The ID Cards Bill - What You Can Do To Help Defeat It.

From Iain Dale's Diary: The ID Cards Bill - What You Can Do To Help Defeat It.:

Andrew Watson of No2ID has asked me to publicise the final stage of their lobbying campaign on the Identity cards Bill. He's trying to get as many people as possible to write to Members of the House of Lords before it considers the Bill again on Monday 6 March. Click HERE and then HERE to find out more.

Technorati tags: no2id, house of lords, id cards

WriteToThem.com Zeitgeist 2005

I mentioned my MP is pretty good, right? Well, he's one of 29 with a 100% success record from the WriteToThem.com Beta Test - WriteToThem.com Zeitgeist 2005 (Adrian Sanders, 16th). I'm one of those respondents; only used the service once, I've got his email address now.

For those wanting to contact their MP, find out where they stand, etc, I heartily recommend this service. Some of the notable responses are telling...

Technorati tags: write to them, Parliament

What else are we for?

Repealing this lot. (Hat tip: Chris)

Coalition: what is it for? Where is it going?

Update: changed a few misleading titles, nothing deleted, for honesty's sake.

So, James and Joe ask a very important question and raise some valid concerns; what is the campaign for. By defining it as purely against Labour, James is correct when he says:

If there is to be a “coalition of the willing” on civil liberties issues, then let it be for real civil liberties, not a handful that Conservatives have deemed electorally useful to cherry-pick. Let it concentrate on individual candidates and politicians, tactically opposing any candidate who doesn’t sign up to X, Y, Z rather than letting individuals off the hook and supporting “best fit” political parties who subsequently will be under no pressure whatsoever to carry out their reforms.

We have to be careful to be in favour of something, not just against something. We need to be campaigning for liberty and reform, not just against the current government, we need to be a positive force, not a negative force.

So, as Bishop Hill observes here:

There are two strands we need to cover.

1. Getting Labour out (campaigning methods and tactics)
2. Keeping the next lot in order (Constitutional stuff, what are we after?)

I suggest we start with broad areas of principle and move on to specific issues at a later date. It will be very easy to get bogged down in detail on "social rights" or the right to bear arms.

For issues like this it may well be better to leave doors open rather than to try to slam them shut and risk alienating potential supporters.

And I agree completely. Consequently, the campaign needs to effectively have two, linked, branches, effectively operating semi-independently of each other. The first is a tactical voting campaign, starting with the forthcoming local elections and moving on from there. That campaign has acquired a [provisional] name already, it's nice, simple, catchy [that I'm no longer sold on, mistake].

Vote Anyone But Labour Tactical Voting Campaign

More on that later when details are finalised; I'm in contact, privately, with a number of people that are putting together nascent ideas. This is going very fast (there's a lot of frustration out there), but the worst thing to do is rush into something and make mistakes.

Next up?

Liberty Central

Unity already has this started, discussed further at Talk Politics - Where liberty is, there is my country, a nice little quoting of Franklin I believe. Nick Barlow has also suggested that a broad based Constitutional Convention, learning from the success of the Scottish experience, but also from other, older attempts; the US founding fathers have been mentioned.

Bishop Hill (Bishop Hill: British Constitution) and Chris (strange stuff: The new British Constitution) have already started a discussion about this, and there are others, specifically some of those involved in the Campaign for an English Parliament, amongst others, that are distinctly on the Right that have been arguing for a new constitutional settlement for some time.

It needn't, in my view, be a radical shift or a massive change in the structure of the country. I, personally, may favour radical changes, but I've read my Burke, I know that people don't like sudden, drastic changes. But I also know that

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

I wouldn't, actually, go so far as to describe Blair/Brown et al as evil. But they are walking roughshod over both the traditional constitution and modern liberal values of liberty.

We need to establish a campaign for freedoms, liberties and a redrawn constitution. It can, and should, include such other, established campaigning groups with whom we can make common ground. Liberty Central. Bringing them all together. Cross party, non-partizan in favour of those fundamental beliefs that make a modern liberal country.

Joe's right though:

There are many decent people in the Conservative Party, but there are many nasties too. So I have no inclination to give them a hand up. I am rather enjoying their plight, grinning smugly at Cameron's desperate spin

To which I respond with two points. First, from my post when Kennedy resigned:

Cameron's apparent conversion of the old Tory party into a modern, forward looking liberal party is a welcome, and necessary, developement in British politics. Those of us who looked on in horror at the old Tory government can, it appears, approach Cameron's Tories with cautious optimism; they are no longer at the top right, enemies of the blood, but at the bottom mid-right, enemies merely of the head.

It is esential, in the months to come, that the LibDems recognise the new shape of British politics, and look to a leader who can both work, constructively, with Cameron on areas, such as civil liberties and personal freedoms, where they agree. But that leader also needs to be able to strongly emphasise the differences, push that they're not both the same, that it's not a case of "vote LibDem, get Tory".

I stand by my analysis in that post, although I'm not sure I fully agree with the conclusion now. For both Joe and James, and any other LibDems who share their, legitimate, concerns, both read that post and comment here; we need to make a breakthrough, the LibDems need to sweep up the Tory votes in those parts of the country where they are weak; what happened at Dunfermline? The Tory vote collapsed. Why? Because the LibDems were the challengers. Third party squeeze is something the LibDems are very familiar with in those seats where they are the thrid party.

Now, the Conservatives are getting used to it in those areas where they are the third, or worse, party. We also need to ensure that in those seats where the Tories challenge Labour, that we (and, to an extent, UKIP) do not cost Tory victories; Cameron says he's going to ensure the candidates echo his "modern" values. Yes, I don't trust him fully either. But I do know that there are a number of Tories who do echo our need for liberal values. Specifically, I refer you to Gav, here:

the younger blood in the Conservatives would still have been uncomfortable with the party’s previous position on homosexuality, marriage and other illiberal policies.

and here:

The Tories are realigning themselves as the party of the liberal economics (as it was already) and liberal social policy (which is a major and welcome change). Pragmatic Conservatives are more and more understanding that the “Back to Basics” policy of Major and the unenlightened social policies of Thatcher were off the mark

He's a very vocal Tory blogger, but pretty sure there's a groundswell like him.

Yes, there will always be the headbangers, and I don't trust Dave to be more than saying the right thing and manouvering like Blair. Which is why I think we need Liberty Central. Let's commit him to things, and hold him to them.

I would like to think we can persuade the Conservative party to commit to electoral reform. It would be in their best interests given the way the electoral system is backed against them now. Maybe, possibly, it could happen (Gert has more). But we could at least get a cast iron promise to a commission and a referendum. And we can maximise the number of LibDem (and other) MPs to keep it on the agenda as well.

I cannot risk another Labour govt after this one. ID cards would become entrenched, the NIR would take hold, the basic principles many of us have been fighting for, campaigning for, dreaming of or writing about for years would be lost. Replaced by a centralised, authoritarian bureacracy that reserves to itself the right to censor and approve. Even Shirley Williams is buying into elements of authoritarianism.

I, we, cannot sit there and do nothing. Yes, this means being anti-Labour. Yes, this means campaigning against something. But we do it because it's an attack on everything we stand for.

So, what are we for Joe? We're for Liberty. We're for Democracy. We're for Parliamentary power over the executive, we're for decentralisation and freedoms.

We're for a Britain in which liberty is a central tenet. We're for those things we can all agree on.

