I am not a football fan, nor indeed a fan of any other sport (though I did once win a cup and several spoons at dinghy racing) but two football matches over the past weekend have interested me.
One was the match between Manchester United and Barcelona, where I hoped Barcelona would win, which they did. This may sound disloyal, but I prefer to see the team owned and run for the benefit of its supporters and the sport to succeed over one run for profit by an American or Russian (I'm not sure which) billionaire. In addition I understand that whilst Franco and the Fascists supported Real Madrid, Barcelona was the favoured team of the Republicans in Spain, another point in its favour.
The other match was between Huddersfield and Peterborough, on the result of which depended promotion to a higher division. My home is approximately equidistant between Leeds and Huddersfield, and football fans here tend to support one or the other (although a few support Bradford City. My dear friend, Bradford Councillor John Cole, claims that being both a Liberal Democrat and a City supporter defines the term "optimist.") Leeds has a reputation, I understand deserved, for thuggery both on the field and on the terraces so my sympathies lie with Huddersfield, who I believe are better behaved. There was great excitement in Huddersfield on Sunday morning, reminding me of a time some twenty years or so ago when Batley rugby league team, of which my father was a fervent supporter, played Doncaster for promotion to a higher league. They lost, as, I'm sorry to say, did Huddersfield. As civic compensation I understand that the Huddersfield rugby league team won a convincing victory at Hull.
I suppose most sports fans are aware that the Rugby League was founded in Huddersfield. How many, sports fans or not, realise that Huddersfield is England's largest town?
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Monday, 30 May 2011
पर्लिअमेंतारी privilege
Technical point:the system seems to be suffereing from something akin to a nervous breakdown. The first word in the title is meant to be "Parliamentary". I wonder if that is the translation of whatever is that language? This is a new post because the system will not allow me to respond with a comment to Michael Meadowcroft's commnent on the last post but one.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. As is aften the case there are several sides to the question. As I've admittted, I am no lawyer, but I understand that Parliamentary Privilege exists to enable parliamentarians to "speak truth to power," originally the Monarch but nowadays surely large corporations (Murdoch?), government departments, the armed forces, and, yes, the judiciary, without fear of litigation or arrest and imprisonment. You claim that John Hemming's purpose was to protect Ryan Giggs. If Giggs is one of his constituents I suppose that is some justification but, overall, interfering in a controversy the main prupose of which is to allow newspapaers to make money by feeding the public with tit-bits about the amorous adventures of a footballer does not seem to me to match the lofty purposes of parliamentary immunity.
The essential point remains that parlialmentarians are bleating about "unelected judges" interpreting the law when that is their job and an essential ingrediant of that pillar of democracy, the separation of powers.
Thanks for your comment, Michael. As is aften the case there are several sides to the question. As I've admittted, I am no lawyer, but I understand that Parliamentary Privilege exists to enable parliamentarians to "speak truth to power," originally the Monarch but nowadays surely large corporations (Murdoch?), government departments, the armed forces, and, yes, the judiciary, without fear of litigation or arrest and imprisonment. You claim that John Hemming's purpose was to protect Ryan Giggs. If Giggs is one of his constituents I suppose that is some justification but, overall, interfering in a controversy the main prupose of which is to allow newspapaers to make money by feeding the public with tit-bits about the amorous adventures of a footballer does not seem to me to match the lofty purposes of parliamentary immunity.
The essential point remains that parlialmentarians are bleating about "unelected judges" interpreting the law when that is their job and an essential ingrediant of that pillar of democracy, the separation of powers.
A hospitable compost bin
I spent last Saturday helping to staff a Water Aid exhibition in York Minster as part of their campaign to highlight the improtance of conserving the environment. Many of those who showed interest were fellow exhiitors already conversant with and converted to our cause, but I like to think we alerted some of the general public to the importance of enabling all the world's people to gain access to fresh water and effective sanitation, and promoting good hygiene practices.
