The Bewilderness

103 and Counting...

Now that the Iraqi insurgency has achieved the reaction that it sought, and the Shi'a thugocracy that the Blairites appeased in the south, shades of Sinn Fein looking on, has turned hostile, will we see the death toll rise?:

The latest casualties bring the number of British troops killed during operations in Iraq to 103.

The soldiers were killed as at least 31 people died and many were injured by three bomb attacks in Baghdad, just a day after a curfew imposed following violence was lifted.

The war has lost its edge in the media. Too few casualties in a land far away. Just another expeditionary force slogging it out in the hinterlands of oil and chaos.

No government likes an unpopular war, but persistence pays dividends, especially if the outcome is tough guy triple xxx. Reid is the latest to posture for the musclebuilding media. No macho leather accessories though. But if developments  hit home, driving the oil price up and flowing coffins, then the war will again become a blip on the cathode ray tube. Slack jawed Cameron will prove rather effete in war mode: my prediction.

The Dog's Breakfast

What distinguishes a bill that is the dog's bollix from a bill that is the dog's breakfast? One word: repeal.  We do know that the current Education Bill has proved resistant to the charms of the unreconstructed public sector professionals, the constituency of choice for all political parties. Neither the Liberal Democrats nor Labour find consumers exercising choice attractive, if it undermines the teaching unions. Cloaking interest  under the bubblewrap of  social justice, they  have diluted  this anaemic  step towards reform.

The Conservatives have decided that they will support the Bill and put forward amendments to strengthen parental choice. Their support for trusts and competition between schools at least places them upon the right side of the debate. Labour is in a cleft stick. The BBC lovingly quotes from the research of Professor John Coldron of Sheffield Hallam, who undertook a survey in 2000, that appeared to demonstrate most parents gained the school of their choice. His research did conclude that they may have made rational choices for their children:

His research - conducted with the Office for National Statistics - found that 92% of parents did obtain a place for their child at their first choice school.

However, the figure for those who obtained a place at their most preferred school was 85%.

This suggests some parents were strategically selecting a school they felt their child had more chance of getting into, even though it was not the one they really wanted.

It also suggests that a proportionately small number of over-subscribed schools may lie at the heart of the current controversy over admissions and parental choice, since all parents are assigned their first choice school if it has available places.

Coldron argues that the reforms would worsen choice as schools could not rely upon the wise guidance of LEA planning and admissions policy. His telling quote nails his colours:

He said his previous research suggested that schools which run their own parental appeals conducted them less well than schools which receive guidance and support from either the local authority or a church diocese.

"This is symptomatic of what happens when you take schools out of their support structure.

"Most schools do appreciate the support of the local education authority.

"Schools need it, so they are not left to drift," he said.

The functional illiteracy fostered within our schools must be a mere byproduct of this wonderful system. Schools must not be allowed to "drift" or take independent decisions, as some might excel and start to educate their pupils. God forbid!

Exhortation or Expectoration

As the European Constitution was thrown into question during the ratification process, few politicians in the Member States or the central institutions have used the 'period of reflection' to recast the question. Rhetoric on radical change has not heated a debate which revolves around asking those countries which have not ratified to ensure that the Constitution is passed. This unrealistic approach includes new methods to legitimate the foundational nature of the document such as a Union wide referendum to recognise, or conjure up, a European demos. As such, there are passing nods and glances on the urgency of achieving the Constitutional ratification every few days.

The calm that set in after the EU constitution was rejected at the referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005 needs to end as soon as possible, European Parliament President Josep Borrell and FM Dimitrij Rupel [of Slovenia] agreed on Monday, 20 February.

According to the Foreign Ministry, the pair stressed the importance of informing the EU citizens about the constitution and the role national parliaments should play in the communication chain.

France is also consolidating its reputation in the bloc. After obtaining a reduction of the United Kingdom's rebate without a comparable dent in the Common Agricultural Policy, Chirac has suggested further ways of strengthening Europe's global role within existing treaty structures. This meets with France's long-term goal of multipolarity and plays well in the European Parliament where the budget agreed by the Member States has run into difficulty.

An ambitious programme of EU initiatives, from boosting foreign policy and disaster relief to building common energy stocks and education programmes, is to be proposed by France.

These will be far less popular in the United Kingdom, where Chiracism has already left a bad taste.

A key proposal will be to boost the powers of EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana under the current treaty – possibly even creating a European diplomatic service.

France will also take credit for Europe’s move towards a common EU energy policy – with proposals set to be discussed by heads of state and government on March 23.

Other eye-catching proposals will see France urge more spending on European education exchange programmes and calls for "EU lessons" as part of civic education classes in secondary schools.

Continued integration under the existing treaty structures was a resource that politicians would inevtiably utilise. The arrow points only one way  still.

Lord Dalrymple (Part 2)

Way back last week, I recommended that the British Blogosphere organise around a particular candidate and seek to have them elevated to the House of Lords.

Why?  Well, what kicked me into action was this column in the Times on 16th of February.  England Expects quoted another section from it, but didn't post link.  (As an aside, yeah, you're right, you aren't supposed to wait 10 days before write a blog post.  So sue me )

Daniels writes the following:

We also live in a propaganda state. No one believes what a government official says any longer because he is assumed to be a liar, ex officio as it were, even when he is telling the truth. We assume that all official information is self-exculpating, self-congratulating or self-glorifying in intent, that all official speech is therefore spin or political advertising. Those of us who work in the NHS — not a small number — receive expensively produced glossy publications from our employers, full of photographs of happy, smiling workers meeting happy, smiling customers, at the very same time as drastic cuts must be implemented to meet burgeoning debts and there are patients in casualty who have been waiting for hours for admission. One is reminded of the Stalinist images of flaxen-haired peasant maidens serving at banquet tables groaning with food of every description that were disseminated to the world in the midst of one of the most severe famines in history.

