Blog

What difference does political blogging really make? #wsitp

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The Westminster Skeptics in the Pub gathered last night in a different pub, the Old Monk, for a different type of event- a discussion on ‘what difference does political blogging really make?’

The evening focussed around a couple of questions; what is the relationship between traditional journalism and blogging, and is it sustainable; and what influence do blogs actually have? The event certainly attracted a diverse crowd, many of whom were new to Skeptics in the Pub, which is to be welcomed, and BBC Parliament were there to record proceedings for posterity.

A writeup follows below, but I will start with some general comments.

Although I enjoyed listening to Nick Cohen, Mick Fealty and Sunny Hundall, I’m afraid that I found Jonathan Isaby to be unremarkable; he seems to be a better writer than he is a speaker, although I suspect that he was restricted, for one reason or another, in what he could say.

As for Paul Staines, I cannot do better than David Colquhoun’s tweet

On way home from #sitp polital blogging. Learned that Guido serious about nothing but Guido. Narcisist not journailist.

Being something of a political nerd, it’s no surprise that I blog a bit, and I’ve heard all the points that were made at the event before. It comes down to the funding model for blogging vs volunteerism and whether blogging complements or replaces traditional journalism. Different people have different views. This is not a simple case of the jury still being out, but something more fundamental.

There is no such thing as blogging.

There isn’t even any such thing as political blogging. As we know, there are blogs that concern themselves with everything under the Sun and a little bit more mixing of sometimes siloed conversations would be good. Political blogging could certainly benefit from a healthy dose of skepticism.

However, to group even all political blogs together makes as much sense as saying that the Financial Times, the Daily Sport, the New Statesman and the Downing Street Years should be grouped together because they’re all printed on paper.

There are, within the political realm, blogs that range from the single issue to the generalist, from the ultra-local to the global. They aim to inform, provoke and proselytise. If we look at the question – what difference does political blogging really make – we can’t just look at the Westminster bubble or even just national politics. We have to look with much more detail and much finer granularity to gauge the differences between UK-wide, London, Northern Irish and so on blogging. I am convinced that the distinctive blogospheres in London, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are to do with the devolution of powers to those regions and that further regional blogging will only take off in concert with devolution of powers from Westminster regarding England.

Equally, a blog like the excellent Jack of Kent, focussing on legal matters, is only tangentially part of the main political blogosphere when it should, IMHO, be required reading. Ditto Ben Goldacre and various others.

Moreover, other social media, particularly Twitter, act as a force multiplier so that a given story or action can be replicated by many people with ease and speed.

Anyway, vesti la giubba; a writeup follows beneath the fold.

UPDATE 10 Feb – Sunny ‘Liberal Conspiracy‘ Hundall and Mark Reckons weigh in.

Continue reading “What difference does political blogging really make? #wsitp” →

Am I contradicting myself?

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I have recently written two posts on religion; one dealing with Islam, the other with the Roman Catholic flavour of Christianity.

I wonder if there is a contradiction between the positions I advance. In the former case, I argue for an individualistic freedom, saying that people should be able to wear what they want. In the latter case, I argue, effectively, against it, saying that people shouldn’t be able to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexuality.

On the homosexuality issue, I dislike the argument that it is natural because I really couldn’t care less if it’s natural or not. I’m typing on a computer that I am fairly sure does not normally occur in nature. Similarly, I see how religion spreads and replicates but I don’t think that removes or reduces people’s agency.

Is there, then, a contradiction between not thinking the state should ban the burka but saying that the state should regulate employment? Admittedly, part of my argument on the former question is fairly utilitarian as I think the negative consequences of a crude ban outweigh the benefits of any positive effects.

I’d like to know what you think?

xD.

France and the burka

Posted on by David Landon Cole

How do you feel about the burka?

