwork and political correctness, allow them to recruit more officers to carry out the intelligence work necessary to thwart terrorists and start using the laws we already have to imprison - for years - the various thieves, planners, forgers, con-artists and assorted support staff who, in the end, make the fanatics' final atrocities possible. Restrictions on liberty, if ever needed, should occur only when all else has been exhausted. I don't think all else has been exhausted and this legislation is simply Labour's way of appearing tough and scoring a few points with the electorate.

Thankfully it failed.

Racial segregation: preferred by all?

2005-09-20T21:46:00.000Z

What could have been a promising investigation into the state of inter-racial affairs in the UK ends up being a call for more of the same affirmative action, coercion and labelling of white society as racist.

Trevor Phillips (pictured), head of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE):

“The fact is we are a society which, almost without noticing it, is becoming more divided by race and religion. We are becoming more unequal by ethnicity.”

The optimist's belief that children will pave the way for cultural integration seems not to be delivering the expected results:

According to Phillips, new research also pours cold water on hopes that children mixing in schools might break down the barriers between communities. The study by Bristol University found that children are slightly more segregated in the playground than they are in their neighbourhoods. “That means that not only aren’t the children meeting — nor are their parents".

Segregation, far from being enforced by a hostile white population, is voluntary and multi-racial:

New CRE research will also show that most white people do not have a non-white friend, while young Asian and black people have almost exclusively Asian or black friends.

In a country that's 92% white if you picked your friends on character alone then statistically most of your friends would be white. That blacks and Asians mix mostly with fellow blacks and Asians demonstrates they actively seek out people like themselves. I think some of us regard that as wholly natural - all my (Indian) wife's friends are Indian and all mine are white - but it is refreshing to see somebody so closely involved in the race industry actually stating the obvious.

Phillips suggests that schools could be given cash incentives to increase their ethnic mix and local education authorities could be forced to broaden their catchment areas to include a more even racial mix.

He suggests that young people of different ethnic backgrounds should be brought together in summer camps to overcome suspicions and prejudice; he will also say that schools should be encouraged, or even coerced, into accepting a greater ethnic mix of pupils.

He wonders whether local authorities should be forced to redraw their school catchment areas so as to encourage integration.

I think Mr Phillips is missing his own point. People tend to stick to their own racial or religious type not because they dislike other races but simply because they prefer their own. He wants to 'remedy' this with force. It won't work.

What good is a greater ethnic mix of school pupils if those kids seek out and socialise with their own? You end up with the same number of segregated groups but with more people in them. Segregation is chosen by the very people whose segregation Mr Phillips laments...

In Aston, a predominantly ethnic minority area of Birmingham, Pardeep Modhvadia was quite frank last week about how insulated his life can be from mainstream white British culture.

“We are very much involved with our mosque and events in the Asian community,” said the 34-year-old IT consultant whose wife, Nazia, is 33. “Many of these events involve Asians exclusively and it can be easy to get wrapped up in Asian culture and not embrace other communities around you.”

Modhvadia admitted that he and his wife “mainly only see Asian people”, partly because of religious and family ties.

Truth is, there are sufficient numbers of immigrants in this country that individuals of one group don't have to mix in any meaningful way with others. There are a million Indians in the UK, for example; there are three-quarters of a million Pakistanis and over half a million West Indians. [As at 2001 - Source]. There is little need to mix with the host community.

And whites are just the same:

James Parker, a 24-year-old mechanic, who lives in the same area of Birmingham with his girlfriend Chloe, 22. He, too, was straightforward about the ethnically restricted ambit of his life.

“Our friends are mostly white,” he said. “I knew a lot of Asians in school and they mainly talked only to each other and would sometimes speak in Gujarati — it was like their own club. So everyone kind of divided into their own racial groups.”

Mr Phillips does recognise and, more importantly, acknowledges the failures of the multicultural experiment:

[M]ulticultural tolerance, Phillips now believes, has ultimately helped to build ghettos. “We have allowed tolerance of diversity to harden into the effective isolation of communities in which some people think special separate values ought to apply,”

It has also allowed the traditional British values of free speech and family to be eroded. He points to such incidents as Sikh activists trying to ban a play they found offensive rather than support free speech; and to the “almost casual” acceptance of Afro-Caribbean fathers abandoning their children.