For this insight alone, we need to give this man a national platform. 

Debate in Progress

The price of houses in Britain, and the future trend there-of, is a frequent talking point.  Rightmove is apparently the dominant website for houses in Britain, and has compiled an index on the price of housing.  This index is frequently reported in the national newspapers, and the BBC.  An example of BBC story is available here

There is another view.  House Price Crash represents that market segment which either take the view that the market is over-bought, or are priced out.  They are casting a sceptical and partisan eye over the composition of the Rightmove price index in  this discussion thread.

The allegations against the Rightmove index are the following:

1. The index appears to ignore misquotes. 

   The index includes some properties are simply priced incorrectly.  The filter is that they ignore properties a certain number of standard deviations from the mean.  One example is property listed at £130 million.  Such a property would move both standard deviation and mean for the month of listing. The HPC forum turns up large numbers of high-prices properties (as well as a number of properties advertised at £0.)

2. Multiple property portfolios appear to be priced as a single property for the index.

   Again, these might be ignored by the standard deviation filter, but would move the parameters for the filter.

3. The index ignores price reductions. 

   This is a somewhat subtle.  What Rightmove does is simply index new listings.  This obviously avoids the awkward subject of price reductions, but is a reasonable way to measure "this month" activity.  However, the allegation is that Rightmove does not even include price reductions during the month of measurement, and would mean (if correct) that their index is a measure of seller optimism rather than market conditions.

This is going to be topical.  HPC is going to be very noisy suggesting that there is vested interest collusion.  And Rightmove is due to IPO in March. 

Watch this space.

Of Terrorism and Freedom of Expression

For a time in my youth, I didn't understand the thinking behind the "Don't negotiate with terrorists" principle.  I used to consider that the "Jaw-jaw, not war-war" idiocy coming from CND types had some merit.  And I was drip-fed neo-liberation theology rubbish in school and church.

The construction was that some cause would have sufficient merit to require negotiations. Think in terms of the "Popular Front to Stop Grannies Freezing in Winter". Who would let grannies freeze on a mere point of principle?

Now, of course, I know that the principle is there because of coherence. It is a line that can be defended in an even-handed way. Instead of "the ends justifying the means", in the real world, "the wrong means invalidate any ends". It is tried, tested, and works.

And the same thinking must now be applied to law on Freedom of Expression. Beyond providing legal mechanisms for libel torts to be pursued, the state should not take an interest in this field. Where speech is part of the commission of a crime, there are the conspiracy laws.

There is apparently a significant minority of jedis in Britain, for example. So should Jedi-ism (whatever the hell that is) be now protected against religious hatred?

Is the Holocaust is protected against denial, should the Armenian genocide be so protected? The Rwandan genocide?

Is Islamic icons cannot be portrayed, what other areas must be roped off?

Plainly, it is madness that no-one may be offended. It is inconsistent if some are protected from offence, and others are not. However nice it is to offer protection to some, it CANNOT be defended consistently. The only principled position is that there must be no restraints on freedom of expression.

This isn't to say that holocaust deniers etc should be welcomed. They can and should be met with opprobrium by the body politic. But the state and the criminal law should stay out of the discussion.

Absence makes the heart...

Libertaria is away for a few days, but Cuchulainn is doing a grand job of keeping the blog up and running. Don't forget our brethren, especially for a refreshingly different perspective, Harry Hutton.

The Hypocracy Test

The Irving* case challenges everyone who supported the right to publish the Danish cartoons on the basis of freedom of expression.

Do you vocally defend Irving's right to expression?  If not, you are a hypocrite. 

This includes you,

• France Soir,
• Die Welt
• The BBC

among others.

Of course, it is possible to defend the cartoons on other grounds, but it isn't clear to me that these publications made clear that they were using these "other grounds".

 

* Irving appears to be an idiot.  He shouldn't be jailed for it.

Lord X of the Internet

I've seen mentioned the idea on various blogs that denizens of the blogosphere should organise protests about things like the ID cards and the backlash against the Danish cartoons. Of course, nothing has come of it. This may be because

1. the blogosphere is too geographically dispersed
2. the blogosphere is too lazy
3. the blogosphere recognises that street protests are simply ignored by the powers that be
4. the blogosphere simply is irrelevant and couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery
5. the blogosphere is more comfortable acting over an internet link than anything else.

In the hope that (5) above is true, I'd like to propose an experiment. Let us choose a British internet personality widely known, and widely admired, and try to get them into the House of Lords via the people's peers route.

I'd choose Theodore Dalrymple/Anthony Daniels myself. Any other nominations?

A Libertarian Priesthood?

I've had the opportunity recently to meet with and speak to a number of bloggers based in London. I've formed the opinion in almost all cases that these men do not have any children.

Considering that most of the people I've seen are on the "better" side of 30, it may well be that this cohort will not be reproducing at all. The people in question are generally well-educated, generally straight, and generally employed gainfully.

Perhaps blog-writing isn't correlated with having a relationship, or we are seeing the evolution of new libertarian priesthood?