France is more than a little negative.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. I see the argument that some women are being forced to wear the burka, directly or indirectly, and that this is an affront to our sense of liberty and justice. I also see the argument that says this is an argument best won by the moderating influence of time. Moreover, I see the argument that says this is not the proper role of the government.

Part of me wants to say that the Fifth Republic is acting to prevent the repression of women by being forced to wear the burka. The rest of me, though, doesn’t. The rest of me says this isn’t about laicite or secularism, but about Islamophobia and nativism.

Even if I were to accept the premise on which this restriction of liberty is proposed, I would have to reject the proposal. Firstly, it strikes me that the risks involved in prohibiting the wearing of a garment are great. The potential to then say that all religious symbols are forbidden, and then symbols of political organisations that threaten the state, seems to me to be non-trivial given the effects. Secondly, it is monstrously illiberal. Thirdly, and most importantly if the aim is to foster integration, it simply cannot work. Promoting tolerance by stigmatising a group seems to be up on the list of oxymorons between ‘political agreement’ and ‘military intelligence’.

The premise simply does not hold up to even the briefest examination. Then there is the language used in the debate. Despite his recent, half-hearted backpedalling, President Sarkozy did much to foment this action by starting a debate about what it is to be French. This proposal was not done in concert with the Muslims communities of France; it was raised in a parliamentary committee, far from the banlieues. No account was made of individual choice, or whether there were ways to coax people out from behind the burka.

Let us recall Article X of the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen – available on the French Justice Ministry’s website:

Nul ne doit être inquiété pour ses opinions, mêmes religieuses, pourvu que leur manifestation ne trouble pas l’order public établi par la loi
no-one should be troubled for their opinions, including religious opinions, so long as their promulgation does not cause a breach of the peace (my translation)

Certainly, some will have been honestly concerned about the oppression of women, although they seem not to have considered the possibility that one of the 1900 or so women who apparently where the burka might freely choose to do so. However, the hamfistedness of the proposal renders that moot. Moreover, its promulgation has been a means, albeit with the help, unsought or not, of Len Pen et al, of tarring all French Muslims as unFrench.

This is not about liberty. This is not about secularism. This is not about laicité.

This is about raising awareness of the other. This is about making life harder for the other. This is about stigmatising the other.

The marriage bonus and the Social Attitudes Survey

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The findings of the British Social Attitudes Survey make interesting reading, particularly in light of the off-again, on-again proposal from the Conservatives to privilege marriage in the tax code. Needless to say, I think it’s a bad idea, but I wonder how much traction it would actually have with people.

Britain is becoming more liberal in its views about how people live their lives
For example, cohabitation is becoming increasingly acceptable. 45% in 2006 agreed that it ‘makes no difference to children whether their parents are married to each other or just living together’, up from 38% in 1998. This is because younger generations, who have more tolerant views, are replacing older, less tolerant, ones. It is also because people’s views are shaped by their own experiences. Even the most traditional generations are becoming more liberal, reflecting their own experiences, or those of their children and grandchildren.

Essentially, an increasingly large population really couldn’t care that much about whether people are married or not. Assuming the survey is accurate and 45% think that ‘makes no difference to children whether their parents are married to each other or just living together’, I assume another chunk of people will fall into the ‘doesn’t make much difference’ and ‘makes a difference but not enough to justify tax breaks’ categories. I wonder, therefore, how many people will be that impressed by the marriage allowance. Of course, the survey doesn’t show how many people would be actively annoyed – like myself – by the proposal.

The other takeaway, for me, is that this looks like an continuing trend. People are going to approve, or at least not disapprove, of what they see their own kith and kin doing; as more people cohabit and don’t marry, it becomes harder to be vocally opposed to the concept. Equally, a lot – if I read the survey correctly – of those who might have (what could be termed) traditional values are, quite literally, a dying breed.

