In the space of a classically excellent Blair Keynote Speech, several thousand Labour supporters realized what they’d done to their party.
Grats guys. You just pissed away our best electoral asset: a statesman beyond compare, a brilliant negotiator and one of the finest Prime Ministers in a century. But hey! We still have Claire Short!
I’d write more but right now, all that comes to mind is “I told you so…”
Later
John
It’s abundantly clear that the Blogosphere can’t shut up about Bill Clinton’s interview of Fox News so I’ll take the opportunity to weigh in.
Honestly I feel that both presidents made huge errors in judgment. Hillary Clinton’s talk of Bill acting differently had there been “a classified report saying ’Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States,” is utterly ridiculous in light of the US Embassy Bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole.
There already had been terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Al Qaeda. Attacks which killed Americans. Suggesting that one does not act against assaults on civilians, diplomats and ones own armed forces until an event of 9/11’s magnitude occurs only serves to justify criticism leveled at Clinton’s administration.
However, the Bush administration did nothing for eight months. To argue that Clinton had been inactive is to overlook the Bush government’s own indifference to the terror threat.
The Clinton administration has no excuse to whitewash the abysmal failings of its Anti-Terror Policy but it is certainly not for something the GOP can criticize.
The first months of Bush’s presidency were spent attempting to shovel as much money into wheelbarrows as possible (which was later deposited into a large furnace of unbridled deficit spending) and of course de-fanging the DOJ’s efforts to tackle belligerent anti-competitive companies. I don’t recall hearing George W’s administration so much as cough about terrorism before 9/11.
Everyone can just shut the hell up.
If the Democrats want to be productive they can stop pretending they dealt with the terror threat when Clinton was in power and start actually putting forwards competent anti-terror policies and maybe choosing a candidate who isn’t an unmitigated disaster for the next election. Honestly, it’s like watching Jermaine Jenas miss that open goal last week when Liverpool beat Spurs 3-0.
Later
John
Sometimes I feel like I should be called “TimesPundit” as all I appear to do is respond to articles I read in the Times.
That aside, there’s times when my own personal experience converges with what I read in the Times and today’s article by Libby Purves “Of course the play’s the thing” is a prominent example of this phenomenon.
There seems to be a considerable debate amongst educators about how to ‘deal’ with Shakespeare. Purves does a magnificent job of highlighting and distinguishing the different voices which have been raised about the issue, the Scoffers, Doubters and the Pedants.
For my own part I believe that Shakespeare is not beyond the grasp of any human being. The lessons, emotions and experiences which his work deal with are universally human and easily understandable.
Is Shakespeare too complicated for a teenager? No, not in any way shape or form.
Is Shakespeare too complicated for today’s secondary school student? Quite possibly. Should we therefore remove it from our curriculum? Absolutely Not.
We should instead address the 2 reasons why our secondary schoolchildren are having trouble with understanding the Bard.
Firstly our primary schools are failing children at a phenomenal rate. Primary schools in the Colchester area alone are producing hundreds of pupils who can barely read or write.
In my lifetime I attended 10 (yes, ten) schools and 3 of those were Colchester primary schools. In my first year I was too advanced for my age and was placed in a higher year (the result of the excellent education children receive at ESF schools in Hong Kong), in my next school I actually spent an entire year learning nothing, revisiting math problems I had mastered several years ago and writing at the same level that was expected of me the year before. In fact it was not until I was moved to a private school (and even then only after I was moved to the top set) that I actually went on to be taught anything.
We don’t need to introduce rote learning - children have demonstrated that they respond far better to active play at a young age and that you can still provide games and activities to help them along right the way through to year 6. What we need to do is actually make sure all children come out of their primary school with a standard of reading and writing which befits our linguistic heritage.
I speak honestly when I say that most primary school children in Italy can write better English than primary school leavers in the UK.
My mother’s Engish sets turn in essays which actually include the phrases “In da house” “I fink” and “Wot?”. No longer is this phraseology the sole domain of St Custard’s very own Nigel Molesworth, it is being produced in the exercise books of our youth.
