CentreRight

Q: What's being taught at the Regent's Park Mosque? A: Hatred.

Over at the Sunday Telegraph, a shocking undercover investigation into Islamic extremism in the UK.  Here is a taster - not from some obscure secret Madrassa, but from the Regent's Park Mosque:

What should be done to a Muslim who converts to another faith? "We kill him," she says, "kill him, kill, kill…You have to kill him, you understand?"

Adulterers, she says, are to be stoned to death - and as for homosexuals, and women who "make themselves like a man, a woman like a man ... the punishment is kill, kill them, throw them from the highest place".

These punishments, the preacher says, are to be implemented in a future Islamic state.

Unpleasant though it is, one should read the whole thing.

Unparliamentary language

Perhaps Alistair Darling meant, by his use of unrepeatable language in his Guardian interview to describe the public's disillusionment with the government, to appear frank and straightforward, in contrast to the widespread reputation of politicians as mealy-mouthed.

I say: better mealy-mouthed than potty-mouthed.  But perhaps that's just me.  Indeed, it was with some amusement that I noted that Vince Cable's interview on the BBC in response to Alistair Darling's interview actually carries a "Guidance" rating for the strong language involved!

One hopes, if this trend towards "frankness" should be sustained, that ConservativeHome will maintain its high standards, though this could create difficulties.

Here, for example, is a Radio 4 interview I witnessed in a vision of the future.  [We imagine having obtained it through a censored link from ConservativeHome's front page, so material in square brackets should be heard in Tim Montgomerie's voiceover mode.]

As a gay man, should I celebrate this diversity?

Tomorrow evening Channel 4's Dispatches programme will show women preachers at London's Regent's Park Mosque urging followers to kill homosexuals.

The programme is a follow-up to the Dispatches on Undercover Mosques.

In this new documentary, a female reporter infiltrated women’s study circles. In one, a preacher using the name Umm Amira tells followers: “We are not going to be like animals . . . or to be like the homosexuals, God save us from that, you understand? We have to take the judgment, the judgment is to kill them.”

There is only one single valid response to this. They should be prosecuted for incitement to murder.

It would be tempting to dismiss these calls as the ravings of a lunatic fringe.

So it is important to point out that last year a wide-ranging survey of Muslim opinion showed that 71% - yes, 71% - of young Muslim men (aged between 16-24) thought that homosexuality should be illegal. 

I hope that the gay community wakes up a little, so far as this issue is concerned.

The only thing we have to fear is the Chancellor

Alastair Darling should be fired without delay. One of the golden maxims of public life is that you never, ever talk down the economy.  If there is one cardinal sin of public life that is it.  If you do it in Opposition you get roundly attacked and usually it is fatal - remember the "downturn made in Downing street"? To do it in Government is utterly unforgivable.

Why is this? Because the economic success of a nation is all about confidence.  If people are scared, they will not take any risks with their money.  They will stop buying things.  They will not take the risk of establishing or expanding a business.  They will not buy a house. A downturn then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. For these reasons, the provision and maintenance of the confidence to a people and a country is one of the ultimate tests of leadership and fitness for office.  To fail to provide it is to be in office and not in power.  Darling has failed that test.  So he must go.  It is as simple as that.

This brings me to what I so admire about our nation.  Faced with a Government that just can't hack it and has succumbed to fear, the response of the country has been to blow a collective raspberry.  My sense is that it's almost as though people are collectively saying "No, we are better than that.  We will not give into the fear of the Chancellor. We will carry on and though times are indeed tough, we will get through it and we know we will come out the other side."

That sense reminds me of what I think is one of the best of most important political speeches ever given - the first inaugural address of Franklin D Roosevelt.  Faced with a real economic collapse, the new President soothed the fears of a nation and provided hope and confidence for the future.

"I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days."

Words like these are the words that should have come from the Chancellor's mouth. It's a funny old World when the country seems to believe in itself more than the Government.

Move over, Darling

Back in the 1970s the Conservative Research Department produced a booklet called "Words for Eating." Prominent would be quotes from the then Prime Minister James Callaghan and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey offering predictions of economic recovery subsequently proved to be false.

While Alistair Darling's interview for the Guardian was candid about the economy, his Budget speech in March was less so.

"We will do everything in our power to maintain stability – keeping inflation and interest rates low and maintaining our record of growth.

"While other countries have suffered recessions, the British economy has now been growing continuously for over a decade – the longest period of sustained growth in our history.

