The Guardian Hay Festival

If you follow this link:

http://www.hayfestival.com/2005/archive05.asp
You can listen to a selection of fascinating debates and talks. For those of you put of by the Guardian prefix don’t be alarmed William Hauge and Deeds both speak well but the Economic debate is extremely good as is the blasphemy debate. All recordings start of with background noise and you have to fastforward normally about 6 minutes and then they start.

Question Time

Rather an innocuous QT with second rate MPs. If nothing else tonight’s episode highlighted and gave strength to the view that there is one panellist to many, they should definitely go for the format of Any Questions with three politicians and a commentator or relevant figure.
Usually I bemoan the presence of the comic; in this case it was the quasi-comic Will Self. I have enjoyed his Have I Got News You and Grumpy Old Men appearances and have also endured a few of his books (best read with a dictionary, reference guide and at least party intoxicated). He was by far the best performer with his deep pan cynicism and harsh truths. The best bit of the show was his first contribution where he said something to the effect that there was an impression in the media that Tessa Jowell was an intelligent woman and that he couldn’t work out where that came from.
Shahid Malik is a very unimpressive fellow, the labour party like to put him on the TV because he is Asian and relentlessly pulls the party line, it was so bad that you could see him unashamedly reading the brief. He epitomises a boring politician, I find it increasingly sad that the old labour war horses that would miner hats to budget day are slowly dieing out.
Then we had the conservative MP Winterton who I have never heard of and obviously was never talented enough to grace the front bench with his presence and spoke rather to loudly. Finally there was an annoying Lib Dem who could be admirably summed up with the words boring, unintelligent but most damming of all a Lib Dem.All in all a rather under par panel which is indicative of the QT nowadays, only occasionally do you get a panel that’s worthwhile listening to and for serious political debate Any Questions is a much better bet.

Ming Wins Gold

The question facing us all was who would be best for the Conservatives. The answer to that question was undoubtedly Simon Hughes however he was out of the race from the beginning.
Then we had in indomitable, steady and calculated surge by Chris Huhne. He was to my mind the danger man, despite the gulf where his personality should be he came across well on TV and his policy direction seemed to be on a collision course with Cameron.
In the end though we got the elder statesman, and I am relatively pleased. Outside the Westminster village he is inconspicuous, the young will be put of by an old man and finally he has no wow factor. He is to use the phrase ‘a steady pair of hand’ what they needed was somebody to grab the party by the scruff of the neck and define in politically (see my earlier post on lib dem principles).
Sir ming is openly left of centre and hopefully his association with the labour party in the 90’s will lose the party favour with the voters.
Finally though a word of warning, as a hung parliament is becoming a stronger possibility at the next election will the old scot again side with is old friend Brown.

Student Socialism

It is no secret that in the present climate (although things may be changing) you can’t be right wing and cool. To say you vote Tory is deemed to be an embarrassing habit that your friends do not like to talk about. The other day somebody suggested to me that to openly voice your support for the conservatives was like talking about masturbation, everyone does it and all agree with it but to associate yourself with it is plain wrong.
Why is this, why does the declaration of your support for the Tory’s induce a groan (and of course the usual array of animal noises from the huddle of Trotskyist ignoramuses). Whilst those siding with the labour party get an appreciative nod after they disassociate themselves with the war and those brimming over with liberal democrat enthusiasm are welcomed with a big hug the party which has won all the arguments and is one of the great stalwarts of our society is frowned upon. I was left in utter shock the other day when in a lecture the lecturer mentioned Lady Thatcher’s name and was met by a chorus of boos.
And now I narrow my attack down to the great student population of this country, how come university seems to quickly turn normal politically apathetical students with relatively main streams views into a bunch of socialists. Is there some process when you start university, which I was not made privy to because I had so obviously trodden too far down the path of the dark side, and I was thus considered a helpless cause. It seems to me ironic that as students enter and pass through there chosen centre of learning that they do not start to become figures of the right fore academically the right has won the argument. But no, they all shoot off to the left leaving us not with a National Union of Students but of Socialists instead.
Fortunately this foray into the murky world of socialism does not last long and most manage to cleanse themselves of the stench not too long after they have departed. However it highlights an indisputable fact and this is that the left is synonymous with the ‘cool’ and that the right is reserved for the lands of the weird.
The biggest misfortune is that there is no prevailing wind, no counter force. Most Universities will have well attended Conservative Parties but in my experience these are places where conservatives talk about their favourite object of desire, themselves. Once they’ve done that they will then slag of the Labour party and make a few jokes about the Lib Dems. The problem is they do not act as a vehicle through which the destruction of this political pollutant can be eradicated.
This is the reason why my sprits soared today as I stumbled across the Make Socialism History blog. An unfettered simple forum with a clearly defined goal, I feel that those of us on the right should feel strongly obliged to take the pledge to make socialism history and launch a full frontal attack on this evil. It is in our instinct to ignore socialists as a group of woefully misguided, stupid idiots who we are above engaging in debate. However it is this attitude that allows them to ensnare followers unchallenged. We should make it our aim to embarrass the left and ensure that the default setting of jo-average student is not some extreme left wing position but instead falls on the sensible side of the political divide.