Secondly, we have to stop being so unbelievably stupid as to present the Bard as “hard”, “boring” or “a struggle”. Shakespeare’s plays:
1) Concern universally relevant issues
2) Provide an excellent sandbox for devloping literary analysis skills, and
3) Have an almost endless legion of devotees in the dramatic world who would happily perform or offer insights about them in schools.
Anyone who thinks Shakespeare is “dull” or “boring” is either a moron or hasn’t been taught properly. The vast majority are the latter. Quite apart from the fact that the credentials of an illiterate teenager as a literary critic are rather lacking, there is no room for supposed critical or artistic opinion on the matter, one could no more easily dismiss Michelangelo’s work as “crap”.
It is testament to the shambles that is education today that by their own incompetence or more likely, institutional bungling concerning examination and method, teachers are capable of making the greatest works of literature boring for students.
It’s not just the way we teach Shakespeare that needs to be looked at, it’s the way we teach our children at the very start of their education, which must be thrust under the microscope, lest we find that the creeping malevolence of ignorance and illiteracy is “in da house”.
Later
John
Seriously. Film of the Year.
Kevin Scott is my master.
Oh and I’ve updated the Snapshots, Is this the start of regular inane photo-blogging? The sort only enjoyed by relatives and close personal friends? Given my relatively short attention span I wouldn’t count on it.
Later
John
The Snapshots section is updated!
Invigorated by my new Sony Ericsson K800i’s 3.2MP camera I present decent-looking photographs. Still utterly lacking any sign of composition or artistic merit but then again they are called “Snapshots”.
I probably ought to start formatting the non-thumbnails to a less stupid resolution. It was never an issue before because my phone only took crap, grainy photos.
Later
John
William Rees Mogg discusses Why the Pope was Right.
My own thoughts on the issue are first of all, that since no one who criticizes the Pope on this matter has read his speech, they are more accurately railing against the Byzantine emperor who’s quote was repeated therein.
Secondly I think it’s launched a very interesting debate, it has emboldened those in the west (ironically just a few days after the death of Oriana Fallaci) who have some qualms with the teachings of much of Islam to voice their mind.
Is it pertinent that Jihad, an apparently abstract struggle against evil, can be so easily pursued by violent means? Does it matter that a significant percentage of Muslims living in Britain feel that suicide bombers are martyrs doing God’s work?
Are we deluding ourselves by repeating the suggestion that the peaceful benevolent religion practiced by the majority of Muslims is the true Islam? Is it just a watered down compromise, an attempt to make the best of a bad situation?
Personally I was taught that it’s my duty to help others down their path to God, even if it’s not a path I’d have chosen but can I accept the necessity of violence in religious doctrine?
I suspect the question is what the Prophet Muhammad meant by what he preached.
This will not be heard favorably but I feel that there are a lot of similarities between Muhammad and Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church.
I don’t suggest that Muhammad recited the word of god from behind a screen, translated from bronze plates he dug up in his backyard and then subsequently could not repeat those words accurately. I am referring to the similarities between the Mormon movement and early Islam as groups who’s creed was an amalgam of civic code and religious duty.
Both had a leader who sought to found a holy society in which the word of god was paramount, both saw no distinction between state and church and both spread their faith and society simultaneously.
The Mormons were successful due, in no small part, to their admirable and highly ambitious perpetual migration fund, providing them with a constant stream of followers and converts eager for a slice of life in the New World.
Muhammad led military campaigns against tribes who sought to drive his people into retreat, he recaptured Mecca and fought with great aptitude. The subsequent wars against Christendom in Syria and Mesopotamia did not occur till the prophet had ascended into heaven, no more justifiable or a part of the religion than the Crusades and arguably completely at odds with Muhammad’s own teachiings (“Of all the people who believe in god, he who says ”Christ is my saviour“ is the greatest friend you will know”).
Yet even with the limited violence attributable to Muhammad (only 24 were reputed to have died when he took Mecca) he still wielded a sword, he shed blood with it and that is where the problem arises.
If Muhammad was justified by order of God in killing non-believers, there were grounds for the slaying of other non-believers. No matter how limited, there exists a loophole, a justification under which one can kill another human without sinning, arguably performing God’s work.