Without wanting to get all mushy, a small bribe would have made precisely no difference to my having married my wife. Indeed, I would be slightly concerned for the longevity of a relationship that could be bought for such a low figure. Of course, no-one argues that; rather, the argument goes that marriage is good and so we should give it an acknowledgement, albeit a token one. I find that idea plain daft. Marriage is already legally privileged – it’s a contract approved by the state – and socially privileged. Moreover, I see no reason why different-sex marriage is different in any meaningful way to same-sex marriage. I might even go so far as to say that the state has no business getting involved in what is, legally, a contract between two people. If we wish to support families, I’d rather the money followed the children that became attached to the existence of a marriage contract.

xD.

River of Gilligan’s dreams

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Andrew Gilligan has an interesting article in today’s London Evening Standard, trailing a PolEx report that won’t be available until tomorrow, suggesting that a highly effective boat service could be set up for £30m. I will look for the report tomorrow, but in the meantime I make three points.

Firstly, Gilligan says

Yet this would be no ordinary service. It would never be stopped by traffic or points failures.

That may be true, and it is some time since the Thames froze. However, the Thames is a tidal river. A very tidal river, it moves at speeds of up to 8 knots. Moreover, the tides do not occur at the same time every day. Altogether, this means that the Thames is fundamentally unreliable for timekeeping purposes as, from the point of view of the commuter, you have to leave at a different time each day to get to work on time and may well have a variable amount of hanging around (or extra work). If the Thames Barrier, in this or a future incarnation, is permanently raised and the Thames is no longer tidal, this could change.

Secondly, Mr Gilligan makes a somewhat simplistic analysis of cost/benefit for buses and tube extensions. Certainly, the numbers might be, prima facie, better for the river but it does not consider at all how well served riverside locations already are against the relative lack of provision in other areas.

Thirdly, Mr Gilligan, when not continuing his obsession with standing outside on moving vehicles 1 makes an interesting admission:

Boris has sometimes been accused of lacking a big idea, an equivalent of Ken Livingstone’s congestion charge — something people can point to and say: “He did that.” I think a new TfL riverbus could be it.

I was rather under the impression that the New Routemaster was meant to be the big idea. Maybe Gilligan has gone off it, or realised that it’s either not going to happen or, if it does, will be suboptimal value for money.

I would add Mr Gilligan needs to be a bit more careful about his sweeping statements.

You only have to try it once to know why. In the morning rush hour, the traffic in Greenwich inches round the one-way system. The trains are slow and crowded. On the river, charging upstream at 30 knots (35mph), we are the fastest thing in a five-mile radius.

AsPolitical Animal and Boris Watch point out on Twitter, within five miles of Greenwich are trains (60mph), the Jubilee line (50mph), High Speed One (140mph) and City Airport (takeoff speed for a STOL aircraft ~160mph, although they don’t make many stops in London) (here, here and here).

xD.

1 – “On the open rear deck of the Cyclone Clipper, two newcomers to the service are grinning to themselves at the sudden surge of speed, and the glorious, if rapidly receding, views of the Royal Naval College. Inside, the more seasoned passengers have settled down with their laptops. There is a small buffet, and on the way home you can even get a massage.” I wonder how many people would be standing outside in today’s inclement weather.

Apple: a bit 1984

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Apple ran one of the most famous television advertisements ever; the famous 1984 spot, implying that Apple would challenge the dominance of a certain company based in Redmond. Smaller than MicroSoft they may be, but they are more closed than the Empire of Gates [update – IBM, not MS. See comments].

Exhibit one is the App Store. Apple will only allow you to download applications that they have approved. They could offer all apps, but mark approved or supported apps as such, like Canonical do. Selling their kit in this way maximises vendor lock-in and, in short, acts in a way that would bring bucketloads of opprobium onto MicroSoft.

Exhibit two is my broken iPod. I have an iPod that can be described as bricked (as in so broken it’s about as useful as a brick). I took it to the Apple Store on Regent Street. I know, dear reader, that you might not be familiar with me, but suffice to say that I am currently wearing cords and tweed. I don’t want to make an appointment at the genius bar or, frankly, spend any time in the shiny, white, plastic bubble of sterility that is the Jobsian utopia which, frankly, looks too much like something of which Hugo Drax would approve.