"Because of the changes made by this Government to entrench stability and increase the flexibility and resilience of our economy, I am able to report that the British economy will continue to grow through this year and beyond."

Perhaps it is time for a new edition of Words for Eating.

Labour council enforces Ramadan on non Muslims

Despite recent temperatures pushing 30 C Labour controlled Tower Hamlets Council has ordered all councillors not to drink in meetings during Ramadan (starts in about 2 DAYS), so as not to offend Muslim councillors. It has even gone so far as to order non Muslim councillors not to eat the finger food prepared for council meetings until Muslims break their fast at sunset - despite the food being served in a separate room.

Now I'm all for encouraging individuals to act with cultural sensitivity. That's why during the years that I lived in Pakistan and Afghanistan I didn't drink alcohol (although there were places in Pakistan where it was available), I didn't eat pork or bacon (although my colleague Larry found a shop in Peshawar that sold it under the counter!) and I didn't make a show of eating during Ramadan - although I did discretely drink water and no local Muslims ever objected to that. The latter however, is apparently now against the rules for non Muslims on Tower Hamlets Council...

A whiter shade of Palin

Sarah Palin. Woman. Hillary-substitute.

That seems to be the general take on John McCain's bold decision to appoint the Alaskan Governor as his running mate, but I'm not so sure. Clearly, there's an element of gender politics involved, but I think the real reason for McCain's choice is altogether more worthy.

Palin's detractors say she has insufficient experience. Her supporters reply that she has more experience of executive office than McCain, Obama and Biden put together. More to the point, in my view, is that she has more experience than the others of cleaning up the political system, not just campaigning for 'change', but actually making it happen. A biographical piece in the Anchorage Daily News even describes her as The Joan of Arc of Alaska Politics.

My guess, or at least my hope, is that John McCain's purpose in choosing Sarah Palin is to trump Obama's rhetoric and to present the voters with a Republican ticket that promises change in action not words.

McCain’s huge, unnecessary gamble

I woke up this morning to learn of McCain’s pick of Palin as his veep candidate. Like many other CH readers, despite following this race closely, it came as a big surprise. After having digested it a little, my conclusion is that this is huge, unnecessary, gamble for McCain. I hope I’m wrong on this one, but my gut feel is that this could cost him the election.

No question that Palin seems to be a great gal in many ways. She seems to have done a superb job in Alaska over the last two years (with 80% plus approval ratings); has taken on many vested interests (including those in her own party); seems to have a lovely family; and shows connectivity with ordinary Americans (“hockey mom”). She will no doubt appeal to the conservative and religious base of the GOP, with her family values, NRA activism, church going, anti-same sex marriage and anti-abortion views. 

She also has the advantage of not being seen as a Washington DC insider. Alaska is about as far from the Capitol as you can be. She will help rejuvenate the tarnished GOP brand, and make Democrat attacks on McCain as a third term Bush presidency that much weaker.

But (you knew the “but” was coming), she has significant negatives that could outweigh the positives:

• Most significantly, her selection has driven a truck through the Republican’s central argument that Obama is too inexperienced to be President. This is not to suggest that Obama is any more experienced than she is. At best, her “experience” is really no better than Obama’s. This is of all the more importance given that she could be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I am not convinced that American’s are ready to take this gamble (already tried and regretted that once with Bush-Quayle). When America is fighting two wars, Russia is sabre-rattling, China is growing stronger and ever more unpredictable, Pakistan is disintegrating, Iran is threatning to pulverise Israel, and the US economy is entering its most serious downturn since the end of WW2, are American’s really going to put Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency? There will be many floating voters that might have gone for a McCain/Somebody-More-Experienced-than-Palin ticket, but not a McCain-Palin ticket. At least, as Ramesh Ponnuru says in jest in his National Review blog “we know that Palin will be ready for that 3 a.m. phone call: She’ll already be up with her baby.” Whats-more, on the national stage Americans will have had 4 years and 2 books to get used to the inexperienced Obama; with Palin they will have just 2 months.