Are you with us?

Technorati tagsearch: Coalition, reform, freedom, nanny state, parties, libdems, NuLab, conservatives

BritBlog Roundup #53 is up

With extra link to here goodness. Good stuff, as always, and some new blogs to add to the ever-growing blogroll...

Technorati tagsearch: Britblog, Blogging

Blair, Hitler and Godwin...

I think I've found an exception to Godwin's Law, Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry:

But once you accept his premises –lebensraum, the supremacy of the Ayran race, etc.- his actions did have a kind of loony logic. He meant well. Blair, on the other hand, is working single-mindedly for the triumph of Evil. Only when you have grasped this do his policies make any sense.

Brilliant, just read the whole post. I was going to turn in, but it showed up in the feed and I couldn't stop laughing.

Technorati tags: Blair, Hitler, Godwin's Law

Longrider moves, LibertyCentral on its way

Two brief ones before I turn in, The Longrider has succumbed to the lure of his own domain name, and is moving his blog; the old link remains on the blogroll for a bit, as he hasn't figured out how to import the archives. If anyone knows how, I'm sure he'd appreciate the assist, I certainly would as I'm thinking of switching to wordpress myself at some point.

Second, Unity comments to say the site is almost up and running; keep an eye on Talk Politics tomorrow. I shall be out for the day, I'll put up the shiny logo he's done when the link is live.

Technorati tagsearch: reform, freedom, civil liberties, liberty central

Interesting Google referrals

Now why, we ask ourselves, would someone from the BBC be searching for this: Peter Hain terrorism

Still, 5th after the BBC and TheyWorkForYou. That's not bad.

Technorati tags: google, blogging, NuLab

notes from a small bedroom

Well, nice to be having an effect; Pete of Curator's Egg (a non-political but worth reading blog) joins us political bloggers with notes from a small bedroom:

The key fight in the days ahead is no longer a question of left or right - the vital question is liberty or authority. I know where I stand, and I know what I fear for the future of my children

Welcome to the blogroll Pete, now all I need to do is reorganise it properly like I said I would...

Technorati tags: blogging, coalition

Coalition: Bringing the Right onboard

OK, Unity of Talk Politics has already registered a domain, so part 2 is in progress, completely independently. Link to follow, naturally, when there's something to link to. He's also said he'll post more on the subject over the weekend on his blog, so watch that space as well. Initially, I was put off the name by connotations in modern politics, but then Nosemonkey reminded us all of the title of J.S. Mill's seminal work, On Liberty.

Unity also stresses: On non-partisanship I'm please to seek acknowledgement that this should be anti-New Labour - lets not forget that there is a constituency in the Labour Party, like myself, who're just as pissed off with Blair as everyone else and have just as much to gain by joining the coalition of the willing.

We need the Labour dissenters as much as anyone else - not least because it will prevent us being written off as just a Lib Dem/Tory coalition.

Our aim should be for the Great Reforming Parliament - after that we can go back to business as usual on all the other stuff.

And I think I agree. Well, maybe not business as usual, but partizanship isn't always a bad thing...

In the meantime, Andrew of Non-Trivial Solutions comes on board with a series of very important points:

I, and I'd guess a lot of other young Tories, would be in if you didn't say things like this about us:

'he, like me, is instinctively opposed to them, but finding that even they can't be as bad as NuLab.'

Damning us with faint praise isn't the way to build a coalition. Still, let's write it off to teething problems as we all embrace the brave new world of tripartisan co-operation and understanding. That which unites us is far more important than that which divides us at the moment.

He is, of course, right. I'm couching my language bearing in mind the need to persuade people of the need to vote Tory, and why it's important to do so, to acknowledge they've changed. 6 months ago, to even consider voting Conservative was anathema. The world has changed, Cameron is making a difference, and Blair/Brown/Clarke/Blears et al are doing the rest.

However, an effective tactical voting campaign needs to swing both ways; we'll need to persuade the Left to vote Tory in Tory/Labour marginals, just as we'll need to persuade the Right to vote LibDem (& SNP?) in Labour/LibDem (Labour/SNP) seats. To a lot of people, that's not going to be an easy thing to do.

We have to acknowledge that and address their concerns.

Ideas:

i) Campaigning has to be very tightly focussed on the civil liberties issues we all agree on - ID cards, OTT terrorism legislation, the Civil Contingencies Act, the Leg/Reg Bill, and so on. You'll lose an enormous amount of support if the coalition comes out in favour of a wider liberal agenda, particularly on Law and Order. Us Tories still want to brutalise criminals with lengthy jail terms, punishment beatings and hard labour. Getting New Labour out isn't going to change that.

Agree; love the hyperbole there, but the point is sound, we need to concentrate and emphasise that we all oppose, those issues that we disagree on need to be left open for debate, but it's vitally important we don't allow a campaign to be hijacked.

ii) The coalition needs full time resources. A writer if it becomes a blog, a campaigner if it becomes a portal, and so on. That means:

iii) Money. Lots of it. We need it. Fuck knows how we get it.

Hmm. I think he may be right; if we're going to do this properly, we'll need someone actually concentrating on it full time; I know that my paid employment needs to come first for me. So, ideas? Potential backers? We're talking a civil liberties/basic freedoms campaigning group that runs effective campaignsfor the duration of this Parliament minimum, and probably organises events on the ground at the next election. Moveon.org is funded by members contributions, but the US has a much higher tradition of donations than we do; can we emulate that? Should we? Any other potential big backers?

iv) The coalition needs to be strictly non-partisan, except in its opposition to New Labour. You'll lose a lot of Tories again if you start advocating voting Lib Dem in Tory/Lib marginals, and vice versa. In fact, the coalition shouldn't even discuss that sort of situation. Even where the Tory candidate is a rabid Cornerstone member who wants to hang gays and publicly flog benefits claimants, or where the Lib wants to install revolving doors in prison cells and to legalise and make compulsory the taking of crack by 13 year olds, they'll still vote with the party whip when it comes to civil liberties issues.

Again, agree, and have already said so; I live in a LibDem/Tory marginal, in such seats, the battleground is over the dividing issues; we need to ensure that the campaign itself does not try to get involved in such seats. I would, of course, hope that Cameron can keep such loons minimised, and I've never met a Lib Dem in favour of dealing drugs to kids (responsible adults can make their own minds up...)

v) Learn from the failure of Backing Blair. Being too strident and too paranoid just comes off as being extreme. We need to sound measured and sensible. This will be difficult given that most of us throw phrases like 'police state' around with impunity. Just remember how ridiculous all of those hard lefties in the Eighties sounded when they suggested that Maggie's next move would be to abolish elections to maintain tyrannical power forever. And enjoy the warm glow now that New Lab are suggesting exactly that... See - I'm already guilty of this point. I sound like a lunatic.

I think he's right. As Katherine observes:

And no satire. With all due respect to Backing Blair (which I thought was funny), it ran the huge risk of alienating and/or confusing people who were just clicking through.

I love the backing blair site, and there's no reason we can't link to or even endorse such humerous endeavours, but the campaign itself needs to be straight.

Learn from organisations like the Tax Payers Alliance - non-partisan grass-roots campaigning, and gaining lots of publicity.

Also backed up by Jawbox:

I think Justin's right - this sort of thing is going to require someone who's worked on this kind of project before. We need to get existing web campaigns on various issues - No2ID being the obvious example - to up sticks and join the broad coalition, and at the same time any press or political coverage/support it could attract will be vital.

