"Issues....not personalities"
9am Press Conference on Law and Order
Guess speaker is Batman who will speak on the subject "Zero Tolerance In Gotham City: How the Tories Will Put It At Risk" (Questions will be taken from foreign correspondents only).
11am Symposium on the Subject: "Building An Integrated Transport System For The 21st Century"
Speakers: Andrew Adonis and Thomas the Tank Engine.
2pm Meet the People
Gordon Brown will hold an impromptu walkabout where he will take questions off the cuff from a random selection of voters from the Balls wing of the Labour Party. Music to be provided by Bjorn Again ("I Have A Dream" etc)
Tuesday 27 April 2010
Sunday 21 March 2010
Andrew Marr (part 456)
Apparently because last month's public borrowing requirement which had been predicted to be the worst on record turned out merely to be the worst on record Mr Marr has concluded that Alistair Darling has some "extra money in his back pocket".
Interesting. I thought I was £1000 in debt. Turns out I'm only £700 in debt. Presumably I can go out and buy a new laptop with no increase in my liability.
Mr Darling has just said: "The public are (sic) not stupid". He must hope he is wrong.
Interesting. I thought I was £1000 in debt. Turns out I'm only £700 in debt. Presumably I can go out and buy a new laptop with no increase in my liability.
Mr Darling has just said: "The public are (sic) not stupid". He must hope he is wrong.
Saturday 20 March 2010
Scruton on the virtues of drink...
A tricky one this. I've been invited by Continuum Books to review Roger Scruton's I Drink Therefore I Am for my blog on The Philosophy Magazine Online. How to do this effectively as an "enforced teetotaller"?
On second thoughts there might not be a problem. One of Scruton's theses is that you can visit a place non-geographically but "in the glass". If you can visit a place without travelling there then presumably you can review a book on wine withouit drinking??
Also: I once taught a fairly successful course on the philosophy of humour despite not having a sense of humour of my own.
So no problem. I'll crack on with the review.
On second thoughts there might not be a problem. One of Scruton's theses is that you can visit a place non-geographically but "in the glass". If you can visit a place without travelling there then presumably you can review a book on wine withouit drinking??
Also: I once taught a fairly successful course on the philosophy of humour despite not having a sense of humour of my own.
So no problem. I'll crack on with the review.
Tuesday 2 March 2010
The Public Funding of Political Parties
In order for democracy to be healthy -we are told- it is essential that political parties be allowed to flourish. In order that political parties be able to flourish it is essential that they exist. In order to exist it is essential that they are funded. Since therefore the citizen (or subject) has an interest in a healthy democracy it is in her interest to fund political parties; and since she might not be able to discern her own interest with the clarity of the political classes it is best all round that the funding be non-voluntary and via the usual mechanism of confiscatory taxation. This, or something like it, seems to be the argument in favour of the "state" funding of political parties: an argument that erupts intermittently within the United Kingdom chattering classes.
The argument is nonsense of course, not least because it assumes that the current political parties are the only ones that might exist. Of course it might be the case that democracy requires the existence of some political parties. But why these political parties? Political parties are human institutions, and like all human institutions they evolve and die - to be replaced by other institutions. If the Labour Party, or the Conservative Party, is unable to finance itself without reaching unbidden into my pay packet then tough. Why should I be required to pay for the continued existence of an institution whose politics and values I do not share (I already do that once with the BBC)? It is surely absurd that a political party should offer itself as custodian of the nation's finances without being able to manage its own.
There is, in the UK, a "consensus" between the major parties that some form of public funding might be desirable. Well there would be wouldn't there? It is a very felicitous consensus that includes those who would benefit from the policy and yet excludes those who would pay for it.
Is it, anyway, the case that a healthy democracy requires the constant existence of legislators? Would an interruption to the legislative process, for five years say, be such a disaster? It would for the legislators perhaps, but not for the rest of us. The rise of the professional politician has seen an unwelcome expansion in the powers of the state and how could it be otherwise? The only people who are fit to be sent to the House of Commons are those who really don't want to be there. There is much controversy here over whether MPs should have second jobs. But of course they should: the second job should be "being an MP".
The argument is nonsense of course, not least because it assumes that the current political parties are the only ones that might exist. Of course it might be the case that democracy requires the existence of some political parties. But why these political parties? Political parties are human institutions, and like all human institutions they evolve and die - to be replaced by other institutions. If the Labour Party, or the Conservative Party, is unable to finance itself without reaching unbidden into my pay packet then tough. Why should I be required to pay for the continued existence of an institution whose politics and values I do not share (I already do that once with the BBC)? It is surely absurd that a political party should offer itself as custodian of the nation's finances without being able to manage its own.
There is, in the UK, a "consensus" between the major parties that some form of public funding might be desirable. Well there would be wouldn't there? It is a very felicitous consensus that includes those who would benefit from the policy and yet excludes those who would pay for it.
