/* HaloScan trackback */

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

irrepressable.info

I've just added a little bit of javascript from Amnesty International's irrepressable.info Internet free speech campaign.

It displays a snippet of censored text from the Internet, most of which we'd view as ordinary political protest.

Monday, May 29, 2006

The necessity of conservatism

First I should note that here I am talking about the principle of conservatism not the Conservative and Unionist Party (which often seems far from conservative, often its more reactionary than anything else).

By conservatism, I mean the resistance to change and the urge to keep things the same and maintain the status quo.
I've come to realise that this is an important instinct. We are all conservative to some extent in some area, whether its preferring the music of our past to new music or the desire to keep aspects of society the same.
I am the last person to claim that we need to keep things the same, without change we cannot have innovation and improvement to our lives, but imagine if you will what the world might be like if the conservative impulse was quashed.
Assuming the radicals could agree on what changes to implement (there will always be radicals of different dispositions from the hard-left to anarcho-capitalists) or that one group comes out on top, we'd have massive changes. The changes would not occur once, but (in a manner reminiscent of this government) more would be heaped on top before the last set could be assimilated by society. Laws would change in bewildering ways, nobody would know where they stood, the risks of any action would become so great that the economy and society would just grind to a halt.

This scenario is as bad as that of extreme conservatism with no change at all, with no opportunity for the betterment of your life (for the Doctor Who fans, he made a great speech about this in the second Cyberman episode).

Of course, the most radical of all radicals is likely to be conservative when it comes to their beliefs. If all the actions they wanted took place then they'd fight to keep them in place no matter what. The socialist who sees their great system failing will still cling to the belief that given time it will work, or that the systems they propose weren't implemented correctly (you only need to read certain contributors to the Guardian to see this at work).

What is really needed is a balance. We must avoid change for changes sake, but we must allow for the evolution of society and culture. There are times when we must act quickly and make changes, but the changes should be as limited in scope as possible. It is not possible for us to predict all the effects of change (whether it is theorectically possible is still debatable).
We should listen to the conservative impulse, but not be governed by it. In the same way, it is futile to look to the past for a great age, we are all susceptible to 'Good Old Days' syndrome, but at the same time past experience should not be discounted out of hand.

This is really a call for moderation, for us all to take a step back and look at our radical impulses and realise that we do not, and cannot, know what's best for everyone.
This is, for me, the very heart of liberalism. No person, or group of people, can possibly know what's best for the rest of society, all we can hope for is an evolution through natural selection of the best ideas (it is arguable that Darwin took his ideas of natural selection from the liberal tradition). This means allowing change but realising the limitations of our intellect (as Socrates is said to have said - Wisdom is to know the limits of your own knowledge).

Conservatism is that which seeks to prevent change, and therefore acts as a check on the radical impulse to make large changes.
Together they act to create the largely moderate change which is needed to evolve society and its institutions. Sometimes larger changes are needed and conservatism can act as a hindrance, at other times, conservatism can act as a break against ill-consceived changes.

In this delicate balance that is human society, conservatism is a necessary, but not sufficient, force. Do away with it or let it take over and you have chaos or stasis and the stultification of society.

Some thoughts on the USA

Just back from one of my trips over to Indiana and Chicago.
Several things strike me about the USA, apart from the cars and huge portions of food and real lemonade.

The first is how militarised the country seems. Its not a case of guns being everywhere (the only guns I see tend to be carried by the police, which in itself is unnerving) but things like special veterans number plates on cars an MIAPOW (Missing In Action, Prisoner of War) bumper stickers (probably people who have relatives who are in that MIAPOW). It all leads to me feeling that there is a significant military presence throughout the country, which I don't get in the UK.
In some ways this is no bad thing, veterans are accorded far more respect than they are in the UK, but it will sometimes go too far with the feeling of military service being good no matter what and a culture of militarism and gung-ho attitudes in some parts of society.