I think I agree; there are a number of single-issue or even multi issue campaigns that could back us. Some are however bound to be strictly non-partizan and may have problems doing so; we may need to only oppose those candidates who refuse to endorse a simple, agreed upon platform, to which Bishop Hill suggests:

There are two strands we need to cover.

1. Getting Labour out (campaigning methods and tactics)
2. Keeping the next lot in order (Constitutional stuff, what are we after?)

I suggest we start with broad areas of principle and move on to specific issues at a later date. It will be very easy to get bogged down in detail on "social rights" or the right to bear arms.

So, on point one; vote trading has been tried in the past here and in the US, it was anti-Tory when I was last involved, and Nader traders have been at it since for awhile. Not sure on the efficacy, but it's something to consider.

A simple, basic platform? A small unmber of key issues that we want repealed/addressed that point to opinions on wider subjects?

Backed up by a campaign to ensure Parliament is returned to its status as the controller of the Executive, not the other way around?

A rabid reformer like me can combine with a traditionalist and argue for a return to the days when Parliament was supreme and the Executive held to account by it, right?

This post is, of course, part 3 of the ongoing campaign to unite bloggers and others ont he left and right in opposition to the current government that started here.

Technorati tagsearch: Coalition, reform, freedom, nanny state, parties, libdems, NuLab, conservatives

Nation States: Build your own Blogtopia

Aside, DK got me back playing NationStates.Net, where I'm having fun building my own left-wing utopia. I avoid the forums from the last time I played, but the game itself is silly and not too time consuming, a few clicks per day.

Oh, the book is great as well, near the top of my recommended reading list. If anyone else joins, click 'leave the region' and then come find us in blogtopia.

Technorati tagsearch: fun, Nation States, Blogging

Yes, I am off work today, had a dentists appointment so took a days leave, am sat at the computer reading blogs and slowly downing a bottle of Bell's finest Scotch...

Edumacated readership - geeky interlude

Just looked at the stats for the day; two of our busiest days yet, this is good. Anyway, one thing impressed me. There's a campaign ongoing to get website authors, etc to acknowledge that there are browsers that aren't installed by Microsoft. There are even sites that celebrate people that manage to get above 50% of their readers using non-IE browsers. Well, since I've been counting, there has only been one day where IE has hit 50%+, that was when the blonde joke got linked to by someone on a fan forum for The Libertines (I mean, of all bands? I felt dirty)...

		Perc.	Browser Name	Version
	44	44.00%	Firefox	1.5.0
	28	28.00%	MSIE	6.0
	12	12.00%	Firefox	1.0.7
	8	8.00%	Firefox	1.5
	3	3.00%	Firefox	1.0.4
	1	1.00%	Mozilla	5.0
	1	1.00%	Firefox	1.0.6
	1	1.00%
	1	1.00%	Safari	1.2
	1	1.00%	Opera	8.5

I am proud of you all...

Technorati tagsearch: Blogging, Firefox

Coalition: feedback and where next?

Well, that's stage one complete, get peoples attention. Thanks to all the links people.

Now, stage two. Um, right. OK, ideas and suggestions received.

1. Bishop Hill suggested and John has expanded on the idea of a moveon.org style website linking the liberal left and libertarian right together. I like the idea, but not got the time (nor the resources for a domain name/hosting right now). Any suggestions for names and/or volunteers to set up/run/pay for?
2. Bondwoman wonders if the internet can help us facilitate changes and alliances such as this more easily; would we have been rid of Major earlier if we'd had blogs?
3. D-notice observes that Labour voters don't always go towards parties we want to get support. A lost vote for NuLab is a lost vote, but, um, still not sure I like where they're going.
4. Doctorvee talks about the need to defeat Labour as well, and observes the electoral system is completely against us; he's right on the latter part, I'm not as convinced as him that all Labour MPs are evil...
5. Garry the Curious Hamster is wondering if he could stomach voting Tory; he, like me, is instinctively opposed to them, but finding that even they can't be as bad as NuLab. He's glad he lives in a seat where it's a straight LibDem/Labour fight; similarly, I'm glad I live in a LibDem/Tory marginal. But given I plan to move within the next few years, I may have to bite the bullet
6. Quarsan at Blairwatch urges us to vote any way that isn't Labour; on this, I disagree, we have to plan a tactical vote campaign and make sure it's well publicised, splitting the anti-Labour vote will give them more seats than they deserve
7. Unity reveals we have similar taste in music, and then goes on to discuss the need to change the system completely; I agree, but in order to do that, we need a govt that will genuinely reform the system. That, to me, means as many LibDems as possible, and to persuade the Tories that they really need to acknowledge the need to reform things.
8. And, finally, Bishop Hill asks "is anyone listening to the blogs?"

Well, are they?

More to the point, will they?

The next step is two-fold

1. build a platform for us to meet and discuss strategy and promote candidates, a freedom blog central. That, someone else needs to do, but it's definately something I like the look of.
2. Study local election numbers; what sort of seat are you in, what party/candidate needs our support, what elections between now and 2009 can be used to build the momentum?

Other ideas/suggestions welcome. Essentially, we all need to get involved. Also, the Political Weblog Project. If your MP is on Our Side, we need to get them blogging and joining the debate. If they're not, we need to get the opposing candidates up and running. This does, of course, mean talking to politicians. Trust me, at times, I've called a few friends. They're not all bad. Honest.

Follow up post here.

Technorati tagsearch: reform, freedom, nanny state, parties, libdems, NuLab, conservatives

Europhobia: A bit of over-the-top historical/constitutional pedantry

Nosemonkey:

The handy thing is, as there's no accepted definition of terrorism, it would be entirely possible to argue (and a number of historians have) that the Glorious Revolution was a terrorist act. And please note the name. That's right, "Glorious" - glorifying terror if ever I saw it.

Sounds reasonable to me. It's not the first time we've discussed 1688 around here either.

Technorati tags: terrorism, freedom, NuLab

Huhne: talking my language

Anyone would think Chris Huhne had been reading this blog:

The new divide in British politics is between "civil liberties" and "authoritarianism", Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat leadership contender, said last night. Mr Huhne attacked Tony Blair for being "illiberal", and the Tories for being unreliable defenders of liberty.

I know, it's not just me saying these things, but it's definately the sort of thing I want to hear from a candidate and potential Prime Minister.

For the record, I issued the challenge and never updated; I didn't join the LibDems within the deadline, but I strongly suspect I will before too long. The reason I didn't was purely personal and financial. It may only be 6 quid, but when you're at the edge of the overdraft and the credit card is maxed out, 6 quid is a lot.

However, I do know who I want to see as Lib Dem leader, and more specifically, who I don't. Huhne, despite his public school/journalism background, wins. Hands down. He's a great writer, and more importantly, he takes the importance of policy and ideas seriously. I hope he does well, and I'd love to see him win. More. I'd love to see him in Number 10. He's genuine, he believes in freedoms and liberties.

Failing that, I suspect Ming Campbell will take the spot. At first, I was opposed, too old, too Scottish, too patrician. He's turned me around on that one, he can speak well, he can put the case, and I think he genuinely believes in what he says. He may be another two Jags, but they're a hobby, he's not likely to use one to drive a few hundred metres down the promenade bacause his wife's new hairdo may get blown about a bit.