Is it, anyway, the case that a healthy democracy requires the constant existence of legislators? Would an interruption to the legislative process, for five years say, be such a disaster? It would for the legislators perhaps, but not for the rest of us. The rise of the professional politician has seen an unwelcome expansion in the powers of the state and how could it be otherwise? The only people who are fit to be sent to the House of Commons are those who really don't want to be there. There is much controversy here over whether MPs should have second jobs. But of course they should: the second job should be "being an MP".
Thursday 25 February 2010
That Darling interview....
There is, naturally, no rift between Darling and Brown. What reason do we have to believe otherwise? No more reason than to believe there was ever a rift between Banquo and Macbeth. Or even between Macbeth and Banquo's ghost.
Several suggested explanations for Darling's explosive confirmation of the obvious have been offered. Some have argued that this was Darling's revenge. Others have looked to the more theoretically convoluted: this was a Number 10/11 joint spin operation whose aim was (depending on who you believe) to act as a cover for a bad news budget deficit story or to simply get a "handle" on the bullying narrative by "disclosing" what we all knew to be true in the first place.
I incline to the former view but for a quite specific reason. Darling made his comments in the full and certain knowledge that they would be damaging. This looks strange only on the assumption that he is interested in a Brown victory in a few weeks. Why should he be? More generally: why would any of those who have worked with this creature over the years want that agony to be prolonged? This government is like a terminal patient who has moved beyond acceptance and now wills her own demise.
If the polls continue to tighten expect more of Brown's colleagues to take the path of voluntary euthanasia. Their nightmare is ours: a Brown victory and 5 more years under the yoke of this madman.
Several suggested explanations for Darling's explosive confirmation of the obvious have been offered. Some have argued that this was Darling's revenge. Others have looked to the more theoretically convoluted: this was a Number 10/11 joint spin operation whose aim was (depending on who you believe) to act as a cover for a bad news budget deficit story or to simply get a "handle" on the bullying narrative by "disclosing" what we all knew to be true in the first place.
I incline to the former view but for a quite specific reason. Darling made his comments in the full and certain knowledge that they would be damaging. This looks strange only on the assumption that he is interested in a Brown victory in a few weeks. Why should he be? More generally: why would any of those who have worked with this creature over the years want that agony to be prolonged? This government is like a terminal patient who has moved beyond acceptance and now wills her own demise.
If the polls continue to tighten expect more of Brown's colleagues to take the path of voluntary euthanasia. Their nightmare is ours: a Brown victory and 5 more years under the yoke of this madman.
The Departmental Meeting...
The Matter at Hand
As departmental secretary to the university’s department of philosophy it fell to me to make a record of the discussion at the recent academic committee meeting. And what a meeting it was! The main item for discussion that day was “the matter at hand”. And this is how things unfolded...
Professor Moore: “I now think it is time to turn to the matter at hand”.
“I object to that!” offered Professor Bradley, more sharply than was normal on these occasions, “There is no ‘matter’ to be ‘at hand’ if by ‘matter’ you intend to refer to some underlying substrate in which sensible properties might inhere. I might give you a ‘hand’ but there is no ‘matter’ to place next to it. Or underneath it. Or anywhere else. And any ‘hand’ that I might concede would be, in any case, part of the inclusive Whole and not to be individuated separately”.
My colleagues appeared restless at this. For Professor Bradley had a point: if we could not agree on the existence of matter then it followed a fortiori that there could be no matter at hand and that further discussion was therefore useless. Luckily Professor Ayer, his thoughts no doubt on a later assignation, was keen to move things along...
Professor Ayer: “We can accept, following Hume, that to talk of ‘matter’ in this way is to talk literal nonsense. There can be no discussion of the ‘matter at hand’ since any proposition in which this term features will be neither analytic nor verifiable. We might however, following Russell, agree to refer instead to the ‘logical construction out of sense data at hand’. Discussion could then proceed in a way that preserves both clarity and an appropriate level of rigour. We can, if you like (and following me) resume discussion of the matter at hand in a way that is analogous to discussion of other minds....” there were nods of assent at this and for a moment it looked as if the day had been saved. But then Professor Ayer not for the first time overreached himself: “...and anyway time is marching on”.
At this there was a sharp intake of breath: we all knew what was coming.
“I would ask you to retract that Sir!” thundered Professor McTaggart “I have on a number of occasions demonstrated that time does not even exist and yet you insist not merely on its existence but further ascribe to it such causal powers as would allow it to “march on”. Time does not “march on”. It does not even pass. I did not come here to be presented by you Sir with an obvious conflation of the A-series with the B-series. Were there such a thing as time you would be wasting mine Sir”.