My wanderings among the other exhibitions gave me the answer to a problem which has puzzled me for some time: namely, why are the worms so anxious to get out of my compost bins? Every time I take a lid off I find congregations (or whatever is the appropriate collective noun) of worms grouped about the lip apparently anxious to get out into the fresh air and sunlight, whereas I would have thought they'd be as "happy as pigs in muck" churning up my compost.
The answer, thanks to the aptly named "York Rotters," is that my compost is too wet. This is because I put insufficient "brown" materials into the bins to balance the "green" materials. The best brown material is cardboard, torn into small pieces, but discarded copy paper (scrunched up to contain air) envelopes and other non-recyclable papers can aso be used. The Rotters also claim that rubber gloves , burst balloons, sellotape and corks are also compostable brown materials, but this sounds to me to be rather unlikely. The only one from this list that I've ever tried to compost was corks, and these never seem to have degraded at all, even after several years.
Ideally compost bins should be placed on soil rather than paving so that the excess moisture can drain away. Unfortunatley mine are on slabs of stone and I lack the dedication to change that, but shall intoduce as much scrunched up paper and torn up cardobaoard as I can to create a happier habitat for my worms.
Unfortunately the spellchecker is not working on this search engine and I've forgotten how I reactivated it on the other, so please excuse any excess of typos and spelling errors.
My wanderings among the other exhibitions gave me the answer to a problem which has puzzled me for some time: namely, why are the worms so anxious to get out of my compost bins? Every time I take a lid off I find congregations (or whatever is the appropriate collective noun) of worms grouped about the lip apparently anxious to get out into the fresh air and sunlight, whereas I would have thought they'd be as "happy as pigs in muck" churning up my compost.
The answer, thanks to the aptly named "York Rotters," is that my compost is too wet. This is because I put insufficient "brown" materials into the bins to balance the "green" materials. The best brown material is cardboard, torn into small pieces, but discarded copy paper (scrunched up to contain air) envelopes and other non-recyclable papers can aso be used. The Rotters also claim that rubber gloves , burst balloons, sellotape and corks are also compostable brown materials, but this sounds to me to be rather unlikely. The only one from this list that I've ever tried to compost was corks, and these never seem to have degraded at all, even after several years.
Ideally compost bins should be placed on soil rather than paving so that the excess moisture can drain away. Unfortunatley mine are on slabs of stone and I lack the dedication to change that, but shall intoduce as much scrunched up paper and torn up cardobaoard as I can to create a happier habitat for my worms.
Unfortunately the spellchecker is not working on this search engine and I've forgotten how I reactivated it on the other, so please excuse any excess of typos and spelling errors.
Friday, 27 May 2011
The right to privacy and the newspaper interest
Technical point.
The post below was written several days ago, but for most of this week I have been unable to gain access to my blog because the blue tool bar a the top, with the "sign in" bit, failed to appear. I tried to contact Blogspot about this and was referred to a "self help" site, where lots of people appeared to have signing-in problems, but none was identical to mine and no-one wrote in offering a solution. Whilst I admire the DIY ethos I think it is a shame that Blogspot does not have some method of allowing direct access to an expert.
A very helpful and knowledgeable friend suggested that if I tried another search engine that might do the trick. So I switched from my default Firefox to Internet Explorer and, hey presoto, here we are. Unfortunately the spellchecker does not seem to work on this search engine so please be tolerant of typos and spelling errors until I work out how to fix that problem
Now to the latest, and I think still relevlent, post.
Which is more important: an individual’s right to privacy or the right of newspapers to make money out of his or her peccadilloes, misdemeanours or misfortunes?
Clearly there are two sides to the question and the balance between the two is a matter for parliament to decide, but I am not proud of the part Liberal Democrats in both the Commons and the Lords have played in the current controversy so far. Petulant cries of “it is we, not the judges, who make the law” do little to enhance either respect for politicians or respect for the constitution.