Inside the british Presidency

This is quite a good half hour radio program on radio 4 which can be accessed via the bbc web site allowing you to listen any time.
It is essentially a behind the scenes look at the recent British presidency of the EU focusing on the Turkish accession (this is part 1 of 3).
Whilst unfortunately it suffers from the usual bbc left wing bias and doesn’t criticise the government at all it does give an interesting glimpse of diplomacy at work.
Also if you’re bored today’s Daily Politics show which can also be accessed via the bbc web site gives all three lib dem contenders a good grilling and shows them all in a bad light.

Liberal Democrats bereft of Principles!!

Like many people I find the Lib Dems an amusing aside, a glorified think tank with an eclectic array of anorak wearing troglodytes for a membership. To add to this mixing pot it has also emerged that they have a dark streak, drinking problems, revenge complexes, prostitution issues and finally sexual and policy confusion. The scary thing is that it could be these very people that hold the balance of power, and this outcome looks increasingly likely.
Aside from all of this and indeed the leadership contest for the moment I would like to address the issue of principles. The current labour government has always had a bad image on this front with the spin of Alistair Campbell, the mere presence of Peter Mandelson and of course the inevitable sleaze stories that dog any long-term government. However whilst it pains me to say this, when I look at the party as a whole and not just the top echelons of the hierarchy you see a principled group of chaps, woefully misguided and ignorant of reality but nonetheless they know what they believe in and unfortunately the fight for it.
Now lets take the Conservative party, whom have alas also fallen foul of the perception that they are a party without principles. Indeed there is no doubt that Camerons new statement of values is an attempt to plug this credibility gap as well as prove tangible change is actually occurring. The realignment of the party was always going to evoke these criticisms although I must say they are critics based on ignorance because policies change all the time, it is principles that are steadfast and from which we build polices which may vary a great deal. Despite all this if you step back, like with the labour party and look at the whole entity and you see a party steeped in principled history and effectual resolute governments.
Finally now we come onto the Liberal Democrats, the party who attempts to portray itself as the bastions of principle and the vanguards of truth ‘The real Alternative’. What then of these men in shinning armour, how to they rate on my principles review. Well as you may have already guessed, poorly. This judgment is based around one point and one alone and it is the positioning of the party. With the Tory’s you have the moderate or centre right and then some out on the far right. Those who find themselves out on the peripheries share the same views and principles as those occupying the centre right but just extrapolate out the polices to a more extreme state. The same of course can be said of the labour party and their party’s extreme wings, they all have the same foundation of principles but some are just go further when drawing up policies. The Liberal Democrats have a problem because those to the left of the party and literally ‘left wing’ politicians and those to the right are literally ‘right wing’ politicians and there is a world of difference between the two. To my mind a centre left labour politician has more in common with Tony Benn lets say than a centre right wing politician who conversely will have more in common with Lord Tebbit. The reason for this has already been mentioned, it is because to define yourself on the left you have a completely different set of principles to those on the right despite the fact your ultimate aims may be very much aligned. The Liberal Democrats can’t make up their mind and that is why CK was such a good leader because he would avoid the question with a joke but the new leader will eventually have to take the plunge and at that point their votes will start to seep back to the two main parties.
Another point of particular annoyance for me is how the Liberal Democrats somehow seem to think they are the Liberal party of old (our best election result for 80 years ect…) it seems to be ludicrous and they do nothing but sully the great party of Gladstone and Asquith by their association.