The History of Christianity is not without its blemishes but such acts are considered palpably un-Christian. The Crusades, the killing of ‘Witches’ and the like are all at odds with the fundamental messages of Christ - those which bore early Christians through persecution, violence and torture to their place as accepted members of society.
Turning the other cheek, abstaining from any violence. Following Christ’s example.
So even if in the abstract, Jihad is the struggle against evil, sin or immorality, even if the true message of Islam is non-violence, can I commend any faith who’s founder practiced violence? Who’s sword, now considered a blessed relic, was more than just for show?
The beauty of Christianity is in the parable of the Good Samaritan: you don’t have to be Christian to enter the Kingdom of heaven, you only have to live a decent life - by morals which we today consider to be universally and objectively “good”. I have no problem with believing that most Muslims will find salvation in the next life because they live peaceful, generous lives.
However aside from his ignoring most of Christ’s message whilst glorifying him as a Prophet, (How Muhammad gets around the whole “I am the King of the Jews and the Son of God” thing is beyond me, it’s not like Christ muttered it under his breath, he was crucified for it) I have to take issue with Muhammad’s embrace, no matter how unwilling or fleeting, of violence.
A letter in the Times summed it up:
Sir, In his letter of Sept 12 Dr Ahmad Abou-Saleh denies the statement by David Selbourne (Comment, Sept 9) that “Islam is not a religion in the conventional sense”. This is to deny its origin and history and beginnings as a politico-religious ideology. Its creator shed blood to expand and conquer.
During the Battle of the Trench in AD627, Prophet Muhammad ordered the massacre of 700 Jews and Christians. In the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, one may still see the sword of the Prophet Muhammad and the swords of the first three caliphs.
No one is ever going to find the sword of Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha or Guru Nanak.
RANDHIR SINGH BAINS
Gants Hill, Essex
Irrespective of whether or not Muhammad ordered that massacre, or whether he phrased it thusly, no Muslim will deny that Muhammad used his sword at one time or another and that is where I find the limits of my tolerance for his teachings.
Later
John
Good heavens, this is the worst writing I have witnessed in some time! Certainly the worst I’ve read in the Times.
Puerile, unsubstantiated and resplendent with errors which any fan of Star Trek (goodness knows we’re not hard to find with an organized fanbase numbering millions) would be able to correct.
This sort of adolescent insight is best left to the comment pages of newspapers with more fanciful reputations.
Here’s the article in question, Fisked:
To boldly go and interfere
By Patrick West
TODAY IS THE 40th anniversary of the first Star Trek episode broadcast on American television. And while we Trekkies will dutifully be honouring the birthday of this often hammy, frequently absurd but nonetheless compelling show, it is also an occasion for lamentation, a time to reflect on the baleful effect the programme has had on the American mindset — namely Star Trek’s message of liberal imperialism, a philosophy that uncannily has since been realised in real life. Thanks to a process of osmosis from perennial reruns, Star Trek has propagated the belief that it is proper to interfere in other societies, that it is America’s duty to assume the role of (inter-)world policeman, and to correct the errant ways of other cultures — for their own good. And Spock was to Kirk what Blair is to Bush, a lackey willing to assist his master in his curious mission that seemingly has no specific objective.
Let’s list the problems with this assertion: 1) The Prime Directive, 2) Spock being a ‘Lackey’.
The Prime Directive is well defined in Wikipedia:
The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or alien races. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret. ‘Primitive’ is defined as any culture which has not yet attained warp drive. Starfleet allows scientific missions to investigate and move amongst pre-warp civilizations as long as no advanced technology is left behind, and there is no interference with events or no revelation of their identity.
Heck if Mr West had been bothered to perhaps WATCH some Star Trek he may have realized that half the episodes of The Next Generation consist of Captain Picard wringing his hands in high orbit struggling with the fact that he can’t interfere in the genocide/ethnic-cleansing/despotism taking place on the planet.
Secondly the friction between Spock and Kirk is one of the most fundamental aspects of the original Star Trek series, the clash of Logic and Emotion, Reason and Heart. Suggesting that Spock simply followed orders mindlessly is ridiculous.
