Blog

Me and my mobile phone

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’ve been tagged in a slightly odd meme by the irrepressible Matt Wardman:

The assignment: Your phone, exactly 139 words explaining why it is your phone, and a hero.

Here goes…

This is my phone.

I use it to wake me up, email, text, Twitter, TwitPic, surf the internet, blog, read, write and even, to make telephone calls. Apparently, it works in Afghanistan, but only occasionally in Somerset as the signal there is rubbish.

I did most of my degree on the previous version.

The revolution may not be televised, but it will be covered on a range of social media.

It is powered by lots of tiny gnomes on tiny bikes who have to pedal really quickly if I want to call long distance. The gnomes used to be bigger, but they became smaller, and that’s why Nokia had to change the size of the power cord. Hey, it makes as much sense as any other explanation.

Large and a bit geeky – it is a good representation of me.

I tag the Political Penguin, James Higham and Laurie Penny.

xD.

46 years on

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was “civis Romanus sum”. Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is “Ich bin ein Berliner”.

I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!

There are many people in the world who really don’t understand, or say they don’t, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin.

There are some who say that Communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin.

And there are even a few who say that it is true that Communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass’ sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.

I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years.

I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin.

While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your mayor has said, an offence not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.

What is true of this city is true of Germany – real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice.

In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people.

You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main.

So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.

When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe.

When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner”.

The BNP aren’t the only ones to worry about

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Even if they are the main ones.

The English Democrats’ Peter Davies has won the Mayoralty of Doncaster. The previous incumbent, Martin Winter, was criticised over failings by Doncaster Council following the death of seven children on the at-risk register. Davies’ first actions were to say that he wanted to stop funding Doncaster Gay Pride and translation services in the borough.

Hardly what one would call progressive measures.

They are also uninformed policies; as comes out in this interview (transcript courtesy of Luke Akehurst) with Toby Foster of BBC Radio Sheffield, Davies doesn’t know how much Doncaster Gay Pride costs or earns and can’t scrap translation services under existing laws. Other flagship policies include reducing the number of councillors (he doesn’t have the authority) and doesn’t know which jobs are the ‘PC jobs’ he wants to cut. In fairness to him, he has accepted a reduced salary of ?30K.

Beyond that, there is a problem with the English Democrats: the nature of some of the people attracted by their ideology.

There seem to be two schools of thought that lead to an English parliament as the answer to the West Lothian question; one is that some conception of natural justice requires an even-handedness in passing legislation that the current form of assymmetric devolution cannot deliver.

The other is that a nation qua nation requires some form of political existence to achieve some sort of teleological objective. That, in and of itself, I don’t have a problem with, although I disagree with it.

The problem is some of the fellow-travellers that position attracts; crudely put, the soi-disant civic nationalism attracts ethnic nationalism.

By way of an example, Matt O’ Connor of Fathers 4 Justice was originally slated as the ED’s candidate for the Mayor of London. He withdrew, however, when it turned out that the EDs had entered into an electoral agreement not to contest seats that the racist England First Party were to contest.

As reported in the East London Advertiser, O’ Connor said

“I realised the English Democrats were working with ‘England First’ and had no choice other than to resign there and then.

The Little Man in a Toque has further background on certain parts of the EDs’ preparedness to work with racists.

My concern here is not specifically about Davies, but those who give him advice and support and the risks of an alternative centre of gravity for racists from the BNP. While some of this rag-bag set their policies around Britain, there are others who are very similar but prefer to set England alone as their leitmotif.

Continue reading “The BNP aren’t the only ones to worry about” →

The Iraq inquiry should be conducted in secret

Posted on by David Landon Cole

“The Iraq war was a disaster” is a familiar refrain. Unfortunately, that doesn’t tell us very much. Do we mean the concept, the planning, the implementation, the strategy, the tactics, what? Or do we want an official stick with which to beat the government?

Were the problems with the Iraq war just the basis on which we went to war, or inappropriate equipment necessitating lots of UORs ?

Do we just want to know that the whole enterprise was a bad idea, or do we want to see where and why things were done badly or well? Continue reading “The Iraq inquiry should be conducted in secret” →

Interview with Aled Dilwyn Fisher: the future of LSE Students’ Union

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The LSE SU is embarking on a fairly radical programme whereby it will share some staff with SUARTS, the SU for the University of the Arts, London. Details of the proposals can be found on the LSE SU website and a brief comment from me is at the end of this post.