Threatened Already

The power of the Internet as a communicative entity never seizes to amaze me. I set up this blog only a few days ago and have received some appreciated traffic mainly from conservative-home. However little did I think that after having written a handful of posts that I would receive a small barrage of threatening letters.
At 5:30 according to the blog I posted a piece in support of the pro vivisection lobby (see below). I then went and had dinner where I picked up a copy of the Daily Mail (a paper that I don’t have much for) and read about a boy who has been sent death threats a day after starting up a pro vivisection site. Therefore you will appreciate my amazement when upon my return I found that I had already received three threatening e-mails.
Perhaps when one voices ones views publicly you should expect this but considering the fact this blog is new and quite unknown I was somewhat surprised. Paradoxically I must say the e-mails have rather buoyed me up because any response is appreciate and it is nice to know somebody is actually bothering to read your stuff. Furthermore the irony is not lost on me, just how the extremist Muslims protested against Mohamed being portrayed as a terrorist by dressing up as terrorists so to these e-mailers protest at the notion they are nothing but fear mongering thugs by sending e-mails of that nature.
Animal testing is not an issue on which I feel particular passion other than being broadly in favour although these e-mailers have done nothing but strengthen my resolve and encouraged me to help in their demise.
If they had sent an e-mail outlining their views and arguments against animal testing and why I was wrong I would have welcomed the debate. I don’t suggest that they would have changed my mind but I always enjoy a logical argument and they may have won my sympathies. As it stands they have done nothing other than cement my opinion.

Animal Testing

The hunting ground for the now infamous anti-vivisection campaign groups has settled itself around the £18 million biomedical research laboratory in Oxford.
The first point I would like to make laying aside which side of this perpetual argument you chose to fall is the atrocious actions of the anti-vivisection lobbyists whom seem to dominate the headlines with their continued threats of violence and lack of benevolence to anyone even associated with Oxford. I was down debating at Oxford University only a few weeks ago and could not believe my eyes with the contempt these people show to normal student that do not even take any interest in the lab and may even be sympathetic with their views. There actions include insulting taunts and regular spitting at passers by, this leads me to ponder what actions they take under the cover of darkness. I have been left wondering why none of them have been convicted under the incitement to violence laws or indeed just for there threatening behaviour but there you go such is the world.
However I was pleased to see the students and people of Oxford rise up this weekend and fight back with an impressively attended peaceful march which provided beautiful juxtaposition with the crackpots outside the lab. Furthermore I was pleased to see some of the top academics in the field also show considerable bravery and talk in favour of the lab and put the argument in real perspective.
Never should a vocal despotic few be aloud to dictate the agenda with the tool of fear and I am glad the march was organised and I strongly suspect it was attended not just by those in favour of animal testing but also by those with indifference towards the issue but steadfastly resolve in terms of their condemnation of the anti-vivisections campaigning techniques.

The following websites represent the two sides of this argument:

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/
http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/

Radio Show: David Irving The London Trial

I have just listened to a fascinating radio program:

David Irving: The London Trial
Hear the story of David Irving's libel trial defeat.

You can listen to it any time from the BBC Radio 4 web Site. It has interviews from Irving, the judge, the prosecution and key witnesses and is well worth half an hour of your time.

Concerning his recent imprisonment for being a holocaust denier I find myself on the side of those against the Austrian Law. It is my belief that his ultimate punishment is not jail but academic humiliation. On this point I could hardly believe Theresa Villiers recent statement on Question Time that a law akin to that of the Austrian one should be legislated for in the UK. The idea is ludicrous firstly because making an opinion however crazy illegal is fundamentally wrong and secondly because the holocaust is not a unique demonstration of human wickedness and are we to legislate against all denials of past atrocities.
Her views were especially surprising due to the fact the conservatives are working so hard to be the vanguards of free speech in the face of an authoritarian government.
However I wont lose any sleep over Irving’s imprisonment and it’s probably what he disserves.