• Given the lack of experience, and the availability of other high-calibre running mates with more experience, there will be many Americans that will wonder if the main qualification for which McCain picked Palin was that she was a woman. Obama’s qualifications to be President should have nothing to do with his race, nor should Palin’s to do with her sex – but that’s not what she implied in her speech yesterday.  Furthermore, given her strong conservative views, who says that Hillary's anti-Obama female supporters will gravitate to her?  Isn't it more likely they just won't vote?
• Its also troubling that the Republican-led state legislature in Alaska has seen it fit to appoint an independent investigator to determine if Palin acted inappropriately in a matter involving her brother-in-law and official authorities. My gut feel is that she probably has not done anything wrong, but why should McCain take the risk? I sure hope McCain’s vetting team has done a thorough job.
• She neuters McCain’s appeals to independent liberal minded voters, one of McCain’s greatest personal strengths (very much seen as more liberal than his own party). She will be seen as too far to the right on key issues such as gun control, abortion and same-sex marriage. 
• Lastly, where’s the chemistry? McCain met Palin for the first time just 6 months ago and, up until last week, he has met her just one other time. Given this, and the generational gap, what’s to say that these guys are going to get on? Forget ruling together, can they campaign successfully together?

McCain’s selection of Palin, at best, is a huge unnecessary gamble (perhaps telling us something important about how he makes decisions). He would have been in a stronger position with Romney or Pawlenty by his side. At worst, McCain has handed the Democrat’s a winning hand.

McCain's electrifying pick

McCain's pick of Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin (noted earlier by Louise) will dominate the news cycle in America.

The Republican base will warm to her immediately: She's evangelical, pro-life, mother of four five. (Her youngest child is a four month old with Down's Syndrome). She is a national security hawk. She has been tough on corruption in Alaska and has brought spending under control.  Some even compare her to Margaret Thatcher.

She also wins new voters: She is one of the GOP's leaders on the environment although supports drilling.  McCain has decided that he needs to go after all the supporters of Hillary Clinton.  The Republican ticket also looks more like a change ticket now.

The downside is identified by Andrew Sullivan: "If McCain's entire argument so far has been that Obama is too untested to be president, then how can he pick a 44-year-old first-term governor of a state with 600,000 people with no foreign policy experience whatsoever?"

PS Hat-tip to Peter Franklin. Many months ago he proposed Governor Palin's name to me before I'd even heard of her.

Madam President

John McCain's sensational pick makes Obama's dull choice look just awful.

There is a strong possibilty that we are being introduced to the first woman President of the United States. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Gov. Palin achieved office on her own and not by virtue of her husband.

It's fair to say I'm thrilled at this decision.

Blogging from a phone, so more later.

Nuclear Power - the Chinese are coming and we're still going nowhere fast

If you'll forgive the personal plug, one of the arresting facts from the Economic Research Council's Digest of Energy Statistics 2008 published today is that whilst the UK is still struggling to get a nuclear replacement programme up and running to build a handful of plants, China has 7 under construction, 24 planned and a further 76 proposed. As reported today, that amounts to a serious competitive challenge for skills and resources that the government has yet to factor in. Not many companies have the know how and strength to build and finance nuclear power plants. Thus far, the UK appears to be putting all its eggs in the EDF-Areva basket. Would that they understood that long-term investment in clean and secure energy supplies requires long-term - at much lower cost to the consumer - incentives for investors. Alas, the government is still mired in a reality distortion field which posits that White Papers and Big Public Announcements rather than stimulating private companies can deliver nuclear power stations.

In the meantime, a few other findings from the Digest . . .

David Marquand on Cameron's Whig Imperialism

In today's Guardian, David Marquand argues that "Labour has got Cameron wrong: this is no crypto-Thatcherite but a whig".  His contention is that Cameron belongs to a Conservative "Whig imperialist" tradition going back to Burke, and to which Baldwin, Butler and Macmillan all belonged.

I'm not personally convinced that Baldwin the protectionist can really, as Marquand has it, be the "quintessential" representative of a tradition with its origin in Burke, the advocate of free trade (though perhaps one might attempt some intellectual construction of "free trade within the Empire").  But be that as it may, it seems entirely correct to me that the party aspire, at present, to a coalition of its classical Whig (free trade, the mixed constitution, tolerance, ordered liberty) and its Paternalist traditions, as I have argued for many years.*

One way in which Cameron sits within the Burkean tradition should, I think, be emphasized (and it is a way in which Cameron is more Burkean Whiggish than I am): Burke was a great believer in the power of the "little platoons" of civic society - we might today think of charities, churches, social action groups, awareness campaigning organisations, and the like.  I believe that a sustained period of Cameron government would bring about a true revolution in the role of the little platoons in the delivery of public services, in a way that later generations would regard as truly radical.