I’ve never read much law but umpteen years ago did study for what would now be called a module for which the course bible was Wade and Phillips’s “Constitutional Law.” If I remember correctly the relevant theme was that parliament makes the law but it is not always exactly clear what they meant so the judges interpret it in the light of experience. These interpretations become “case law” or “judge-made law” and form precedents for future cases.
So the judges are simply doing their job, in the light of the law as it now stands, by deciding who can or can’t have a super-injunction. If in the world of Twitter the law as it now stands is no longer adequate then it is up to parliament to change it, and David Cameron appears to have set the necessary preparations in progress. All this could and would have happened without parliamentarians misusing parliamentary privilege.
One of the most urgent tasks for the present government is to restore respect for democracy, politicians and the political process. The Rule of Law is an essential pillar of democracy. Ignoring it (as in the case of the assassination of bin Laden), resenting it (as in the case of the ECHR’s condemnation of a blanket ban on prisoners’ rights to vote) or abusing judges when they apply it, as in the current controversy on injunctions, damages both politics and democracy.
The post below was written several days ago, but for most of this week I have been unable to gain access to my blog because the blue tool bar a the top, with the "sign in" bit, failed to appear. I tried to contact Blogspot about this and was referred to a "self help" site, where lots of people appeared to have signing-in problems, but none was identical to mine and no-one wrote in offering a solution. Whilst I admire the DIY ethos I think it is a shame that Blogspot does not have some method of allowing direct access to an expert.
A very helpful and knowledgeable friend suggested that if I tried another search engine that might do the trick. So I switched from my default Firefox to Internet Explorer and, hey presoto, here we are. Unfortunately the spellchecker does not seem to work on this search engine so please be tolerant of typos and spelling errors until I work out how to fix that problem
Now to the latest, and I think still relevlent, post.
Which is more important: an individual’s right to privacy or the right of newspapers to make money out of his or her peccadilloes, misdemeanours or misfortunes?
Clearly there are two sides to the question and the balance between the two is a matter for parliament to decide, but I am not proud of the part Liberal Democrats in both the Commons and the Lords have played in the current controversy so far. Petulant cries of “it is we, not the judges, who make the law” do little to enhance either respect for politicians or respect for the constitution.
I’ve never read much law but umpteen years ago did study for what would now be called a module for which the course bible was Wade and Phillips’s “Constitutional Law.” If I remember correctly the relevant theme was that parliament makes the law but it is not always exactly clear what they meant so the judges interpret it in the light of experience. These interpretations become “case law” or “judge-made law” and form precedents for future cases.
So the judges are simply doing their job, in the light of the law as it now stands, by deciding who can or can’t have a super-injunction. If in the world of Twitter the law as it now stands is no longer adequate then it is up to parliament to change it, and David Cameron appears to have set the necessary preparations in progress. All this could and would have happened without parliamentarians misusing parliamentary privilege.
One of the most urgent tasks for the present government is to restore respect for democracy, politicians and the political process. The Rule of Law is an essential pillar of democracy. Ignoring it (as in the case of the assassination of bin Laden), resenting it (as in the case of the ECHR’s condemnation of a blanket ban on prisoners’ rights to vote) or abusing judges when they apply it, as in the current controversy on injunctions, damages both politics and democracy.
Monday, 23 May 2011
Cabinet reshuffle?
I don't buy a Sunday newspaper because reading Saturday's already takes up too much of my weekend. However, I understand that in several of yesterday's papers where was speculation about a cabinet reshuffle.
It has been a staple for years in the analysis of British politics that ministers are shifted too often from one department to another; that they are just getting the hang of one job when they are moved on to the next. Somewhere in his excellent memoires Chris Mullin observes that he was just getting to feel effective as Minister for Africa when he was moved, not on but out, and for no apparent reason.
Given that the Tories have not had any one in office for 13 years, and the Liberals for 70, and that the qualities that make an effective MP are not necessarily the same ones as make an effective minister, there may be a case for a reshuffle after one year to weed out any incompetents, but if there is a reshuffle I doubt if this will be the prime motivation. Bagehot wrote that the public "love a marriage more than a ministry" and last month's wedding shows that still be true, but what is equally true is that our political commentators, and I suspect politicians themselves, love discussing personalities more than policies.
