Worrying the Sheep

To paraphrase Jeremy Paxman on tonight's Newsnight, tribalism is indeed dead.

We are living in a world increasingly without difference, increasingly without monolithic organisations. We are not represented by large trade unions and parties. We are represented by ourselves.

Once, an individual opinion could only be amplified by an organisation with its own printing press, access to television and radio channels, and so on; a maverick would have to appeal to the wider interests of the trade union to have his or her opinion propagated. Now, anyone can broadcast anything, and the only criterion for wide spread is that it is viral, re-tweetable. A person need not ally him or herself to one party or opinion but be as fluid and free as the rain and wind, and not be troubled by the shackles of the party line.

Once, one might only eat food from a single region, a single culture or country, one might only meet ones own compatriots and those would be of a single religion and a limited spread of beliefs; now, one can eat, see, meet, do, and learn anything. We live in a world of unparalleled opportunity.

Once, in the United Kingdom, we might know of "straights" and "gays"; two categories which covered all of humanity. Now each one of us can learn and meet infinite diversity and infinite combinations of sexuality and understand that sexual identity is not objective but a social construct. Once, in this country, most people were, and would only meet, white people of an Anglo-Saxon or Celtic ethnicity. Now, any one of us may collaborate with anyone of any ethnicity from anywhere; and we may interbreed, and mingle our cultures. We can understand that race and ethnicity are not objective but social constructs.

The opportunities of our generation - brought by social media, by the internet, by the global economy - are breaking down all manner of difference. This is a revolution of social change, as extraordinary as the industrial revolution. This is history, taking place.

link

post comment

The Audacity of Humanity

[Apr. 26th, 2010|05:32 pm]

[

Tags

audacity of humanity, boundaries, inspiration, ubuntu

]

I want to introduce a book called The Audacity of Humanity. The Audacity of Humanity collected together of contributions by over 35 authors age 10-63 from 5 continents, of multiple sexualities, ethnicities and belief systems, and I am proud to be one of these contributors.

The Audacity of Humanity Ebook

link

post comment

Young Tory of the Year

[Apr. 25th, 2010|11:40 pm]

[

Tags

liberal, michael portillo, trendy, wishy-washy

]

Conference. Core values, real punishment for offenders, family standards, opportunity for individual enterprise, roll back the frontiers of the state, Michael's bold and imaginative initiative, and yes, why not corporal punishment, really crack down, young offenders, rules of law, and yes I make no apology, respect for ordinary decent vast majority, welfare spongers, as Norman said so clearly, individual enterprise culture, opportunity attack on trendy liberal educational wishy-washy to pick up on Kevin's wonderfully forceful point, sloppy thinking, sixties, in Michael's bold and imaginative values, standards, decency, family, law, yes. I make no apology and why not even perhaps, God and pride in country, decent ordinary sloppy people, vast majority of bold new initiatives, decent, family standards, core values, return to fifties, reponsibility, individual, respect, standard, values, and yes, why not, values, respect, standards, ordinary, decent apology, I make no standards, vast family law, and why not sloppy corporal God punishment individual decent spongers wishy-washy trendy family crime Michael values. Thank you.

link

post comment

16384 Husbands

[Apr. 25th, 2010|10:58 am]

[

Tags

bnp, conservatives, farage, fptp, green, labour, lib dems, liberal democrats, lucas, polls, psephology, ukip

]

If you marry a man tomorrow, and your husbands increase by factors or two over the next fortnight, you'll find yourself with 16384 husbands. Similarly, if there is a uniform swing across the country from Labour to the Lib Dems (let's say) of 5%, and from the Conservatives to the Lib Dems of 5%, the Lib Dems might have the largest share of the vote, but the smallest parliamentary party. And Labour and the Conservatives would take away less than zero votes in several constituencies. Models break down, as I frequently learned during my airfix days.

There *isn't* a uniform swing, certainly not for the Lib Dems. The Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, UKIP and the BNP are all quite large parties in terms of their parliamentary support, but are concentrating on targetting their efforts in a small number of constituencies. 25,000 votes is nothing on a national scale, but can be enough to support one MP. Awarded as a general swing, it makes no difference; awarded to a single constituency, it creates a winner.

For Labour and the Conservatives, with a large number of seats in which they are somewhat in play, it makes sense in a two party system to measure performance by uniform or regional swing. They have a lot of money and resources and their efforts are effectively regional or national, and they depend on voters as a great undifferentiated mass. For the Lib Dems, swing is individual and dependent on the seat. Nobody outside of Chesterfield would have predicted the Lib Dem gain from Labour in 2001; it was not representative of a wider national trend. The Lib Dem gains of Manchester Withington and Leeds North West were similarly unexpected in 2005.

Here, we have individual efforts at targetting - the Lib Dems may well take Reading East (not notionally a target seat) due to the popularity of their candidate Gareth Epps. Caroline Lucas is a likely victor for the Green Party in Brighton Pavilion; it is not beyond reckoning to imagine that Farage (how IS that name pronounced? Farridge, or Faraaaazh? The latter is suspiciously gallic.) might emerge as the victor, and a perpetual thorn in the governmental side, in Buckingham.

None of these are predicted by any uniform national swing. UNS is a lie as far as smaller parties are concerned. They campaign locally and act locally. The Liberals have always done this, and this is where their legendary by-election success comes from. The Greens, the BNP, and perhaps even UKIP are starting to learn. For Bob Candidate in Coalville East, national publicity isn't worth a hill of beans. A risograph, 6 leaflets in 4 weeks, and a handful of activists to man committee rooms is definitely worth a small mount of frijoles refrietos.