Is Pawlenty a headfake for Palin?

The American right-wing blogs seemed certain last night that Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota was John McCain's choice for veep. Karl Rove himself called it for Pawlenty on Fox. The hot rumour this morning, however, is that Pawlenty will not be in Ohio and that Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, former beauty queen and mother of five, including a baby with Down's syndrome and a son in the military, may be the choice.

Unlike Geraldine Ferraro, with the polls this close, McCain's VP may actually make it to the White House. In my opinion Palin would be an electrifying pick. Fingers crossed.

The Democrats' week

I've only had half an eye on the Democrats this week while I've been holidaying in California but here are some observations...

Michelle Obama would make a formidable First Lady

She was captivating during her speech on Monday night.  She is very beautiful and her dedication to her family appears very genuine.  She is also thought to have very strong political views.  It will be fascinating to watch her if she becomes First Lady.  Would she be more like Laura Bush or Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton was 'awesome'

I used to think that Barack Obama would be a stronger candidate than Hillary Clinton.  I don't think that anymore.  I've come to admire Senator Clinton's gutsiness.  If she had begun her bid for the White House as strongly as she ended it (with her big wins in Texas, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania) she would be her party's nominee and Barack Obama would have more time to gain the experience that would make his White House ambitions more credible.  Her best line from her Tuesday night speech attempted to sum up Bush's economics: "Money borrowed from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis."  Not necessarily fair but effective.

The best argument for Barack Obama...

...was made in Wednesday's WSJ by Dan Gerstein.  Here's the key section: "[The American people] don't know the Barack Obama who was booed by the nation's biggest teachers union for openly advocating taboo reform policies such as merit pay for teachers and charter schools. They don't know the Barack Obama who rejected the cheap gimmick of a national gas tax holiday and trusted the intelligence of voters to see it as such. They don't know the Barack Obama who risked alienating his antiwar base by supporting a compromise plan to reform the Bush warrantless wiretapping program.  They don't know the Barack Obama who in early 2007 worked on a bipartisan basis to pass one of the toughest ethics reform bills in a generation, as well as co-sponsoring legislation with Republican Dick Lugar in 2006 to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. And they certainly don't know the Barack Obama who went into a black church on Father's Day to bluntly chastise his strongest supporters and challenge them to take more responsibility for the children they bring into this world.  Which is to say they don't know what an independent-minded, orthodoxy-challenging, gutsy leader he can and will be, or that he has the strength as well as the judgment that's needed to bring the country together, deliver the new politics he's promising, and be the president for all of America that George W. Bush never could or would be."

A moment for the history books

Yesterday was a historic moment.  Barack Obama became the first black American to be his party's nominee.  That's a cause for celebration and it speaks well of America.  As The Economist notes, it'll be some time before it happens in Britain.  John McCain's video tribute to the moment was perfectly-pitched.

Tonight's Obama speech

Suli Shah was impressed with the speech.  I wasn't.  It was too negative.  John McCain got 22 mentions, 21 of them negative.  It was too much like a laundry list of unconnected promises.  The staging worked, however.  It wasn't too 'Sheffieldy'.   He should talk a lot more about his promise to cut taxes for 95% of working Americans - incredible as it will seem to many given his ambitious spending agenda.  Watch the full speech on PlayPolitical.

And now it's McCain's turn

Tomorrow we'll know who McCain will choose as his running mate.  I predict it'll be Tim Pawlenty, Governor of Minnesota.

The content of Obama's character

One of the advantages of being based in Hong Kong is that I get see and hear some news as its made, whilst most CH readers are tucked up in bed. So it was today, with Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech to 84,000 people in Denver at the Democratic National Convention.

It was a very well delivered speech (as we have come to expect), with some positive parts. It capped what, in my opinion, seems to have been a very successful convention for the Democrats - making McCain's job that much harder.

Whatever your views of Obama, whether you agree or disagree with him, the historical significance of today's speech should not be lost on any one. Fourty-five years ago to the day, when Obama was 2-years old, Martin Luther King delivered his "I have a Dream" speech - a moment in history that uniquely defined the unacceptable discrimination against American blacks at the point in time. Today, a black American stood in-front of his country to accept the Democratic Party's nomination of him as its candidate for President of the United States (with a very real chance of winning). He got there because of the content of his character and his achievements - nothing more, nothing less.