The other thing I noticed was the diversity. My fiancée is pretty much a libertarian in US terms and opposed to the reign of Bush and his abuses of power. In my time over there I've seen 'red-necks' and the 'christian right', 'white-trash', gangsta wannabe's and many of the mid-west american stereotypes.
Then there's the Poor Handmaids who my future mother-in-law works for, who are a liberal bunch of nuns and very friendly and caring people, counterpoised by the Bishop who is as conservative as the catholic church can get (we have a leaflet from him saying we're going to hell for being fornicators and corrupting the young).
Walking the streets of Chicago I saw a group campaigning to impeach Cheney.
One car I saw had a bumper sticker saying 'Guns don't shoot people, Dick Cheney does' (pro-gun anti-bush people?).
Most people are generally friendly 'ordinary' people. Many seem to be jerks when behind the wheel (nothing new there), some get offended if you refer to 'pop' instead of 'soda'. Some are loud, some quieter (none seem to be as quiet as me though). Some are health freaks, others massive slobs.
Most are christian of one stripe or another, but I saw several women wearing the hajib (something you wouldn't expect in bible-belt small town america, especially in today's climate).
Most people however are united by a feeling of Americanism, even if their conceptions of freedom differ hugely and their view of what's patriotic are often contradictory... (and many seem to be arm chair patriots)

Mostly its a lesson against stereotyping and a reminder of the diversity of all large societies in which everyone is in a minority of some sort.

The final thing I noticed was the amount of localism. Sometimes it seems to be taken to the extreme with 4 different police forces in one area (state, county, city and campus) but local politics seems very alive, with many different levels of politics plus communities. When we view the US we forget that each state has its own legislature, and then each county and each city has its own government (down to its own chamber of commerce) and even voting districts (known as townships) sometimes have their own councils.
Granted, there are many problems, in some areas this system falls apart and politics is still mainly the territory of the middle classes and there's the ever present power grabs by the federal government, but it gives us one instance of localism working.

All in all I find the US fascinating, there are many lessons it can teach us, both with how things can be done and how they shouldn't, as well as much which isn't particularly applicable to the UK. It has many different problems, and drawing direct correspondance with other countries must be cautioned against.

The most important thing I've learnt through my visits there is it highlights the short sightedness of the anti-americanism which sometimes seems so prevalent and it has given me another lesson in the futility of stereotypes.
Tags:

Thursday, May 18, 2006

What are the Conservatives?

Just discovered the Radio 4 series "What is Left? What is Right?". Unfortunately I missed the first programme "What is Left?" but "What is Right?" is still on listen again.
What really struck me about this is that the arguments being made were basically liberal. Smaller state because the individual knows how to spend their money best being central, and even a nod towards localism. Even Norman Tebbit was in agreement with this.
The point about multiculturalism is worth mentioning, although I think they defined multiculturalism differently to myself. The opposition is opposition to the idea that immigrants should be encouraged to follow their own culture exclusively, which is the thinking amongst some people. This is obviously a bad idea, we end up fragmenting society and creating tensions between groups.
My view of multiculturalism is pretty much what was being espoused, that immigrants (and established communities) should be allowed to bring their own cultures and mix them with ours, allowing the culture of this country and its regions to evolve.

This might leave me wondering why I'm not a Tory, if they espouse such liberal views.
The answer is simply they pick aspects of liberalism, just like Labour do (and some in the LibDems do). I cannot sanction the sort of social and moral conservatism espoused by many Tories. Whilst I believe that there is a need for moral rules for society and that they are best evolved over time, they should not be cast in aspic. We must allow them to evolve and to adapt to the changing world.
Another reason is there is a strong authoritarian streak in the Tory party. This comes out most readily in social conservatism, and also in the hard-line on crime- the view that criminals are bad and there's nothing to do but lock them up and throw away the key.
The final trend in the conservative party is the nationalism. I find the idea of the nation state difficult. It is not a natural concept for me and I tend to treat nations as one of many levels of organisation in society, rangeing from the individual to global organisations. I would not be particularly worried if the UK broke up or got subsumed into Europe, so long as it did not lead to conflict or the centralisation of power. The UK and its reagions would still maintain their identities, in the same way the nations of the UK, and counties, towns and even smaller areas within all these maintain identities.

So, there are some common threads between liberalism and conservatism, many of them it seems due to the liberal tradition in this country, but at other times they diverge drastically. We can at times make common cause with the libertarians in the Tory party just as we can sometimes make common cause with some in the Labour party, and hopefully we can become the natural home for liberals who in the past went to one or the other party, but the differences remain and we should criticise where they do exist (and of course where its politic, some issues it may be best to keep quiet about for political reasons...)

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Chris Smith on the 'Suicide of the West'

On the Today programme this morning, Chris Smith (now Lord Smith) was interviewed about his new book 'The Suicide of the West' (or something along those lines).
What was most interesting is he identified the liberal traditions being under threat as the greatest threat to western civilisation.
He characterised this with the government's increasing authoritarianism and Blair's outburst against the Human Rights Act (he actually stopped short of naming Blair, but did not deny opposition to Blair's 'reforms' when pushed).