Simon? The furore over his 'outing' didn't change my views. The way he handled it (badly) didn't change my views. I like the guy. He's honest (he Did Not Lie, if you believe he did, look up the meaning of bisexual and compare it to homosexual/gay), but, essentially, he's an activists candidate, a doorstepper. All parties need them, and he's one of the best. But as leader? No. Nice bloke, but not Prime Minister material. If the Lid Dems are serious, they need someone you can see on the steps of Number 10.

That's not Simon Hughes.

So, I hope Huhne wins. If not, Campbell is pretty much a shoe in from what I can see. If Hughes wins, the party will continue, and continue to pick up Labour defectors, etc. But he's not the leader to make the breakthrough the LibDems need. And, as the only solidly liberal/libertarian party, the country needs the Lib Dems to be strong, Huhne's right:

He also attacked the Conservatives as "fair-weather friends" of British liberty and said as party leader he would step up the campaign to defend liberty. "If we, as Liberal Democrats, did not speak up for civil liberties," he asked, "who would?"

Technorati tags: Huhne, LibDems, leadership, parties, freedom

Comments policy

Never had one, don't really want to have one, but we're getting enough comments now to discuss it. Preferences:

1. Put at least a nickname in if you want to be anonymous
2. Keep it civil, discuss the position, not the person putting it
3. Direct insults because you disagree with the post/commenter will probably get deleted
4. Moderate "colourful" language is fine, I swear a bit, but moderation in all things is good

A fair few of the recent posts have had long comment threads; this is great, but I hate having to say things Anon@19.05 you're wrong, Anon@20.50 agree completely. Much better to say Nosemonkey, agree, Bondwoman, disagree, Snoo, you're nuts. All completely anonymous titles, but at least it gives me something to talk to, and means I don't have to check the logs to see if you've commented before.

Doesn't mean a thing, of course. But if you're both anonymous and insulting, likelihood is I'll consider deleting the comment. Doesn't mean I will; being called a "statist anti-English twat" amused me so much I let it stand; statist? Anti-English? Right, decentralist and very English, I obviously hate myself and don't know my own opinions...

Lengthy comments: I'd prefer, if you want to really critique something, to do so on a blog of your own, and either trackback or comment to link. Comments are very welcome, but cross-blog conversations are good for all of us; building blogging as a form of dialogue is a good thing. Especially when you start getting comments from your local MP.

Still enjoying this blogging lark a lot though.

Technorati tagsearch: Blogging

Smoking ban and market freedoms

In this comment, BondWoman asks:

What I cannot understand is why people get so exercised about the smoking ban as an infringement of "civil liberties". That seems to me to be a complete abuse of the term civil liberties which hardly does justice to the work done by people such as Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela as *real* campaigns for *really meaningful* liberties. The right to pollute the atmosphere (whether in public or private) with loathsome fumes seems to me, whether you support the case or not, to be on a wholly different scale.

Well, I think I've covered it fairly well before, but summary:

I don't smoke, have never smoked, and don't plan to start anytime soon. But I have friends that do. I also have friends with heavy asthma who need smoke free environments. If you encourage pubs to ban it through [tax] breaks, etc, then many will, but due to the demand that will exist for premises that allow smoking, not all will. So my smoking friends can go where they wish, my asthmatic friends can go out safely, and I, as a rational actor within a functioning market*, can make my own choices.

I work in a small town in the back end of beyond. There are already pubs, with no incentives other than the market, that have switched to being non-smoking. Give them some tax incentives, make them advertise their smoking policy, make them ensure ventilation for staff benefit?

Prod the market in the right direction, let rational economic behaviour do the rest. It's not hard. It's just not a headline grabbing "vote winner". Oh, it's a "stealth tax on business" as well. FFS.

Technorati tagsearch: Smoking ban, freedom, economics, market economy, nanny state, NuLab

Not Little England: How do you glorify terrorism?

Update: At the top. Unity; read. Now.

What we have here is quite simply a framework for law-maling by propaganda; an attempt to define the precise parameters of this offence by banging away at the public in the press with their preferred definition - which does include glorification - in the hope that when the time comes and a relevant case comes to court, jurors will have swallowed their bullshit wholesale and deliver a precedent that suits their purposes.

Bastards. PaulJ, last October:

How do you glorify terrorism?

Pretty much no change to my opinion since then either. Lords ping-pong anyone?

Technorati tags: terrorism, freedom, NuLab

Indy: Blair's Great Deception

This and this. Which leads me to:

1. Has the author/sub editor been reading Tim?
2. Does anyone have any dirt on Oborne/the Centre for Policy Studies? While great, it's not exactly impartial

At work, read it at lunch, never normally blog from the desk but...

Technorati tagsearch: freedom, nanny state, Centre for Policy Studies, , Oborne, parties, NuLab

Getting New Labour out of office

The problems with NuLabour

The New Labour project started as a method of making Labour electable again, by bringing under control their less, shall we say, thoughtful, elements. In government, it has taken that controlling tendency further. It is taking control of our lives.

1. We are to be tagged, numbered and categorised; "unhackable" database?
2. Businesses are to be regulated out of allowing their customers choices with legitimate products.
3. We are to be subject to summary confiscations and surveillance
4. Our right to protest has been restricted
5. If they could, they'd ban us from mocking religion
6. But they don't want us to "glorify" Bad Things
7. The vaunted change of leadership is being set as a coronation
8. They're even planning to bypass Parliament and change the law by decree

So much for democracy and individual freedom.

In 1997, I wanted Blair to win. New Labour appeared to be a refreshing alternative to a Conservative govt that had been in office too long and lost its way. Now I want the whole lot of them out of office. It's not just Blair. Traditional Labour voters are increasingly alienated and looking elsewhere or simply not bothering. Labour cabinet posts are being filled by careerist politicians who have never had a life outside the political arena.

Building a coalition of the willing

I have argued in the past that the NuLabour has changed the face of British politics.

1. Blair has taken them from centre-left to authoritarian centre
2. This has forced the Conservative Party to embrace it's liberal/libertarian wing
3. The Lib Dems are the opponents of Labour in seats the Conservatives can never win

It is New Labour that is the enemy, it is the electoral system that creates the problem. To defeat the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems built an unspoken coalition built around tactical voting. In order to remove New Labour, we'll need to do the same.

Who's with me?

Bloggers can play a role in defeating New Labour.

1. liberal Labour bloggers can work within the party in an attempt to bring the control freaks to heel
2. Lib Dem and Conservative bloggers can emphasise the links between the parties, and persuade activists to put aside old scores
3. The non-partisan can continue to highlight issues and attack the govt on its record

Dunfermline has shown the LibDems can defeate Labour and capture their traditional seats in a way that the Tories never can. The Tories will need a clearer run in those marginals where the LibDems may hold the swing. The Labour "awkward squad" can be identified, and potentially left alone or not targetted.

In those seats where Labour hasn't a chance (hello Torbay), then such a coalition is not needed and would be damaging; the differences between the LibDems and the Tories must be emphasised, not hidden - this is of course essential to gain Labour supporters in their traditional heartlands anyway.

Defeating New Labour is doable. It's acheivable. But neither of the two main oppositions can do so alone; electoral mechanics say it isn't possible. I can't face living under NuLab past the next election. But defeating them won't be easy. Are we up to it?

Update: Follow up posts here and here.