This says as much about today's America, as it does about the Obama.  All Americans, whatever their political affiliations, have a lot to be proud of today. God bless America.

More on the Green Taxes report

While plenty of CentreRight readers have voiced their support for our report (PDF), others have criticisms or questions.  I'll try and address those here.

Is Fuel Duty a 'green tax'?

Peter Franklin argues that Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty should not be considered green taxes as they predate concern about climate change.  That is both irrelevant and misrepresents the history. Fuel Duty may have been conceived in the global cooling era but it is a big tax, raising lots of revenue, because of the fuel duty escalator.  Remember that we have subtracted road spending from our total green taxes estimate, that is clearly the major item of spending that pre-escalator Fuel Duty is designed to cover.  When the escalator was introduced by Ken Clarke - as a 5 per cent, real terms annual increase - in a 1993 statement to the Commons he framed it explicitly as a measure to address climate change.  He described it as completing "Britain's strategy for meeting our Rio commitment".

Of course, that might have been as much of a con as Darling's recent increases in Vehicle Excise Duty.  Maybe it was just another device to raise revenue.  However, it is a premium charged on top of the rate of tax that is judged fair on other goods and services, VAT is charged on motor fuel.  Even if that premium had been imposed entirely at random it still makes the polluter pay; it still does all the things, in terms of creating an incentive to change behaviour, that green taxes are supposed to.

It is a green tax, whether it was intended to be one or not.  It's just that it imposes far too large a burden.  Whether you call that an excessive green tax or just an arbitrary imposition on motorists because they're an easy target is really just a matter of semantics.  Either way it is an unfair burden and politicians who try to pass off increasing Fuel Duty, or maintaining it at its current level, as a 'green' measure are attempting to con the public.

RE: Re: We're already paying too much green tax

Nearly, Peter, but not quite.  Peter's second and fourth points are the key ones here:

2) "the revenues...[from green taxes]...are used to fund general expenditure"

4) "every £1 of tax needs to be compared not against the environmental cost of, say, the carbon emitted by the taxed activity, but what would have been the environmental cost of all the carbon not emitted due to the influence of the tax on consumer behaviour"

His second point is that made by the Treasury, and he's right.  It is only the extent to which these taxes are higher for a green purpose that their cost should be compared to the environmental externality.

Peter's fourth point, though, is not quite right - though he will like the correct answer.

Re: We're already paying too much green tax

Some observations on today's TPA report, as highlighted by Matthew Sinclair below:

Firstly, almost all of the 'green tax burden' identified in the report is accounted for by Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty, which were significant taxes long before any serious government policy on climate change. In fact, since the Millennium, they have diminished as a proportion of the overall tax take.

Secondly, the revenues from Fuel Duty and Vehicle Excise Duty are not hypothecated for any environmental purpose, and are used to fund general expenditure. In other words the money would have to be found from elsewhere. One could, of course, cut expenditure in order to fund a cut in these so-called green taxes, but that would still be at the expense of reducing the tax burden in some other way.

Thirdly, it is worth noting that though the main point of the TPA argument is that the burden of environmental taxation is in excess of the environmental cost of the taxed activities, the only environmental costs taken in account in calculating the level of "excess green taxes" are those concerning greenhouse gas emissions. The costs of local pollution and traffic congestion are excluded.

Fourthly, and most importantly, the entire argument is based on a flawed premise, which is that the purpose of green taxation is  to make people pay for the environmental damage that they do: in other words, that for every £1 of damage there should be £1 of taxation. But surely the point of environmental taxation is to change behaviour – to encourage consumers to switch to less damaging patterns of consumption. Thus every £1 of tax needs to be compared not against the environmental cost of, say, the carbon emitted by the taxed activity, but what would have been the environmental cost of all the carbon not emitted due to the influence of the tax on consumer behaviour.

In other words, environmental taxes – if they are to be justified at all – should be about prevention not reparation.

House prices fall again: "What is to be done?"

Nationwide announced its latest monthly house price index results today.  Most attention has focused on the annual fall of 10.5%, but from the October peak, prices are now down 11.5%, and by October the annual fall seems likely to be 14-15%.

Various political figures ask "What is to be done"?  John Redwood mocks the government's hubristic boasting of the past, and suggest that as a major mortgage lender and participant in the money markets, the government has taken responsibility for mortgage markets and must now tell us what it will do.  Vince Cable has told us what the Lib Dems would do...well, the less said about his scheme, probably the better.