That aside, it turned out that the hard disk on my slightly more than two-year-old iPod had died. They could repair it for £170; a new model, with twice the memory, would cost £180.

Apple, IMHO, must forfeit quite a lot of green credentials for that. No-one is going to repair when they can have new for ten more pounds; that means effectively junking the old iPod because Apple won’t repair it. Forget closed cycle; not only are Apple trying to sell another piece of kit I don’t want, there’s no recycling facility for iPods and similar that have gone to the great Apple Store in the sky.

Apple do like to portray themselves as having a certain je ne sais quoi that puts them ahead of MicroSoft in the evil, corporate monster league. Having such a poor attitude to repair, reuse and recycling doesn’t help matters; it would not surprise me if the aversion to easy repair is as much to do with preventing non-Apple approved people from tinkering with the little box.

I won’t be buying another iPod. If I do buy another mp3 player-type-thing, it might be an Archos. For the time being, a pair of headphones connected to my phone are sufficient. Since buying that iPod, I’ve come over all Linux, so it’s not surprising that I’m not keen on the incredible lockdown Apple uses. Besides that, Apple’s products just aren’t worth it.

xD.

Oslo, Heathrow, Westminster tube

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’ve only been to Oslo once. It’s a lovely city; I arrived, though, on a winter’s Sunday afternoon. The cold and the habit of Osloers of spending the weekend outside the city meant that there were very few people out and about other than a slightly chilly Brit and a group of protesters outside the Storting. The feeling, watching the paucity of cars and pedestrians, was of a city that had lost a great deal of its population in a past cataclysm and that the remaining inhabitants were too few for the size of the city. As I said, Oslo is a lovely city and it’s easy to walk around, but it felt as if a hundred thousand Norwegians were missing. The following day, a Monday, saw the return of life to the city and made it feel altogether more human.

I’ve had a similar but less pleasant feeling at Westminster tube station. Westminster tube is, for my money, the least human station on the underground. The exposed steel and concrete, marked in places by damp and leaks, gives you the feeling, if you go down its great maw towards the Jubilee line platforms in the early morning, of the human race having become troglodytes after the surface was rendered uninhabitable. It feels like a post-apocalyptic industrial complex built for an army of workers that are turning to dust somewhere. Clearly, it is designed to handle a large throughput of passengers but its open galleries, sheer drops and inhumanly large scale mean that, except during the busiest periods, you feel as if you’re on a Ridley Scott movie set. It is a vertiginous, agoraphobia-inducing and ugly building that makes us feel like ants in a giant formicarium and not people.

I spent last night at Heathrow’s Terminal Five. Although it has avoided the total dehumanisation of Westminster tube in fulfilling its brief to be able to cope with future demand, at night it has a similar feel of emptiness and excessive scale. The massive struts that support the roof are held together by nuts and bolts that wouldn’t look out of place on an oil rig; the cavernous expanse under the roof does make you wonder how many planes would have to take off to empty it. It feels sterile.

I simply wonder if it is not possible to design public buildings that can cope with large numbers of people, both present and expected in the future, that don’t make us feel like an inconvenience to the grand design when relatively quiet.

xD.

Statement from the UK science community on global warming

Posted on by David Landon Cole

On the Met Office website is a statement, I presume in response to the emails leaked from UEA, that reads

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’.

It is signed, in a personal capacity, by over 1700 people representing 120 UK academic institutions.

You can read the full list of signatories here. I’d post it here but at one name per line it goes on for forty pages.

Next time someone says that the UEA emails damage the evidence for climate change, you can ask them if the vast left-wing conspiracy includes all of the people who signed the statement and all the institutions listed below the fold.

xD.