Technorati tagsearch: freedom, civil liberties, nanny state, Parties, LibDems, NuLab, Conservatives

BlogCode: Shiny Thing

Tim has a new shiny thing, based on the very cool StoryCode, we have today the launch of the beta version of BlogCode. Alpha testing it was fun. Still got some quirks to iron out, but essentially you read a blog, you code it at the site, it recommends other blogs similar to the blog you've read.

For example, if we look at the entry for Not Little England, we find that it's similar (currently) to Harry's Place, Chicken Yoghurt and Europhobia, which makes sense, similar topics, etc (not sure about Harry's Place as top result, go get coding people). Quirk? Well, down at 71.89% similar, we have a blog called, um, Great Britain, not little England, which is similar to Quaequam and BSSCWorld. Which I also agree with.

It's still cool, and if a blog you like isn't in there, add it. The more we add, the more people code blogs, the better it gets at recommending them. Shiny Thing! I'll be adding in the code for 'similar blogs' later, off out now...

Update: Harry's dropped below 5th I see, and the two entries are combined. Yay! Everyone like the little box to the right with updated similar blogs?

Technorati tags: blogcode, blogging, bloggerheads, Tim Ireland, Shiny Thing

Icon credit to Innerbrat, who's more of Red Dwarf fan than me, which is scary, considering.

Craig Murray - Declaration and Publication

Just a brief one, awhileback Craig Murray's problems were discussed here and elsewhere, was going to shut down when I read the last few windows I had open; this and especially this are well worth the read:

Finally, you threaten me with the Official Secrets Act. I am confident I am not breaking it. And if you really want to ask a jury of twelve honest citizens to send me to prison for campaigning against torture, good luck to you.

As I said before, [maybe] Murray is nothing but a self-publicist, that he only seeks to sell his book. OK. That may, in fact, be true. But his book is telling the story of his experiences with an oppressive, nasty regime, and our govts complicity in keeping that regime in power. Even if he is only out for himself (which is not my reading), I don't care. I want that story to be told.

Technorati tags: torture, freedom, Uzbekistan, Craig Murray

Britblog Roundup # 52 with extra best of goodness

Well, the 52nd weekly roundup is up at that nice Mr Worstall's, always well worth a read, but this week with added 'best of the year' goodness. It seems my nominations weren't really needed, everyone and their monkey has nominated Nosemonkey (the post that got me interested in blogs and blogging) and Rachel (the post that convinced me it could acheive something useful). If you don't normally read many blogs, read those two posts, just because.

Technorati tags: britblog, blogging

Bright sunny day + The England Question

Just recently got back to the flat after a completely unexpected trip to see a friend, was rather nice. Would've written about the Dunfermline result, but, well:

it has wiped the smirk off Labour faces

Couldn't have put it better myself Paul. Gordon Brown's got a new MP, innit funny? Wonderful example of our tired government failing.

The two posts on Northern Ireland have provoked some excellent, and thought provoking, comments, and I'm very glad I finally kicked that can of worms; been meaning to for awhile.

Lastly, Gareth and JohnJo have both linked to a study by noted academic Robert Hazell entitled "The England Question". I've got a full printout, and am reading it through. It does appear to address the issues thoroughly, and raises many of the concerns I myself have been voicing; it is rather dry and academic though, so not something I particularly wanted to read while walking the cliffs of Bude. NB, I have read a criticism of the Constitution Unit as being "Government Funded". Well, yes, it's part of University College London; all but one British University is largely government funded. It also does paid-for research. Govts don't always like the results of academic research they've paid for...

A full review will follow soon; not setting a deadline for myself though, I want to make sure I really understand it, and possibly check some of his sources. In the meantime, for anyone interested in devolution issues generally and English governance as a specific, I strongly recommend reading it.

Aside: Gareth also has some pictures of some gorgeous ice sculptures up, well worth a look.

Technorati tagsearch: reform, philosophy, theory, constitution, England

Blogger playing up?

Is anyone else having problems getting posts to publish? I write up a post, I get a 'please republish your blog in ten minutes' error. I do that, I get the same error. But as soon as someone comments on a post, the problem is fixed and the new post is published.

Very weird, and rather frustrating. Ah well.

Oh, the new colour background is growing on me now, so it might stay until I write my own template from scratch, even if it is a little grey and sludge like ;-)

Technorati tagsearch: Blogging, Blogger, Gah!

Northern Ireland, the debate continues

Well, my post from last night has generated some comments here and elsewhere, and another post on United Irelander. Specifically, I've just had a comment from 'an deoraíocht' of The Northern Irish Magyar, and it's both a good one and specifically disagreeing with a number of my points; I typed up a response, but it's long enough to justify a follow up post. I've snipped some of what he said, as the full text of both would make this, well, too long; apologies if it's a little dijointed to read...

Hi matgb,

Hello to another new commenter, guess I'll have to get used to this sort of thing if I keep kicking worm cans ;-)

First, you're use of the term "Protestant ascendancy"- you need to update your history books mate!

The most recent Census in Northern Ireland showed that that the Shankill(overwhelmingly Unionist) ward was also the most socio-economically deprived, 5 out of the ten most deprived wards in Belfast were also Unionist.

To be completely honest, I used the term both as a short hand and a catch all. However, I've heard it said, and there are people (in GB as well as quoted in NI) that do agree with the ascendancy; it's also one of the reasons the province was created, etc. Yes, it's completely outdated, but there are still those who believe in it.

I'm, obviously, not one of them. But they are out there, it's not just a historical relic. I'd also surmise that there are those within Shankill that believe in the Union because, despite being poor, they're still not Catholics. They may be a dwindling minority, but they were there 10 years ago, I suspect they're still there now.

Now, I know you're not daft enough to think we all live in castles, but also the use of the word "Protestant" probably also is outdated, don't let what you see on 30 second snatches on tv fool you.

I do not, in any way, believe that all unionists are loonies, I'm actually talking mostly about why Britain is still there and why it was there; and protestantism was part of the reason we were there.

I am, of course, saying the idea of a protestant ascendancy is over, but that was one of the reasons for the Union in the first place. If one of the basic reasons is compeltely outdated, and others no longer apply, why keep it?

Note, however, I'm not talking about your perspective as a resident, but from mine as a 'mainlander'. We, it seems, don't want to hold on to the province any more.

"We (well, I) no longer want them, and consider them no more British than you; part of the British Isles, but that's it, Britain is this side of the water."

I'm sorry that you feel like that matgb, but it doesn't take away the fact that I was born and will die British. Your opinion on that matter is neither here nor there;)

You may have been born British; but you weren't born in Britain, merely a territory of Britain, part of the UK, an entity I, personally, feel no attachment to or desire to maintain. As, essentially, Westminster can, legally, change the status of the province without the consent of the residents, my opinion, as a voter with a Westminster MP, is very much her and there...

The proposal you suggest( and I know this wasn't your intention) has a whiff of ethnic cleansing about it. Troublesome group of people don't fit into their surroundings, move them out of their home and country regardless of their own wishes.

You're right, of course, a brief comment reply in which I quickly summed up my views doesn't do them, or you, justice; if I'd known UI would quote the comment as a whole, I'd have framed my words slightly better, but the basic principle remains.

Now, if you'd said that it's up to the British government and the Irish to prove to us why it would be in our long-term interest to break our constitutional link with Westminster, then I could have accepted that.