This is striking to me, as it is something which desperately needs to be said more and it didn't come from a LibDem, but from a former Labour minister (perhaps he is in the wrong party?).

It is not simply the erosion of civil liberties, it is the wholesale destruction of the principles of liberalism and individualism (a word I was extremely pleased to hear from the mouth of a Labour Party member).
In fact, this was one of the best expositions of liberalism and the rights and responsibilities of the individual that I've heard.

The other point he made was the very unfashionable one that the development of the west and british liberalism owes a lot to Christianity. I think it does, especially the protestant tradition with the individual's relationship with God being central. The other place would be the battle for nonconformist recognition. These are things which could have come from other religions of course, and Christianity doesn't always work to provide the foundations of a liberal society.
Of course, as an atheist I do not believe in the teachings of Christianity, but I can appreciate the ways (that I can see) that it has helped form liberalism and our institutions.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Things gathered over the weekend

Over the weekend, several things I'd like to comment on:

Firstly, I am disgusted with the briefings againt Ming Campbell. Its odd how a party which champions localism complain about the national leader of the party when local elections don't go as well as hoped...
Simon Hughes should know better, but I suppose he's still sore he lost another leadership election, and there's still the paranoid 'social(ist) liberals' who are ideologically opposed to economic liberalism.

Secondly, it seems that Dave Cameron has shown his colours (or tried to appeal to his party) and not only called for the Human Rights Act to be repealed, but also withdrawel from the ECHR.
Also the usual suspects in the press are claiming the the ECHR is an EU convention, which of course it is not, but that doesn't prevent the euro-phobic rantings.

The last thing I saw was that civil servants are selling identity information to organised crime. This is a prime example of why the ID Cards and National Identity Register are a bad thing. Those within the tent can be corrupt. Laws will not prevent this sort of abuse, the payoffs will be even larger than now. I hope the anti-ID card movement can capitalise on this.

Sunday, May 07, 2006

Reid: People want New Labour

I've just heard Reid claiming that people want New Labour and they're not voting Labour because they think Labour is going back to the 80s.

What rubbish. It is true that a reversion to the 1980s style Labour Party will lose Labour power, but it is not this people are concerned about, it is the failure of the New Labour project.

Nine years ago, people hoped that it would be a new era of politics. Instead we have been met by spin, more and more authoritarian measures, pillaging of people's investments by the government, massive spending for few results.

This is not due to a return to 'old labour' values, its due to an increasing addiction to power, an inability to listen to others. A government which is dominated by a single man who is convinced of the rightness of his policies. This is reflected at the local level, Councillors who wish to retain power, who are eyeing a parliamentary career rather than representing and helping their constituents.

This at least is the perception. This is the New Labour project. A project which started with the aim of gaining power, which has succeeded and now desperately wishes to retain power at all costs.
Tags:

PR for local elections

There is one small downside to the result we had, and that is that we won all three seats with about 47% of the vote.
Being comitted to electoral reform and a more proportional electoral system it is somehow an unsatifactory result.

However, we do have to fight in the current system, and that gave us victory here, but meant in other parts of the borough there is no LibDem representation despite receiving almost as many votes as Labour.

Thinking about PR, surely the London local elections are the perfect place for STV, multi member constituencies already, it would enable people to get used to the system in readiness for its introduction to Westminster, any problems in the count could be ironed out (you might hope, although it seems there is no end to incompetence...)

It would be interesting to see what effect this would have on campaigning as well. We will see next year in Scotland, I'm sure the electoral reform people will be watching with great interest.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

What is Prescott for again?

Apart from the obvious being the but of many jokes, what is Prescott for now?

It seems the upper echelons of the Labour Party have been wondering this too. The current line is that he is 'good at charing committees'. They are presenting him as a master negotiator between the conflicting interests of government departments. This is almost universally met with derision and great puzzlement.
I think the answer may be that he is there to make sure committees agree with Anthony Blair's current grand plan, an enforcer rather than negotiator.

It remains to be seen whether his position will be tenable, the other thought is that Blair may not want to let him off the leash and send him to the back benches, he may become troublesome once he's lost his perks.

Friday, May 05, 2006

We did it!

They've finally put the results up on the council website so it is now confirmed that all three of the LibDem candidates in Hale End and Highams Park have been elected.