A case in point is that of Chris Huhne. In spite of substantial opposition from the business lobby and some Tories, not to mention Vince Cable, he seems to have made a pretty good fist of his Green proposals. They are not perfect but even Caroline Lucas gives them two cheers. Yet Huhne seems to be in the front line for a move, not because of his competence but because of the as yet unresolved mystery of his driving points some years ago.
Just to break my own rules (of discussing policies rather than personalities)for a moment, I wonder why it is that Liberal democrats in government are turning out to be so accident prone. First there was David Laws and his expenses, then the embarrassment of Vince Cable in a honey trap, and now Huhne. Three out of our five cabinet ministers is a pretty grim score. Is it because leading Liberal Democrats are more feckless than others, or is it that the right wing press has a particular dislike for Liberals and are out to get them?
It has been a staple for years in the analysis of British politics that ministers are shifted too often from one department to another; that they are just getting the hang of one job when they are moved on to the next. Somewhere in his excellent memoires Chris Mullin observes that he was just getting to feel effective as Minister for Africa when he was moved, not on but out, and for no apparent reason.
Given that the Tories have not had any one in office for 13 years, and the Liberals for 70, and that the qualities that make an effective MP are not necessarily the same ones as make an effective minister, there may be a case for a reshuffle after one year to weed out any incompetents, but if there is a reshuffle I doubt if this will be the prime motivation. Bagehot wrote that the public "love a marriage more than a ministry" and last month's wedding shows that still be true, but what is equally true is that our political commentators, and I suspect politicians themselves, love discussing personalities more than policies.
A case in point is that of Chris Huhne. In spite of substantial opposition from the business lobby and some Tories, not to mention Vince Cable, he seems to have made a pretty good fist of his Green proposals. They are not perfect but even Caroline Lucas gives them two cheers. Yet Huhne seems to be in the front line for a move, not because of his competence but because of the as yet unresolved mystery of his driving points some years ago.
Just to break my own rules (of discussing policies rather than personalities)for a moment, I wonder why it is that Liberal democrats in government are turning out to be so accident prone. First there was David Laws and his expenses, then the embarrassment of Vince Cable in a honey trap, and now Huhne. Three out of our five cabinet ministers is a pretty grim score. Is it because leading Liberal Democrats are more feckless than others, or is it that the right wing press has a particular dislike for Liberals and are out to get them?
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Sense from St Vincent
An article in yesterday's Guardian could be the beginning of Vince Cable's rehabilitation. For me the key paragraph is:
"We are actually a poorer country , mainly because of the banking crash, the recession that followed it and partly due to the squeeze we are under due to the changing balance of the world economy. Britain is no longer one of the world's price setters."
Thankfully no more moaning mantra about "the mess left by Labour" (although both Nick Clegg and Liberal Democrat News are still churning this out.)
This change of emphasis, from petty point scoring about the recent past to an awareness of the present realities, is to be welcomed. It is not the case that, even with the application of sensible Keynesian policies, the right "touch of the tiller" will restore prosperity as it was. Through the changing balance of the World's economies we are on the verge of economic changes as fundamental as the agrarian and industrial revolutions were in their own time.
Essentially we need to redefine prosperity. A look at Tim Jackson's "Prosperity without Growth" (Earthscan 2009) would be a good start, followed by an examination of what makes a happier society, via, of course, Wilkinson and Pickett's "The Spirit Level" (Penguin 2010)
I've read somewhere recently that the UK economy has now shrunk back to the level it was in 2007. Why is that a cause for "shock horror"? I had a very comfortable standard of living in 2007 (and in 1997 and 1987 come to that)and so did the overwhelming majority of others in the UK. The per capita income in the UK is around £22 000. That's per man, woman and child, including the babies, or £88 000 for a family of four if it were evenly shared out. Of course it is not shared out absolutely evenly, and few would want it to be, but more generosity from the haves would mean that the have nots could live a life of dignity, and there's still be plenty left over for us to contribute 0.7% of GNP to Third World development.