Which, if I was writing a full post on the subject, I would have. I'll give it a go now:

I believe that Westminster/Dublin need to resolve the conflict with a long term plan for the status of the province. Part of that plan must be to explain to yourselves and others that, essentially, we (in GB) don't necessarily care about the status of the province any more, we just want the problem solved. It is in the long-term best interests of all involved, but especially the residents, that a solution be found that can last passed the next election. That may mean a break, and will almost certainly lead to a change, of the link with Westminster.

Ergo, we have to persuade you, you're right. That's why I said it's not (yet) the time for a significant change. If it comes across that I was suggesting some form of cleansing, I most certainly was not, and apologies.

The essense was that if the settlement will involve a change in the status of the province such that you are no longer formally British but a citizen of something else, then you must be given the right to remain British if you so wish, and either live in Britain proper or live as an overseas citizen. I would not deny your right to be British at all.

I would remove all claim that Britain has to the 6 counties if I thought it was a valid long term settlement. I don't, currently, and suspect it never will be. It is also my belief that Westminster leaders are failing to be fully honest with Unionist politicians; Paisley (and his voters), need to be told, and understand, that when he comes on any media and rants int he way he is wont to do, he alienates more and more British voters from the Unionist cause; one of Nationalism's greatest assets is currently Paisley's outdated ranting; ironic, n'est ce pas?

The sad truth for the little Englanders(no offence) and United Irelanders of this world is that no matter how much you dislike it, the Unionist of N.Ireland are British and are here to stay. By all means use negotiation and persuasion to change their mind, but this kind of" they can accept whatever settlement we offer them" nonsense has zero chance of delivering a peaceful solution to the present situation.

And I'd never be offended when someone insults little Englanders, as I do it all the time.

I'm Devonshire, English, British and European; essentially we made one Union, it worked for its time, but now I look to a greater one. Cleaning up the mess our ancestors jointly made is something that has to be done.

Essentially, I'll accept any solution that gives us a long term settlement. I suspect complete autonomy and dual-sovereignty is the best option. But it's not my place to decide. It has to be a question for all the citizens of the UK.

I wonder, if put the question "would you give up sovereignty over Northern Ireland and end the United Kingodom" was put to the populace as a whole, which of us would like the anser most?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Formed by the Act of Union of 1800, as amended by various other devices.

Personally, I'd repeal the thing and stick to the 1707 Act, but that's just this bloggers opinion...

Technorati tagsearch: England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Britain, Constitution

And, having checked that twice, I give up on spotting typos, they're still there, I can tell it...

Template tweak- new colour scheme?

In a comment on the Monarchy post, Bondwoman asked for a black text on white background, DK replied reminding me why I've always preferred the other way around without remembering why; it's to do with photons on the screen &c.

So, anyway, thought I'd try his suggestion; I've saved the old colour scheme, can revert back easily; opinions? Better, worse, don't care?

Technorati tagsearch: blogging

Freedom to drink

Remember this? What about this? Remember the whole 'yob culture/we're all doomed' scare stories all over the papers? Steve's random and often belligerent Journal -

Steve's Politics update!

Boring sounding UK politics issue of the day:
Recently, the UK has brought in laws to allow pubs and bars to serve alcohol after 11pm. Before that, we were still using the rules brought in because of WW1. At the time, idiots more conservative members of society screamed that 24-hour drinking would lead to drunken chaos, rising crime and drink related deaths for everybody!!

The facts:
As reported in the Independent today, Serious Violent Crime has fallen 21% (some towns 42%) and there are 14% fewer injuries. Pub owners report that people aren't buying 20 pints at 10.58pm, and huge crowds don't hit the streets at 11.30 anymore. So in fact, the predicted apocalypse that the "liberalisation" of these laws would bring, didn't happen. And the benefits everyone else expected, did.

Conclusion:
Well, duh.

Independent article.

Technorati tags: drinking, licensing act, 24-hour drinking, freedom

To fellow bloggers: Isn't it annoying when you get home all full of the great post you're going to write, only to find some other bastard has done it already, but better? Still, worth quoting methinks.

Dangers of the Nanny State

Look, given this blogs tagline, I couldn't let a blog post titled Nanny State go without comment, could I? Cicero's Songs: The Nanny State:

Life should contain some risks- all of us have an unwritten expiration date on our birth certificate. The key is the find a balance- the "something must be done" brigade are driving our society to expect the impossible: complete safety, and to sue when this is not the case.

Agree completely, naturally, the rest is rather good as well.

Technorati tags: Nanny State, Cicero, blogging

4 posts in one night? Time to turn in methinks...

United Ireland? The English no longer care?

Well, I wouldn't go that far...
United Irelander: Top Ten Tuesday - The English:

7. Fairly objective towards Ireland's north - The English seem fairly apathetic towards the North these days and when the North is brought up, they tend to approach things with an open mind. In fact, according to recent polls, the English actually favour a United Ireland at this point.

Not yet, anyway.

For those paying attention, yes, the logo at the top combines three flags. Two crosses and a Dragon. No St Patrick to be seen. And yes, that is deliberate. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I'm British, not UKish. While I instintively distrust the likes of McGuinness and Adams, I'm not that keen on Paisley and his ilk either, both sides were out of order throughout the conflict. British Govt regularly touts the 'self determination' mantra. Anyone ask us? Keep 1707, that one made us Great. Get rid of 1800, we were never really United, were we?

Now is not the time, no idea when it will be, but I just don't care about 6 counties and the protestanct ascendancy. Never have. Not just because I'm an atheist. Orange landed at Brixham, doesn't mean I like the Orangemen much...

Technorati tags: England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Britain, Constitution

Muslim leader condemns protesters

In a comment on Rachel's blog, Steve echoes a question also asked by DK: "Where are the moderate Muslim voices? ". Well, Biodun's found one for me...

BBC NEWS | UK | Muslim leader condemns protesters:

Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way.

"I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people."

I'm going to mail a few contacts next few days, possibly I may be able to get one to go on the record. Possibly...

Technorati tags: cartoons, protests, London, moderate Islam

And yes, Blogger is still playing up, there are two posts in the queue to publish, not having a problem elsewhere, just here. Gah!

British pride: Govt gets something right?

Look, it's not often they do something good, so worth trumpeting it:

The "global gag" rule, as it has become known, was imposed by President George Bush in 2001. It requires any organisation applying for US funds to sign an undertaking not to counsel women on abortion - other than advising against it - or provide abortion services.

The UK will today become the founder donor of a fund set up specifically to attempt to replace the lost dollars and increase safe abortion services.

(via Owen and Gendergeeek).

Technorati tags: abortion, britain, pride, NuLab

The Monarchy: What's Cameron up to now?

So, Dave wants to reform the powers of the Queen does he? Remove the PMs power to declare war without Parliamentary approval? Check the prerogative powers exercised by Ministers? Dave mate, are you sure you're not really a Whig? What are you doing in the Conservative Party? Changing the way the constitution doesn't work so that people may respect it more?

Now, I'm sure I've heard this sort of styling before. Wait, I know I have; as John of the excellent Atlantic Rift reminds me, Blair came to power promising radical constitutional reforms, decentralisations and updates. What did we actually get though? A glorified County Council for Scotland, that can be overridden on a whim by Westminster, an even less powerfull assembly in Wales, which Peter Hain seems set on fuckig up further. Prescott proposed some White Elephants for the northern 'Regions' (when did England aquire Regions, anyway? What was wrong with me being a Provincial? And since when did Wiltshire folk have much in common with us Devon and Cornwall lunatics? They're far too posh for the likes of us). Oh, we also got a badly implemented and partially suspended Human Rights Act (which gave us nothing we didn't already have, just made it easier to get to), and, um, a London Mayor?

