I must say Gordon Brown has started rather well. Decent ministerial appointments, given the shallow pool of ‘talents’ available to him. And a few respected outsiders, too. I’m not too sure about splitting the Department of Education and Skills, though. I don’t think it will do much for a co-ordinated education policy, but perhaps that is not the point.
Anyway, I’ll give him a chance to see how well he does.
Sky News is reporting that Quentin Davies, a senior Tory MP with about 20 years’ experience, has defected to the Labour party. They read out an extract from his letter to David Cameron, in which he accused the party, under Cameron’s leadership, of shifting from side to side, of lacking principle, and of doing anything just to get elected. He also claimed that, under David Cameron, a sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda. All very true, I agree, and I have said as much on this blog. But it makes me wonder why he has defected to Labour, who are just as guilty as the Conservative Party of the charges that he makes.
I will write a bit more when I have the full story.
UPDATE. As the story begins to take wings, is it too much to hope that Tory political operatives will refrain from rubbishing the character of the man? Better perhaps to say a few words about how sad it is that he has gone, and that the party will stick to its agenda, whatever that might be. Something tells me though, that I will be disappointed.
Better that David Cameron and his supporters reflect a bit on how they came to be in this position. If there are some lessons they can learn from this, then all is not lost.
UPDATE 2. Oh dear, I am disappointed. Just been over to Iain Dale’s blog, and the rubbishing has already begun. Iain is certainly not holding back with the insults. As a former Conservative party member, I can see how this defection would upset many. But calling the man names? Speaking of defections (this time, from the LibDems to the Tories), Iain Dale wrote this in the Telegraph in March this year:
The trend is clear, but it’s only when a serious figure swaps sides that the political commentariat will sit up and listen.
OK, so why not sit up and listen? Listen to the reasons Mr Davies gave for defecting, and consider whether he had a point. It’s a far more productive exercise than denouncing the man.
For a few minutes earlier today, I couldn’t access this blog through www.beltoday.com. All is well now, but should that happen again, you can also access this blog through www.belisthinking.com.
How I wish the ridiculous Lord Ahmed of Rotherham would stop peddling the line that Salman Rushdie should not have been given a knighthood because, amongst other things, The Satanic Verses was insulting to the Lord Jesus Christ. A pathetic and vain attempt to drag Christians into his disgraceful crusade.
Leave us out of it. The thing is, as a Christian, I don’t care. Salman Rushdie may insult whomever he likes. Knighthoods are conferred by men, and not by God. It therefore seems strange to me that religious considerations should be brought to bear in the matter. According to the Bible, God gives his own ‘honours’ and rewards as well, most commonly at the end of one’s life. In doing so, he may consider whether or not Rushdie insulted him, and then decide whether such a one is deserving of an honour. I am content to leave that matter for God. There are more important things to think about.
So please, Lord Ahmed, leave Christians out of your distasteful battles. I for one do not care whether or not Rushdie has blasphemed my religion. And even if he has, I do not intend to do anything about it. As I always say, if you believe your God is real, then you do not need to fight on his behalf.
I see radical islam is up to its familiar ways. Salman Rushdie is being threatened with death (again). This time it is for having the temerity to be granted a knighthood by the Queen.
Four issues here for me.
First, if this is such an insult to muslims, why is it Salman Rushdie being threatened? Why not threaten the person who conferred the honour upon him? Despite widespread allegations of cash for honours in the political sphere, one is almost sure that Rushdie did not ask or pay for this honour. If there is any blame, it should not lie with him. True, effigies of the Queen have been burnt, but if the anger is because this man is being honoured, and if death threats should be made as a result, perhaps the Queen (or the civil servants who draw up these lists) would be the logical target.
Second, has the islamic world been in a deep slumber for the past few years, from which it has only just been awakened by news of the knighthood? They act as though they have been suffering from some collective amnesia, and have only yesterday remembered Rushdie’s ‘grave insult’ to their religion. If Rushdie’s ‘insult’ was so great as to warrant him being killed, I fail to see why honouring him would make him any more deserving of death. So, after the initial fuss, why no loud protests all these years as the ‘infidel’ lived amongst us? Why only start baying loudly when he is knighted? It is a desperate attempt to get cheap publicity, or even worse, to bully the West to conform to islamic values. It is, after all, already a few months since the last islamic ‘outrage’, that involving Pope Benedict and his candid words about islam. About time for another outrage, then.
Third, perhaps, just perhaps, Rushdie’s honour was conferred on him in recognition of his life’s work, and not just for Satanic Verses. Even if we were to accept (which I do not) that insulting islam is such a terrible thing, are these mad mullahs suggesting that one man’s life be judged solely on the basis of one act? That is a very stupid and ignorant way to think.
Fourth, this is not an islamic country; we can honour whomever we choose, in accordance with whatever values we think fit.
I have been reading the report (pdf) of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, which was published yesterday. Among other things, it considers the effect of immigration on integration and cohesion.
The report is rather good at laying out the perceptions of integration and cohesion from point of view of the different players in this issue; the settled indigene, the immigrant, the voluntary sector and the State. Considering the dramatis personae in this way led me to thinking about what constitutes a just society.
I took this train of thought because I began to wonder, reading through the report, whether it was at all possible to have a society which all the above players would agree to be ‘just’.
Of course, I know that unanimity is not really possible in these things. What I mean is, is there really, as far as immigration and cohesion are concerned, a framework of rules that can be described, objectively, as ‘just’, regardless of the ‘player’ involved. So can we have a society that is ‘just’ in the eyes of the immigrant, the indigenous Briton, and even the voluntary sector? I exclude the State from consideration in this question, simply on the basis that I assume it, for these purposes, to be ‘outside’ society, in such a way as not to be affected by whether or not the society is a just one.