At this the idealists all sided with Professor McTaggart and insisted that Professor Ayer’s temporal provocation precluded further discussion. The empiricists continued to insist that their objections amounted to mere recalcitrance. Professor Wittgenstein urged that everyone be quiet and, as head of department, Professor Moore appealed in vain for some common sense. It fell to the department’s token Kantian, Professor Strawson, to forge a precarious truce.
Discussion of the matter at hand was in the end deferred until the next meeting of the academic committee where it appears on the agenda as Item 3: “the logical-construction-from-sense-data-at-hand-in-a-way-that-is-ontologically-and-metaphysically-neutral”.
As departmental secretary to the university’s department of philosophy it fell to me to make a record of the discussion at the recent academic committee meeting. And what a meeting it was! The main item for discussion that day was “the matter at hand”. And this is how things unfolded...
Professor Moore: “I now think it is time to turn to the matter at hand”.
“I object to that!” offered Professor Bradley, more sharply than was normal on these occasions, “There is no ‘matter’ to be ‘at hand’ if by ‘matter’ you intend to refer to some underlying substrate in which sensible properties might inhere. I might give you a ‘hand’ but there is no ‘matter’ to place next to it. Or underneath it. Or anywhere else. And any ‘hand’ that I might concede would be, in any case, part of the inclusive Whole and not to be individuated separately”.
My colleagues appeared restless at this. For Professor Bradley had a point: if we could not agree on the existence of matter then it followed a fortiori that there could be no matter at hand and that further discussion was therefore useless. Luckily Professor Ayer, his thoughts no doubt on a later assignation, was keen to move things along...
Professor Ayer: “We can accept, following Hume, that to talk of ‘matter’ in this way is to talk literal nonsense. There can be no discussion of the ‘matter at hand’ since any proposition in which this term features will be neither analytic nor verifiable. We might however, following Russell, agree to refer instead to the ‘logical construction out of sense data at hand’. Discussion could then proceed in a way that preserves both clarity and an appropriate level of rigour. We can, if you like (and following me) resume discussion of the matter at hand in a way that is analogous to discussion of other minds....” there were nods of assent at this and for a moment it looked as if the day had been saved. But then Professor Ayer not for the first time overreached himself: “...and anyway time is marching on”.
At this there was a sharp intake of breath: we all knew what was coming.
“I would ask you to retract that Sir!” thundered Professor McTaggart “I have on a number of occasions demonstrated that time does not even exist and yet you insist not merely on its existence but further ascribe to it such causal powers as would allow it to “march on”. Time does not “march on”. It does not even pass. I did not come here to be presented by you Sir with an obvious conflation of the A-series with the B-series. Were there such a thing as time you would be wasting mine Sir”.
At this the idealists all sided with Professor McTaggart and insisted that Professor Ayer’s temporal provocation precluded further discussion. The empiricists continued to insist that their objections amounted to mere recalcitrance. Professor Wittgenstein urged that everyone be quiet and, as head of department, Professor Moore appealed in vain for some common sense. It fell to the department’s token Kantian, Professor Strawson, to forge a precarious truce.
Discussion of the matter at hand was in the end deferred until the next meeting of the academic committee where it appears on the agenda as Item 3: “the logical-construction-from-sense-data-at-hand-in-a-way-that-is-ontologically-and-metaphysically-neutral”.
Thursday 7 January 2010
Brown briefs "against himself"
Brown briefs “against himself”.
Downing Street sources last night confirmed that the Prime Minister was responsible for recent behind the scenes briefings against the Prime Minister. In the last fortnight speculation had grown as to the identity of the “senior Minister” responsible for describing Gordon Brown as “vain”, “paranoid” and “out of touch”. It now turns out that the Minister in question was Mr Brown himself, frustrated at his unwillingness to vacate Downing Street in favour of himself.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told this newspaper: “The trouble started last week when a senior Labour backbencher was heard to remark that the Prime Minister was his own worst enemy. The Chief Whip overheard the remark and reported it to the Prime Minister who subsequently decided to undermine himself.”
The source further expressed frustration that the briefings had taken place against a good week for the government, in which no meteor had struck the Home Counties and the polls had narrowed from 12 points behind to 12 points behind.
Downing Street sources last night confirmed that the Prime Minister was responsible for recent behind the scenes briefings against the Prime Minister. In the last fortnight speculation had grown as to the identity of the “senior Minister” responsible for describing Gordon Brown as “vain”, “paranoid” and “out of touch”. It now turns out that the Minister in question was Mr Brown himself, frustrated at his unwillingness to vacate Downing Street in favour of himself.
The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told this newspaper: “The trouble started last week when a senior Labour backbencher was heard to remark that the Prime Minister was his own worst enemy. The Chief Whip overheard the remark and reported it to the Prime Minister who subsequently decided to undermine himself.”
The source further expressed frustration that the briefings had taken place against a good week for the government, in which no meteor had struck the Home Counties and the polls had narrowed from 12 points behind to 12 points behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