So, Dave is copying the Blair style on all fronts. Promise reforms, updates, changes. Make politics 'better' and 'more appealing'. All the sort of thing he knows that people like me want to hear. Exactly the same sort of thing that Blair said in order to appeal to people like me. Thing is, he's being to blatent. Dave mate? We know you're only vote whoring, we know the Tory party will commit to real constitutional reform at roughly the same time Satan has to buy some de-icer. Back to John:

The continuing failure of politicians of all stripes to admit to their own complicity in this one is a source of constant frustration to me. Britain doesn’t have a constitution, just a set of conventions that governments can ignore at will. All power resides in the Crown-in-Parliament and thus, in any government with a large enough majority, in the PM.

To blame the Blair government for creating this mess is roughly on a par with blaming India for climate change.

So, what's needed? Well, Owen, awhileback, summarised the reasons he opposes the current 'settlement' when it comes to the monarch, precis:

1. Royal prerogative gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive.
2. The monarchy has real political power to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister.
3. The monarchy interferes in our day-to-day political life.
4. The monarchy perpetuates the class system and undermines the proper recognition of merit
5. The monarchy undermines our reputation abroad and is bad for business (even tourism).
6. The monarchy makes it impossible to separate Church and State

As I've said as an aside before, I'm a convert to the principles of constitutional monarchy. I detailed them a bit more last October, in a comment to a post DK put up about the virtues of the monarchy:

Anyway, as a former republican turned constitutional monarchist, on virtually all points I agree. Two exceptions. 1) powers; she's not a figurehead, she chooses to not use her powers, because that's not the done thing. But a lot of the stuff done in her name by prerogative. That and she has personally chosen one PM and sacked another. 2) Tourism benefits; genuinely, an own goal royalist argument, you (we) have to not use it, a) Paris has no monarchy, but has great tourism revenue; get rid of the monarchy, open the palaces, increase tourism. b) there are some seriously good studies out there that show it has little to no net benefit, and may actually be counter productive and create a net loss to tourism.

Like I said; I used to be a republican; when you change your mind substantially, then you tend to know the reasons pretty well.

[DK-What, then, made you change your mind?]

A study of history, a reading of Burke, and specifically, a study of the democratisation of post-Franco Spain. By accepting Juan Carlos as King, the republican/socialist opposition that became the next government forstalled a civil war. By insisting on democratic elections and effectively insisting on the British model, Juan Carlos ensured the Right would accept the socialist govt; they'd sworn to accept him as King. Juan Carlos pretty much made modern Spain; he could've taken absolute power, but instead became a great King.

I hate US-style Presidential systems of government; if you're going to have a ceremonial head of state with no real powers, you might as well accept a monarch where you have one and simply make sure the system is reformed to remove the legitimate grievances of the republicans. I plan to write it all up coherently at some point. I plan to write up a lot of things.

Never did get around to writing the full article. Consider this the start. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of a representative, Parliamentary democracy. Such a system requires a ceremonial head of state. We've got a monarch, the insitution itself is popular. So we may as well keep it.

But the institution is deeply flawed. Do we really want the Queen to retain the power (legally) to sack the Prime Minister and call an election on a whim? The 'unwritten' constitutional assumes she (or a successor) would never do it. But her representative in Australia did in 1975. She has the same powers, laid out in the same way.

If Dave is serious, if he really wants to appeal to reformers like myself, then he needs to do more to convince us than throwing us a bone and saying the right thing. Ming Campbell is promising a proper constitutional convention. It's needed.

Dave? If you're serious, sign up for it, make it a genuine cross-party affair? Oh, wait, you're not serious, are you. You're just vote whoring. I'd love to think I'm wrong. But, um, once burnt...

Technorati tagsearch: reform, Monarchy, Cameron, Constitution, Conservatives

Pink Dog

Oh my. Pink Dog:

The world's first dog-cast

(via)

Technorati tags: libdems, leadership, funny

Admin: NewsNow, Syndication, Blogroll and FireFox

Admin stuff, but readers using a Windows PC should read the bottom bit

Blogger and Blog-Spot are playing up, wrote a post about the cartoons; now displaying. Shouldn't complain too much about a free service I guess, no idea what was wrong.

Anyway. We're now syndicated on NewsNow, which I've been using as a source on breaking news for years. I've also added a lot of syndication buttons to the right; can't personally recommend any of the services as a blog feedreader, I use LiveJournal, but they all seem to be popular. Open offer again; if anyone wants a LiveJournal syndication for their feed (which I recommend), email me with your feed address (matbowles at gmail dot com); we've got several regular readers through ours.

I plan to be reorganising the BlogRoll; I'd like to link to every political blog UK related, but, well, that's going to be a huge, ever growing list. As search engines don't like huge link lists (they treat you as a link farm), that's Not Good. So I'll be bringing the front page links down to about 50 (ish), and creating a spare page for the rest and the newly discovered. However...

50 is still too much display space, so I'll be using the nice CSS coding that DK pointed us all towards awhileback and embedding the lists in menus. Unfortunately, this won't work properly in Internet Explorer 6, which approximately 40% of readers to this site use.

Windows PC users

If you're reading this website using a Windows PC, and you've not installed software of your own to browse the Web with, the odds are that you're using the default software you get with every PC, called Internet Explorer (that little 'e' icon? That's the one). Problem. It's not very good to read the web with, doesn't display many websites properly and is a lot more vulnerable to security attacks than other 'browsers' you can choose to use. Specifically, while I'll always try to make sure you can read everything here, my coding skills aren't up to much, so fixing what I've done so faulty software can read it will be hard work. Much better if you install a better browser, doing so is really easy. Trust me, I managed it.

There are many other options out there, the Too Cool for IE site lists a fair few, but I personally recommend FireFox. In fact, as a specific, if you click on the icon at the bottom of the google ads to the left, you can get a free, easy to install copy of FireFox and, when you first try it, Google will give me money. All you have to do is try it, once. Fair warning though, there are some privacy concerns with the Google version, explained here on The Snow in Summer, and here in a comment, but as I personally use Google - and Gmail - all the time, it's one of those cost/benefit things, the quality of the product, to me, outweighs the concerns. You can get the free version directly from FireFox without the toolbar, but then I don't get any money!

FireFox is easy to use, and has many useful features (such as tabbed browsing, pop up blocking, built in search bars) and can have optional plugins installed to do many, many things. If you try it, and want some help getting it working properly, feel free to mail me or comment here.

Of course, you may be forced to use Internet Explorer at work, in which case, you could do what I managed, and talk the IT guy into changing company policy, the security benefits were what won my argument, but simple speed and utility benefits would also help. But, if you're at home on your own PC? Give it a go, nothing to lose except that little 'e' icon, the FireFox logo is much better anyway...