We even tolerate evangelical African churches performing exorcisms on children in the name of multiculturalism, he notes.

If Mr Phillips makes some sense thus far he quickly makes an about turn, resorting to standard assertions about how to 'integrate' the different communities:

A better balance to be struck between multiculturalism, “which leads to greater division and inequality”, and enforced assimilation, which creates an “intolerant repressive uniformity”. “Integration” is the key.

Mr Phillips wants to balance two bad things - multiculturalism and enforced assimilation - and hold it all together with 'integration'. Isn't he trying to produce a different cake using the same ingredients?

Establishing a set of non-negotiable “British values” to which all groups must subscribe, including respect for democracy, freedom of speech, tolerance of others, care for children and equality of opportunity.

Agreed - but when decades of liberal decadence have led to some of these values being only patchily shared by the white community how exactly do we persuade people - white and black - brought up on a diet of rights, victim status and the certainty that all the evils of society are somebody else's responsibility to suddenly transform themselves into model citizens?

A recognition by government that anti-discrimination laws alone are not enough to foster a properly integrated society, and for new measures to be taken to foster greater “equality, participation and interaction” between ethnic groups.

'New measures' suggests government schemes to make us want to live with each other. But what is a 'properly integrated society'? I fear it is whatever the race industry decrees it to be. Remember: the segregation Mr Phillips laments isn't forced on anybody - it's chosen. Does he not respect the choice of individuals?

More “equality audits” to root out institutional racism in the public and private sectors; more ethnic minorities to be appointed to public bodies such as health boards.

Witch-hunts, widescale branding of white people as racist (which is what the term 'institutionally racist' does) and quotas of blacks and Asians in public jobs - nothing new and nothing that can possibly encourage the integration that Mr Phillips desires.

Mr Phillips seems to unquestionably accept that white society is racist, that 'under-representation' in various fields is due to that racism and that ethnic minorities will quickly integrate - however 'integration' is defined - the moment this racism is removed. He must assume, then, that unintegrated minorities yearn to integrate but are simply unable to due to white bias. I doubt this - and Mr Phillips' own investigations suggest this isn't so.

The Left is faced with some serious concerns over many aspects of English life that simply refuse to fit into the neat patterns envisioned for them. Mr Phillips seems to be verging on the conclusion that the various ethnicities will not integrate simply because they do not want to. Rather than embracing multiculturalism people are embracing what they know and prefer. Panicked by this, his nerve fails and he presses for more abstract 'measures' to make real life conform to the preferred vision. It won't. The instincts of human beings will prevail and, apart from anomalies like myself, white will mix with white, brown with brown and black with black. Trying to force them to do otherwise will end in frustration - and, maybe, tears.

[Quotes from The Sunday Times]

English conservative

2005-09-19T12:40:00.000Z

Welcome.

This weblog is called 'English conservative' because that loosely describes me. You are very welcome indeed to read and comment regardless of whether either label applies to you.

This blog's purpose is two-fold: first, it is a place for me to commit jumbled ideas that exist in my head into (possibly still-jumbled) words on a screen.

Second, I hope this place can facilitate an exchange of ideas between both conservatives and non-conservatives. There's no better way to learn.

Much of the material here will try to relate current events to a conservative context. My humble hope is that the ideas of conservatism might be clarified so that the blatherings of some conservatives (which oftentimes includes me) - and the intentional distortion of our views by the Left - can be put aside and the real underpinnings of conservative thoughts can be revealed. Perhaps people who are not sure where they stand with regards to political belief will look more favourably at what is actually a very human view of the world. And if we're disliked as a result of the clarification then at least it's for the right reasons.

I am a member of the British Conservative Party although my views do not always match those of the Party.

This blog will be moderated for foul language simply because I don't like it. I respectfully ask that commenters challenge the views, positions, ideologies, beliefs and opinions of anybody writing here - but not to resort to the abuse of the people expressing them.

Thanks,

Gary Monro