Continue reading “Statement from the UK science community on global warming” →

In which the EU completely misses the point on headphones

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The European Commission is calling for a suggested maximum volume to be set on MP3 players, to protect users’ hearing

reports the BBC. One proposal is to have a limit of 85 dB, which can be overridden as far as 100 dB. This is a bit daft for three reasons.

Firstly, it’s a bad idea. If someone really wants to listen to music at an unsafely loud volume – say the front row of a rock concert – that’s their choice. If I want to listen, in my own home, to a popular beat combo at a high volume, but not inflict it on my family and neighbours, that’s my shout. You cannot listen to the Eroica quietly.

See what I mean?

Secondly, it won’t work. It will not be hard to simply remove the offending piece of technology – it’s really not that hard to join bits of wire together. Moreover, the 3.5mm plug is universal. One of its joys is that headphones bought in Taiwan will work on a CD player bought in Tennessee in my living room. This is eBay, currently listing over twenty thousand results for a search within ‘consumer electronics’ for ‘headphones’. In any case, it will just make people who do want to listen to loud music buy portable speakers.

Thirdly, it misses the point. Instead of going after people for damaging themselves, they should do something about annoying others. Specifically, by doing something to stop people playing bad music on bad speakers or bad headphones on the upstairs of the bus or on the train home. It’s really annoying. Encouraging them to go out and buy speakers to they can listen to loud (often shit, often SouljaBoy) music and stick it to the man is just dumb.

They’d have a lot more success if they just put a leaflet in with every pair of headphones sold – prominently, not folded in with the guarantee – saying that listening to loud music can damage your hearing and annoy people around you and here’s a link to the RNID’s Don’t Lose the Music webpage.

xD.

The goose that laid the leaden egg

Posted on by David Landon Cole

UK plc is not in a great state and today’s PBR is a recognition that recovery is not just around the corner.

We are in a worse condition than our G20 peers; alone still in recession and with three quarters of recession ahead of us. The question to be asked is why we are particularly affected.

Did Gordon Brown make mistakes during his Chancellorship? Of course he did. I think pushing PFI has to be up there; that having been said, we did have a good decade and independence for the Bank of England is recognised on all sides as having been a good move. With the wonder of hindsight, we might criticise the Second Lord of the Treasury for having stuck to Conservative spending plans for the first few years of the first Blair government; it seemed prudent at the time. General management of the economy was good.

What, then, has led us to this parlous state?

Put simply, it is over-reliance on the City. We were over-reliant on the City for growth, jobs and tax revenue. We thought the goose would keep laying golden eggs, so we didn’t support manufacturing and industry. Metalbashing seemed so twentieth century. There is a term for a country that over-relies on a single export – banana republic. Christopher Hitchens’ definition is worrying in its accuracy: “a money class fleeces the banking system while the very trunk of the national tree is permitted to rot and crash”.

If this crisis had been in car manufacture, perhaps Germany would now be worst hit, mutatis mutandis for other G20 states, with the caveat that they weren’t as reliant as we were on our bananas of choice.

All of a sudden, we have rediscovered metalbashing and decided it’s a jolly good idea after all. All of a sudden, we have realised that relying overly on a single industry is a bad idea. Pity that it has taken a crisis in the very industry we chose to make us realise that we were rather closer to a banana republic than we thought!

Let us look now at the architects of our downfall; where as the Spartan, Dracontius, accepted his exile, the bankers want rewards – from us!

If Labour made mistakes in its administration of the economy, they came from being too close to the policies of the current opposition and I do not think a further move towards laissez-faire is warranted.

I’m not going to be making much of Osborne and Cameron’s crocodile tears; the crash is as much of their ideological making as anyone else’s; they made the wrong calls in crises; and the last thing we need is a return to their policies for the economy. Yes, my party made mistakes; they were the same mistakes a Conservative government would have made; we were both wrong but at least Labour appears to be recognising the fact.

xD.