Our political debate has not even begun to examine these issues: Vince's realism is a small step in the right direction.
"We are actually a poorer country , mainly because of the banking crash, the recession that followed it and partly due to the squeeze we are under due to the changing balance of the world economy. Britain is no longer one of the world's price setters."
Thankfully no more moaning mantra about "the mess left by Labour" (although both Nick Clegg and Liberal Democrat News are still churning this out.)
This change of emphasis, from petty point scoring about the recent past to an awareness of the present realities, is to be welcomed. It is not the case that, even with the application of sensible Keynesian policies, the right "touch of the tiller" will restore prosperity as it was. Through the changing balance of the World's economies we are on the verge of economic changes as fundamental as the agrarian and industrial revolutions were in their own time.
Essentially we need to redefine prosperity. A look at Tim Jackson's "Prosperity without Growth" (Earthscan 2009) would be a good start, followed by an examination of what makes a happier society, via, of course, Wilkinson and Pickett's "The Spirit Level" (Penguin 2010)
I've read somewhere recently that the UK economy has now shrunk back to the level it was in 2007. Why is that a cause for "shock horror"? I had a very comfortable standard of living in 2007 (and in 1997 and 1987 come to that)and so did the overwhelming majority of others in the UK. The per capita income in the UK is around £22 000. That's per man, woman and child, including the babies, or £88 000 for a family of four if it were evenly shared out. Of course it is not shared out absolutely evenly, and few would want it to be, but more generosity from the haves would mean that the have nots could live a life of dignity, and there's still be plenty left over for us to contribute 0.7% of GNP to Third World development.
Our political debate has not even begun to examine these issues: Vince's realism is a small step in the right direction.
Saturday, 14 May 2011
Economic policy based on “unadulterated rubbish.”
In an article in last Sunday’s “Observer” (08/05/11)Will Hutton notes that estimates of the amount the UK needs to spend cumulatively in the next 15 years if we are to meet our climate change targets are in the range of £450bn, but only £70bn is planned.
He comments:
“…the coalition members’ chatter about not leaving huge public debts to our children, or Britain ‘maxing out on its credit card’ is unadulterated rubbish. While this can be expected of parts (but not all) of the Conservative party, better could be expected from the party that is heir to Keynes. I would expect my children to congratulate us on borrowing at today’s interest rates to invest in the infrastructure that will make the country more prosperous and global warming less likely, and accelerate a recovery that is so stuttering, especially as public debt levels in Britain have been higher for 200 of the last 250 years.”
His article concludes: “Orange book liberals have provided cover for a first order economic mistake.”
Unfortunately those of us who take this view, deficit realists, have been drowned out by the Tory spin doctors who have successfully labelled us “deficit deniers.” The truth is that not only are present generations, and especially the young unemployed, suffering from the abandonment of Keynesian policies, but future generations will also suffer as they inherit an economy which is “not fit for purpose.”
He comments:
“…the coalition members’ chatter about not leaving huge public debts to our children, or Britain ‘maxing out on its credit card’ is unadulterated rubbish. While this can be expected of parts (but not all) of the Conservative party, better could be expected from the party that is heir to Keynes. I would expect my children to congratulate us on borrowing at today’s interest rates to invest in the infrastructure that will make the country more prosperous and global warming less likely, and accelerate a recovery that is so stuttering, especially as public debt levels in Britain have been higher for 200 of the last 250 years.”
His article concludes: “Orange book liberals have provided cover for a first order economic mistake.”
Unfortunately those of us who take this view, deficit realists, have been drowned out by the Tory spin doctors who have successfully labelled us “deficit deniers.” The truth is that not only are present generations, and especially the young unemployed, suffering from the abandonment of Keynesian policies, but future generations will also suffer as they inherit an economy which is “not fit for purpose.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)