This area has been Tory for as long as anyone can remember, at least one of their candidates has been well embedded there for many years.
The final result is:

John Beanse (LibDem) - 1617
Noel Penstone (LibDem) - 1462
Sheila Smith-Pryor (LibDem) - 1453
Lesley Finlayson (Tory) - 1434
Tory - 1363
Tory - 1346
Labour - 437
Labour - 404
Green - 367
Labour - 327

Total tunout - 46.69%


John is well known and has been working the ward for many years now, also he was top of the ballot so probably a bit of a boost.
Noel really worked the council estate down my road, where we had a very good turn out (about 60% of those Lib or Probables from the canvas) (being opposite the polling station probably helped), and has been tirelessly canvassing.
It was Sheila's first campaign, but I suspect she received a boost because she was a community nurse for large parts of the ward for many years so many people recognised her when canvassing.

Finlayson is well known (probably because she's so fearsome) and has been around for quite a while now, so I think she benefited from that. She was also out campaigning around the polling stations a lot (at one point our agent had to get the officials to move her on from an area too close to the polling station).

Sadly, the rest of Chingford was solid Tory holds, but we didn't do much work there, concentrating our resources. I'm not sure what the moves there will be.
Across in Redbridge, I'm glad to say we comfortably held the ward we have in the constituency.

Overall in Waltham Forest, we're now the second largest party, having taken three from the Tories and gained one seat from Labour (holding onto our bye election gains) and running Labour close in many places.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

A nice story from the campaign

In one of the wards, Labour activists were discovered knocking on people's doors asking people to take down LibDem posters as they had a visitor who might be offended.

It turns out that this visitor was Tony Blair and the walk about they had planned was chock full of LibDem posters :)

Polls are closed

A very enjoyable day spent in the comittee room, playing with EARS.

One of our candidates went totally hyperactive for the whole day and hardly sat down for more than 5 minutes.
Thankfully the agent is very relaxed and a fun person to be around as well as getting things done :)

He also got the head Tory told off for campaigning too close to the polling station (much to her annoyance, but she is an unbearable woman and we don't care if we annoy her).

The Tories are rattled, they had Iain Duncan-Smith out knocking up, their tellers were removed to knocking up at 7 (polls closed at 10) and they even had a loud speaker car out...

Its looking very close. We ran them close last time (its thought if the boundary changes hadn't occurred we would have won), this time we've worked far harder. The agent is reasonably confident, we get a positive reception from people.

Its a pity I can't go to the count, I'd love to be there, but work in the morning prevents that :(

So, we will know in the morning... and I'd like to see the borough wide results...

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Local campaigns

So, in my ward, the incumbent Tories are claiming to be the defenders of local people (which is frankly laughable) and are vigourously attacking the LibDems. They also seem to be living in some sort of ridiculous fantasy world where they can win the whole borough or gain some influence (the local breed of Tory is rather nasty and I doubt any of the other parties will want to cooperate with them although perhaps Labour might if central office would let them, they are fairly well suited to each other once you set aside tribal differences).
They are also claiming that they are the party of law and order etc, and that somehow a vote to keep them will lead to reductions in crime... if they are such good councillors why is crime a problem?
I suspect these (shoddily photocopied) leaflets are an attempt to get their core vote out.

Where Labour are defending seats they are now resorting to more LibDem bashing and making wild promises, notably that they will ensure a new multiplex cinema in Walthamstow. Given the fact that the old cinema was not viable and closed I wonder where the customers will come from. Add to that the council's failure to provide the fantastic new library they promised us (the site is now empty having demolished the existing shopping arcade) and I'm not exactly filled with confidence. Of course you also have to question why a council should be involved in that beyond the granting of planning permission anyway?

The absence of Labour from the campaign in my ward is notable, they seem to have basically given up in this end of the borough.

Respect are flooding the local rag with letters complaining that the LibDems aren't socialists (no shit sherlock), they are complaining that about Labour too, and they're ranting about nationalisation of housing or something... Will be interesting to see how much of the Labour vote they take where they have candidates...

The Greens have a single candidate, but have sent no literature, so probably a token candidate.

My feeling is it will be close between LibDems and Tories here, probably recount territory. If we're lucky we could just win all three seats, but I think we do stand a good chance with one of our candidates being both well known and well regarded as someone who gets things done and listens to the residents and being at the top of the ballot paper.

Borough wide - I'd say NOC again. Hopefully the LibDems can negotiate a better coalition this time round though.