I've always believed in the polls. I still do. But I'm not sure I believe the predictions.

link

post comment

There is no such thing as the Big Society

[Apr. 24th, 2010|05:19 pm]

[

Tags

cameron, conservatives, ge2010, general election 2010, liberal, liberalism., lone wolf

]

Does anyone remember when Cameron was positioning himself as a liberal? With his "Lib Dems for Cameron" website, and his self-description as a 'liberal conservative'?

The strategy was straightforward: the Conservative Party, by claiming themselves the modern heir to liberalism, would squeeze Lib Dem support to gain popularity in the Conservative/Liberal marginals in the south, and at the same time seem moderate and common-sensical, and win over wavering voters to help them with Conservative/Labour marginals in the midlands.

So what happened?

Their great idea is the 'big society', a method by which pushy members of the public, amateur politicos and ambitious members of the upper-middle class might self-select to run various functions of the state. They propose that public services, paid for and accountable to the public, are not run by professional and independent full-time administrators, but instead by unaccountable volunteers. Is this democratic? No. How are volunteers selected? Who do they answer to? The Conservatives also propose 'national service' or 'compulsory volunteering' as Boris Johnson so memorably explained it. What role for individualism? What role for entrepreneurially minded young men and women who have private, self-interested uses for their time? Civil servants to be reviewed and paid according to their commitment to public service. Are they not permitted to do as they please with their private time?

The Conservative Party could have cleaned up in this general election by appealing to centre-right classical liberals. They could have made a centrepiece of rolling back the state: reversing Labour's assault on civil liberties, scrapping ID cards, implementing proportional representation, instituting a programme of constitutional reform, a clear commitment to a referendum on the EU (multiple choice, under STV), even supporting a judicial review on the smoking ban in England. Instead they have prevaricated on all of these issues.

This is not to say that the Conservative manifesto doesn't have some excellent points in it (my favourite policy idea of theirs is the online portal for consulting on how foreign aid is spent). But it waffles. The hunting ban is given more space than ID cards. Referenda on future theoretical transfers of power to the EU are called for, but not a referendum on the EU itself.

And, of course, the main theme of the manifesto is the concept of a corporatist/communitarian 'big society', which, despite being paid for and overseen by the state, is apparently separate from it. There is no such thing as the big society. Only the state, and its departments and agencies.

link

post comment

Third Debate Drinking Game

[Apr. 24th, 2010|11:13 am]

[

Tags

brown, cameron, childish insults, clegg, debate, ge2010, general election 2010, leadersdebate

]

Here we go, guys, the Third Debate drinking game - we're a fair few days ahead so this should be in plenty of time for you all to get the supplies in.

Now, obviously you can regulate your own tolerance for alcohol (and drink responsibly, etc.) by using mixed drinks of whichever concentration you desire. I think it's a bit of fun to theme them.

Your Scottish candidate, James Gordon Brown (yes, GB's real name is James Brown. He used to be the master of soul) is best celebrated by a good Scotch whisky.

Nick Clegg's half-Russian, so a spot of wodka (referred to, for all you Trekkies out there, by the Klingons as 'an excellent Human liquid spice') will commemorate his performance more than adequately. Of course, he's also partly Dutch, so if you are a masochist advocaat will also suffice.

David Cameron is clearly mother's ruin, or gin. No jokes, please.

If anyone says "I agree with Nick," take a drink.
...if Nick Clegg says "I agree with Nick," take two drinks.
...if anyone says "I agree with Nick Griffin," stand up, salute, and sing Tomorrow Belongs To Me. Then take a drink. This should be second nature if you're *SENTENCE REDACTED*

If anyone says "I agree with Gordon," "I agree with Dave," yawn and take a drink.
...if anyone agrees with Gillian Duffy, shout 'bigot!' and take a drink.
If anyone says "I believe in fairness," take a drink.
...if anyone says "I believe in Father Christmas," take a drink of eggnog.

If David Cameron tells a tale of somewhere he went the other day, take a drink.
...if he met a black man, take a drink.
...if he met a soldier, take a drink.
...if he met a black man who's a soldier, take two drinks.
If David Cameron uses the word 'prole', take three drinks.

If Nick Clegg looks frustrated and petulant, take a drink.
...if he sighs, take a drink.
...if he makes a sensible suggestion which is sneered at, take a drink.
...if he suddenly lapses into a heavy Dutch accent and starts mumbling random Russian words ("isvestya, vodka, pravda, sputnik") take half the bottle.
...if he smokes a joint, turns up wearing a Nazi armband, incinerates a cactus on stage, or requests that he's given his appearance fee cash in hand, phone Paul Dacre.

If Gordon Brown shakes his head robotically like a pheasant dislodging something from its throat, take a drink.

...if David Cameron makes this very comparison, take two drinks.
...if David Cameron makes this very comparison, then calls for his ghillie to shoot the blighter, take three drinks.

...if Gordon Brown grins creepily, don't take a drink. You'll be paralytic by the second question

If you want to live dangerously, drink every time Gordon Brown's jaw comes loose. The rest of your night will resemble 'Withnail and I'.

If any of them displays a sudden look of horror and exclaims: "What am I doing with my life?! Government and power are nothing but illusions, masking the real cause of suffering which comes from within! I have decided to pursue a life of simplicity and implore you both to join me," check that you aren't drinking absinthe, or something else powerfully hallucinogenic.

link

1 comment|post comment

navigation

[

viewing

most recent entries

]