Technorati tagsearch: blogging, blogroll, blogger, FireFox, internet explorer, Google

Those cartoons: Freedom, offense, stupidity

Biodun asks why we haven't covered the cartoon fuss. Can't speak for Paul, but given my reaction is similar to Nosemonkey's, I'm guessing it's because, well, the whole thing is so overblown and stupid. A small, right-wing Danish newspaper published some badly drawn, unfunny cartoons. An extremist cleric reprinted them into a booklet, alongside 3 fake cartoons that really were offensive, and circulated them in the Islamic world. Fuss happens, some people apologise, people proclaim it a 'freedom of speech' issue, more fuss happens, and extremists stoke up reactions. Owen muses:

I am offended when the Pope argues against using condoms in Africa, even though they would help to prevent the spread of AIDS. I am offended by the treatment of women by Christian and Islamic religious traditions. I am offended by the way that Judaism treats homosexuals. But just because I am offended by these things does not give me the right to prevent others from believing them, or to try to stop them from acting in accordance with their beliefs.

He's right. You have the right to believe the moon is made of green cheese. I have the right to tell you you're a fool. However, I have to bear in mind that, by doing so, I'm insulting you, so I'll generally be careful how I say it, and the context. If sat in a seminar room, fine, if we're in a pub, you're drunk, and built like a brick shithouse, I'd be the fool for calling you out on your insane beliefs.

Just because you can publish something, doesn't mean you should. Those media outlets that keep printing them are, now, provoking more reactions and feeding extremists on both sides. If anyone wants to look at them, they're all over the place online. They're not being censored, they're not being repressed, they're just bloody stupid, unfunny and crap. A lot of the complaints and furore is being caused by the aggressive obstinacy of the need to publish them.

Extremists have taken control; embassies are under attack (and I wonder how many of the attackers have seen the cartoons, and if so, were the fake ones included?), lunatic fringe organisations are protesting in London. Lest we forget, Hizb ut Tahir is on the Govts "We'll ban them whent he legislation is passed" list of undesirable organisations, tis they organising the London marches.

Idiotic media types are stoking fires, dangerous extremists are stoking fires, and many of us are looking on and hoping the idiots will calm down.

I'd like to link to and quote from an article I wrote awhileback about the right to cause offense. I can't, blogger and blog-spot are playing up. I am absolutely free to condemn religion. But generally I find it best not to do so in the face of an angry crowd who feel insulted, many of whom probably have no real knowledge of the actual issue, only what they've been told. Muslim extremists shouting about cartoons, Christian "voice" complaining about a musical they'd never even watched, all adherents to a misguided delusion that there is some higher power to which they owe their allegiance.

People matter, life matters. The whole world is just being bloody stupid. Calm down FFS.

Technorati tags: cartoon, mohammed, offense, freedom, liberty, stupidity, islam

Anthem 4 England

Via JohnJo at the England Project, I followed a link to Anthem 4 England and mostly find the project laudable. One issue:

This is not a republican website - though some contributors to the blog may hold those views - it is a website arguing that the English should sing an English, not British, anthem. God Save the Queen can continue to be the British anthem, to be sung as a celebration of Britishness or the monarch, by the individual nations of Britain, or by the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish when they are gathered together as Brits.

Piss off guys. Happy to see it as a royal anthem, but I'd rather dump it completely for Britain, it's godawful (apart, perhaps, from the bit about rebellious Scots). Can't we just adopt Rule Britannia (which, I know, was written about England, but it doesn't sound like it) for Britain and Jerusalem for England?

My dislike of God Save may be a holdover from my former republicanism, it may be my atheism. But I suspect it's my dislike of crap songs and awful tunes. Anyone out there actually like the song? I know many support the sentiment, but the song? I'm right, aren't I, it is crap?

Technorati tags: england, anthem, britain

Google: Barder vs Barder

Owen Barder has been fairly vocal in his support of those attacking Google over their China decision. In a comment to this post, he says:

I used to like Google because they weren’t like all the others, or so I believed.

I maintain my previous position, as, it appears, does Brian Barder:

I don’t agree with these attacks on Google.

The best policy for dealing with authoritarian states which impose censorship and other illiberal restrictions on their citizens is almost always to encourage them to open up by maximising their contacts with the outside world, not by boycotting them and increasing their citizens’ isolation. In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, there were valiant and eventually successful efforts by the west, including the western media, to encourage dialogue with the Soviet leadership and with as many ordinary Soviet people as it was possible to reach, including official visits to the west. All these contacts were subjected to severe restrictions and censorship by the KGB and other organs of repression, but eventually they helped to build a critical mass of public opinion in the USSR that had gained some knowledge and experience, however limited and controlled, of what was happening in the outside world, and this led to increasing questions about why the Soviet people were being prevented from enjoying the same freedoms. No-one, to the best of my knowledge, damned western media and other bodies such as the British Council for fostering these contacts even though it entailed accepting KGB restrictions and censorship.

I see no material difference between that situation and the position of Google in China today. Indeed, the argument for continuing to encourage contacts between Chinese people and the outside world is even stronger than it was during most of the Soviet era in the USSR because the process of opening up China to the outside world is much more advanced, and continuing at a much faster pace, than was the case in the USSR until Gorbachev appeared on the scene at five minutes before the eleventh hour. Moreover the internet, even when subjected to inherently objectionable censorship and restrictions, is a new and potent instrument for fostering contact and for breaking down barriers, and it would be crazy not to make the maximum possible use of it to encourage China to emerge from its antique totalitarian regime.

I shall continue to use Google with a clear conscience.

Well said Brian, couldn't have said it better myself. So I may as well quote the lot, right? My employers are accredited by the British Council, we're actively seeking to improve our business links in China with their assistance, bringing people over here to improve their language skills. The way to remove a regime such as in China is not from without, it's from within. The more people in China are exposed to the rest of the world, the more likely that change will come. I, and Brian it appears, am hoping that process is unstoppable. Regardless of which, it can't happen at all if we simply disengage and boycott.

Technorati tags: google, censorship, freedom, china, chinese firewall

Nosemonkey: the EU is mind-numbing

The guy that got me blogging has a spot on comment as part of a post on Brussels, PR and EU politics:

Seriously - the EU is mind-numbing. Why else do you think that 90% of this blog's content is now on other stuff, despite being set up to be EU-centred? You want the EU to be reported, you need to spice it up a little - stop obsessing over petty legislation and pointless regulation and give us some genuine excitement.

He's right. I want to write about Europe, put the case, answer the criticisms, propose reforms. Every time I think about it, I get bored and decide to shout at Blair instead. When I want to go off and research things like the constitution and what it reformed/changed, I get distracted by shiny things (seriously, Firefly barbies? WTF?). Blog was supposed to be about equal coverage of 4 things; Europe, Civil Liberties, Constitutional Reform (including "The England Question" but mostly general updating and requirements) and events/party-politics. It has, of course, mostly been events and civil liberties; thanks to Paul (again) for remembering the topic and keeping writing stuff. Not really a problem, but, well, I'll try harder at covering the other stuff more.

Enjoying blogging (when there's time), and spending more time reading blogs than I do reading the paper and the magazines. Blog post like Justin's here or the ongoing debate between DK and Robert Sharp / Intifada Kid here, here and here are excellent reasons to continue blogging (and promoting blogs in general). Just, well, busy. However, if anyone wants to know what I look like, I set up another blog last night, mostly for my friends to write, all about playing toy soldiers and silly games. They insisted we put up a picture. I'm the young looking one sat down. That's mostly because compared to those old farts, I am young. Still, might as well use the domain name I've owned for 2 years, right?

Technorati tags: europe, blogging