Blair: “I don't destroy liberties, I protect them”

When the prime minister of our country pens an article for a Sunday newspaper and fails to make the front-page it poses a few questions. This embarrassment for the PM is only increased when you find the Observer found room for Nancy Dell'Olio on its cover.
Perhaps the reason the article was hidden within the paper was the fact the title was bit too ironic: “I don't destroy liberties, I protect them”. It is insulting and annoying that a man who has become one of the main erosion forces as far as our civil liberties are concerned can stand up and say this.
A real bone of contention with me in relation to recent anti terrorism laws that have been passed is that one of the main arguments new labour uses is “those who don’t support our measures are playing politics with peoples lives and don’t fully understand the situation”. This point was driven home for me about a week ago when on the daily politics some labour backbench lobby fodder accused the conservatives of playing politics with terrorism and he was asked if he had endured years of blown up cars, deaths of ministers and injury to family members and so on. He of course replied no and then when pushed and asked to retract the comment considering that most of the conservative front bench had suffered at least indirectly as a result of terrorism he still piped out the party line. The thought that Conservatives, Lib Dems and a few brave labour chaps would risk peoples lives to defeat the government on a small clause that will be forgotten in a few weeks time is just stupid.
I have also noted a trend with all the recent legislation. The government publishes the white paper, the other parties and legal profession make sensible suggestions, the Home Secretary voices promising compromising rhetoric, all is going well and then the PM nails his colours to the mast thus forcing the Home Secretary to attempt to force through rubbish legislation.

Blair’s article: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/comment/0,,1718228,00.html

Buy Danish

As the cartoon row somehow seems to stammer along with little loss of momentum I still am left in awe at the boycott of Danish goods. Leaving aside the cartoons why on earth should a nation be made to suffer for the actions of one non-descript cartoonist. Hopefully the actions of the Muslim countries won’t affect Denmark too much (their main exports being beer and pork does help them).
Unfortunately in this modern world which we occupy I now feel in necessary to point out that I don’t have any ulterior motives nor am I trying to be anti Islamic by the back door, I in fact have great respect for the religion it’s just that there is no reason in logic for them to boycott Danish goods.On the subject of the cartoons I find myself in the disbelief camp as far as the reaction goes and really think that the Ricky Gervais motto of ‘get over it’ is appropriate.

This is a good article on the topic by Hitchens:

http://www.slate.com/id/2136714/

Smoking Ban

We now know that smoking will definitely be banned in all pubs, restaurants, private member clubs and so on. This question of banning smoking left me in somewhat of a predicament in so far as I have conflicting instincts on the subject.
I always start from the presumption that to legislate on issues such as this should only be done if absolutely necessary and couple this with my free market instincts a yes vote would seem unlikely. A sensible free market argument would say that if there is demand for non smoking pubs ect.. they will naturally come into being and in my experience there is evidence to support this. Secondly if smoking is a legal pass time why should people not be able to do it where they like? Furthermore instead of legislation why not increase disincentive taxes.
When the Irish government introduced their ban they argued, as did the Scottish and now the Westminster parliament that they were legislating to protect the workers. Now this is the argument that carries weight with me, I do not believe that non-smokers who enter smoky environments should kick up a fuss but workers who rely on their job are forced to suffer an unjust externality should indeed be protected. It is this reason that an idea of a smoking areas or allowing private member clubs to continue a smoking policy is nonsensical and thus if we are to ban it, it should be an outright ban. There is the argument that workers are not forced into their jobs and the buoyant labour market and low unemployment figures that the labour hierarchy like to boast about proves they could work else where. However in reality I think we all appreciate it is much easier said than done.
My conclusion on this vote would be that I would have gone for an outright ban to protect workers, to speed up what the market is naturally dictating and finally for a personal reason in that I won’t come home after an evening out smelling of smoke.
As an aside I would like to draw attention to the appalling way the government went about the whole debate and my displeasure stops at my namesakes door Miss Hewitt. Her cabinet weakness, followed by her patronising series of denials and finally that fact she voted against her own legislation show her true colours.

Introduction