LSE SU General Secretary Aled Dilwyn Fisher, who also contested the North-East constituency for the Green Party at last year’s GLA elections, kindly agreed to be interviewed. My questions are in bold.
Continue reading “Interview with Aled Dilwyn Fisher: the future of LSE Students’ Union” →

Labour can win a fourth term

Posted on by David Landon Cole

‘Governing party does badly in midterm election’ is hardly a shocking story. We are familiar with the arguments about local & Euro polls being second-order elections. We know that the Guardian advocated a vote for the Lib Dems or Greens1. We know that Labour’s fratricidal tendency has come to the fore.

And yet, the share of the vote won by the Conservatives was 38%. That translates into a Commons majority of perhaps 45 seats that could be easily turned into a hung parliament if Labour voters who stayed at home on Thursday can be coaxed into voting. It could even be, with a following wind, a historic fourth term.

How?

The first part of winning a fourth term must be a simple message to all the plotters: put up or shut up. There is a debate to be had about whether we’d fare better under Gordon Brown or another, as yet unnamed, leader. There is no debate that another year of rumour and intrigue under gothic arches will be worse than either. If Brown is still in place on Tuesday – after the PLP meeting – he must stay in place, unopposed, until the election. The discontent about Gordon has been rumbling on for some time. This is the most recent, and most self-destructive, manifestation of that discontent. If senior members of the party continue to undermine our leader, calls for an election will grow louder and louder and our ability to articulate an effective policy platform will grow weaker and weaker.

The reason the Tories want an election now is that they know a year of Labour policies that appeal to people in these nervous economic times could deprive them of government. A good year of governance and progress, with the economy improving – it would appear that the green shoots of economic recovery are poking through – might bring us our fourth term.

Secondly, we must recognise who deeply unattractive this looks to people outside politics. I ask: what are the policy differences between Brown & Purnell? Between Brown & Blears? Between Brown & Flint? It does seem as if these are indeed the first ministers to resign solely on issues of style.

Thirdly, the party as a whole must use the summer recess to regroup and to articulate a set of coherent policies to take us forward into the next election. They must focus on the economy and constitutional reform, but we must keep talking about our successes in the NHS, education and building a fairer society.

xD.

1 – in fairness, they also said vote Labour if your local councillor is a good one. I wonder how many Guardianistas can name their local councillors.

Cross-posted at Common Endeavour

Unknown knowns

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Donald Rumsfeld attracted unfair opprobrium over his ‘known unknowns’ speech – which is not to say that much of the opprobrium he attracted elsewhere was unjustified.

There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

Emphases added by me.

It strikes me that there is a fourth category – unknown knowns*. I am increasingly aware that people in one part of an organisation can know something – and not just know it, but have a developed view on it and how it affects other things – but that other parts of the organisation, particularly towards the top, don’t know that another part of the organisation knows.

xD.

* – That is not Zizek’s definition:

the “unknown knowns” – the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to known about, even though they form the background of our public values

These are ‘rejected knowns’ and I’m taking the semantic route out as I would say that people still know about these things, even if they ignore them

I am Nadine Dorries

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I never thought I’d say that. Her execrable blog has been taken down.

However, I think the Telegraph were wrong to file papers against Acidity, Dorries’ web hosts, rather than her, and to do it late on a Friday evening. I am concerned about almost any instance of restricting an MP’s freedom of speech, no matter how much I disagree with them, even if they can use Parliamentary privilege. While I think that the Telegraph were acting in the public interest, primarily albeit not exclusively, I feel that Dorries’ remarks, however wrong, were fair comment.

And now, with bad grace, holding a red rose behind my back and typing this with my gloved right hand, I’m going to link to Phil ‘Dizzy’ Hendren, who makes some good points here. There is some independent confirmation courtesy of the Guardian.

A few other remarks. Firstly, did the Telegraph not expect a Streisand effect, or do they really think Dorries and her blog carry that much influence, or did they not think at all? Secondly, I think there should be some libel laws; I just think that, at the moment, they are written, interpreted and enforced so widely that I find it difficult to tell which enforcements are fair and which not.

If you want further comment of mine on Nadine Dorries’ antics, follow this link.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

– Evelyn Beatrice Hall summarising Voltaire’s attitude towards Helvétius.

xD.