This train of thought led me to Rawls’s door. John Rawls was a political philosopher who did much thinking on the idea of justice. In particular, he thought a lot about what principles of justice should obtain in a society. Rawls wrote that this could be considered under a setting he called ‘the original position’. Basically, the rules of justice were determined by parties behind a ’veil of ignorance’. Put very simply, the question Rawls postulated was this: ‘what sort of society would you regard as a just one, if you did not know what role you had, or what you would be, in that society?’
So for the purposes of this post, let us try this very simple thought experiment: let us imagine the following people sitting blindfold around a table: an Eastern European immigrant, an Englishwoman with roots in this country going back to the 12th century, a pensioner of limited means, a single parent, and a rich man.
None of these people know what their identities in the society would be, because they are behind the ‘veil of ignorance’. So, for example, someone at the table would have no idea whether he would be the immigrant, the rich man, the pensioner, or the single mother. The task then is this: considering that that they do not know which they would be, what laws would they then create to ensure a just society?
If, for example, someone at the table proposed a law whereby all immigrants were given free housing ahead of single parents and pensioners, and that this was to be paid for by very high taxes, it could backfire on him if he ended up being the rich man, the single parent, or the pensioner. He could only benefit from this law if he were the immigrant. However, the fact that he does not know which he would be in the new society, would force him to think carefully before he proposed such a law.
What the exercise seems to suggest is that there is a point in the middle where all the participants can agree; a consensus ad idem. It suggests that there must be a place where they would all agree that the rich man would not be taxed too much; that the pensioner, immigrant and single parent would be treated fairly according to some agreed criteria; and that whatever accommodation is made for them, it would not be such as to anger the Englishwoman whose family have given their all to this country, and who has never asked anything of the State, but the space to enjoy her country as she remembered it as a child.
So will the Commission’s report find that meeting place? I don’t know yet. I don’t even know that such a meeting place exists. I am still reading the report, and will let you know my views later.
I would like to thank everyone who voted for this blog in the recent Blogpower awards. I feel honoured to have won the poll for the Best Political Blog or Column. This is all the more so, given the exceedingly good blogs in that category. Thank you.
I encourage you to continue to visit Blogpower blogs, and to support them through your readership and comments. Within Blogpower, we have so many wonderful and well-written blogs. I have discovered so many of them, and look forward to seeing many more join us. For a list of Blogpower blogs, please check out my sidebar.
Just watching the Question Time debate between the Labour Deputy Leader candidates.
On being asked a question about education, Alan Johnson started bragging about how the quality of education has improved in the past ten years. To back up this ludicrous claim, he stated that the GCSE pass rate has increased by 25 per cent.
Does this man not understand that improvement in GCSE results does not necessarily imply an increase in the quality of education? It could just mean that the exams have been made much easier to pass.
According to the Daily Mail, Tony Blair is thinking of converting to Roman Catholicism when he leaves Downing Street. All well and good, if that’s what he wants, but a particular part of the Daily Mail story caught my attention. According to the story, Blair discussed with a local priest the possibility of him (Blair) becoming a deacon:
Mr Blair is reported as asking his confidant Father Timothy: “Would this be possible?” He was told: “It usually takes two or three years”, to which he replied: “The fact that I’m PM, could this make a difference?”
Interesting, if true. The Bible sets out the qualifications for becoming a deacon, and as far as I could remember, being the Prime Minister of Great Britain (or any other country, for that matter) was not among the criteria deemed by God to be necessary for this great office. Just to be sure, I looked up the relevant passage in the Bible, 1 Timothy 3: 8-12:
So there we are, being PM does not count for anything. As to the relevant criteria, though, it is for the Roman Catholic church to judge, whether, knowing what we do of Blair, he has satisfied the above conditions.
Am I the only one who feels sorry for Paris Hilton? Not because she has been sent back to jail. If she has committed an imprisonable offence, that is where she should be, so I am fine with that. My sympathy arises rather from the way she has been torn to shreds by the public. Yes, I can understand the anger when people feel that the laws are being bent in favour of the rich and famous. What I cannot understand, though, is the delight, nay, ecstasy, of some people in another human being’s obvious distress.
I have been reading the story on newspaper websites and forums, and following the comments left by readers. Most of the comments I have read from those taking pleasure in watching Paris Hilton being dragged back to jail, are along the lines of ’serves her right, the spoilt girl, she deserves being taken down a peg or two.’ So, in most cases, it’s not really about justice being served. It seems more to be about darker, unpleasant human traits: smugness, self-righteousness, Schadenfreude, and much, much worse.
The Paris Hilton case has revealed (although it was always clear to anyone who looked) an unpleasant and nasty element of society. True, the girl did wrong, and she has been punished for it. But answer me one question: would anybody who has been jailed, and who has the means and opportunity to do so, not use any lawful means at their disposal to get out early? It is up to the authorities to accept or reject applications for early release, and any blame for the early release should be directed at the officials who let her out.
What I would advise Paris Hilton to do would be to serve out with dignity her remaining days in jail. She should make no further applications for early release. She should repay every last coin of her debt to society, and then re-emerge from prison when the debt has been repaid. Then she can walk out with her head held high, knowing that, to her screaming and hysterical detractors, she owes not one cent. Were Paris Hilton to be released from jail without serving her complete sentence, this deeply unpleasant part of society will forever feel that she owed them something, a part of her soul, perhaps. They would make her life hell. And for someone whose life is lived out in public, that would be hell indeed. That, in my opinion, would be a far worse prison than the one she currently occupies.
Observing the daily chaos in my country from the relative calm of the Netherlands.
Links