But what is to be done?

Trying to get innocent people jailed should be an imprisonable offence

A lot of people are mostly decent, and would not be capable of a crime like rape, or of falsely accusing someone of such a crime maliciously. But some people are, and the law and its penalties should be designed to reflect this. There is therefore something hideously wrong with a situation where a reality TV contestant can be caught lying, admit to police that her accusation her ex-fiance raped her was made up, and then be fined just £95. If she had not been caught out, an innocent man could have been jailed for years, so how can it be reasonable that her only punishment is a fine equivalent to three parking tickets?

The only defence I can imagine is to say that making malicious accusations of rape is not as bad as committing rape, and so should be punished less severely. But this only makes sense insofar as the punishment for rape is does not reflect the seriousness of the crime. It's an argument for much tougher sentences for those found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of the crime, not for lenience towards those found beyond reasonable doubt to have made malicious and false accusations of it. If the penalty does fit the crime, then by definition falsely and maliciously accusing an innocent person of that crime is as bad as committing it, and the legal punishment should be just as tough. Why isn't she in prison?

We’re already paying too much green tax

Last year the TaxPayers’ Alliance released ‘The Case Against Green Taxes’.  We compared how much we are being asked to pay with estimates of the social cost of Britain’s carbon footprint and found that green taxes were already excessive.  Now, we’ve updated the numbers from 2005-06 to 2006-07 and 2007-08, included the increasingly expensive Renewables Obligation and produced estimates showing how every local authority area across the country is affected.  These are contained in the new report 'The Burden of Green Taxes' (PDF).

The new report’s results paint a stark picture of the extent of excessive green taxes.  In 2007-08 Britons paid between £7.9 billion and £21.8 billion in excess green taxes, between £316 and £872 per household.  That is a substantial rise on the between £6.8 billion and £20.4 billion of excess green taxes in 2006-07.  Of course, the ranges are large which shows how much uncertainty there still is over the social cost of emitting greenhouse gases, but our results show that no mainstream estimate can provide effective intellectual support for green taxes at the level they are currently set in the UK.

When our last report was released there were criticisms from the Treasury, who accused us of being “doubly dangerous” for having the temerity to question both their logic and their revenue stream.  The Liberal Democrats insisted that it is only older estimates of social cost that suggest British green taxes are too high – despite an IPCC principal author having noted that the average estimate across the academic and official literature is falling over time – and that we hadn’t included all the externalities associated with road transport – ignoring that we had already discussed that argument in our study and shown how it meant double-correcting externalities already controlled by regulations.  There is a more detailed discussion of this issue in the new report.

Spoiler tactics at the opposition's convention / conference - an interesting US / UK comparison

Here's a very interesting article on significant Republican operations during the Democratic convention in Denver.  I'm sure that the boot shall be firmly on the other foot come the GOP's turn, so there's no party political point to be made here - there is, however, an interesting parallel to be drawn with politics in the UK.  We think of politics here as a professional and bloodthirsty business, but nothing like this - at least on this scale - really happens here.

Prepare to be amazed - physics can be entertaining!

You don't have to be in the micro-minority like me with a science degree, as previously discovered on this site, to appreciate the brilliance of this video. Added to which it's global history in the making. Watch, learn and enjoy!

Sauce for the bear

So, Russia has recognised the independence of the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This is more of a surprise than you might think, because despite their support for these rebel territories, the Russians had always been cautious when it came to questions of formal sovereignty.

An ethno-linguistic map of the Caucasus shows why: the Russian side of the border is dotted with territories that could have national aspirations of their own. The best known example is Chechnya, where separatist forces were suppressed in a series of bloody conflicts.

I wonder if the Russian government could explain why South Ossetia has the right to self-determination and not Chechnya or, for that matter, North Ossetia?

Britishness and culture

I have to disagree with Andrew Lilico's view that there is no British culture and that there is no such thing as nationalism and self-determination.

His piece is a thoughtful contribution to the debate. However his central contention, that Britain is a political and not a cultural phenomenon, ignores the link between political and cultural identities. Does our experience of living in one of the most historically free countries in the world not impact on our culture? The structure and variety of the English language may be the main reason why we have one of the strongest traditions of literature in the world, but has not freedom of expression also played a part? Likewise our political identity, as citizens of one of the earliest democracies in the world has surely contributed to the innate British suspicion of an over-weaning state.