Some may contend that this is unfair, in that Star Trek promoted gender equality and that the crew of the Enterprise was multi-ethnic.
True, but it was an American alpha-male who was at the helm of the ship, with a Brit (Scottie), a Russian-Ukrainian (Chekov) a Japanese man (Sulu) and an African- American woman (Uhuru — or should we say Condi Rice) remaining decidedly subservient. Tellingly, having dabbled with employing a female as ship’s captain in the unsuccessful 1990s incarnation Star Trek: Voyager, the most recent manifestation, Star Trek: Enterprise, reverted to type, with a white American male back in the saddle, his principal underling now an Englishman.
Right. Let’s see. Kirk was played by a Canadian but we’ll leave Shatner’s nationality out of this. Picard was French, Benjamin Sisko was Black and Captain Janeway was unmistakably female. Sulu makes Admiral, heck even DATA, a frikkin’ Android gets command of a vessel at one point! The Enterprise NCC-1701C was captained by a woman too!
Then what of the show’s celebrated “prime directive”, that the explorers should never interfere in alien civilisations? The problem here is that the prime directive is blatantly and persistently violated. Not an episode concludes without one of Captain Kirk’s sermons, his incessant moralising to troubled alien civilisations that they should follow his lead and cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Read above, this idiot clearly hasn’t watched enough Star Trek to make this assertion.
Star Trek represented not the ethos of mutual, egalitarian co-operation, but of multinational interference firmly under the leadership of Americans. Rather than having succumbed to the urge to boldly go and meddle with strange new worlds he didn’t understand, Captain Kirk should have stayed at home and sorted out his own people’s problems.
The premise of Star Trek was that War, Famine, Hunger, Disease had all been eradicated on Earth and on all the planets of the United Federation of Planets. Nothing else needed to be done at home. The Enterprise NCC-1701’s mission was one of benign exploration.
The Federation showed time and time again its insistence on a policy of noninterference even when entire worlds were subsumed beneath Alien invasions (the Marquis terrorist organization in the TNG/DS9 timeline take up arms due to this stance! Half the crew of the USS Voyager are former Marquis and combined with the many Marquis-related plotlines in DS9 you can hardly call that issue swept under the rug!)
In short, this article is ridiculous. Utter bollocks! It’s disgusting that such an illy-written excuse for commentary, equal in sophistication to the brain-fart of a heavily-stoned college student, should be printed in the Times.
Later
John
Things aren’t looking good for the Labour Party as 7 Junior Ministers resign over Tony Blair’s insistence that he won’t name a concrete date for his resignation.
As a voter I’m slightly peeved by this display. If I recall I voted for 4 more years of a Labour Government led by Tony Blair, that’s what I was told I was voting for, that’s what I expect to get. I didn’t vote for “some time with Blair as PM until we get tired of following orders”.
I got my 1st in Constitutional Law and recognize that on a purely academic level a General Election is not in fact a “Prime Ministerial” election, however the election is always presented to the public by every party as being precisely that.
If this goes on we’ll be seeing David Cameron smiling on the steps of Downing Street and I’ll have probably voted for him out of disgust for my own Party as the best hope to implement a progressive set of policies.
You’ve been warned Labour: Knives come out, so does my membership.
Later
John
It is interesting that the other commentators are quick to chastise Tim Hames from applying a “double standard” to Iran compared to other nuclear nations.
The difference seems clear. Iran has been quite eloquent in articulating the reason why it might desires the bomb and indeed, the very reason why it shouldn’t have the bomb.
No nation on earth has procured a Nuclear weapon with the express intention of “wiping out”, “driving into the sea” or “eradicating” another nation state. Even the Soviets obtained a nuclear arsenal more to assure a notional parity with the US than for any other reason as they proved when they backed down over the Cuban Missile Crisis.
India and Pakistan have so far said nothing of genocide or the vaporizing of each other’s territory.
Iran however has a president who denies that the holocaust happened and has said time and time again that it seeks to eradicate Israel.
It seems to me akin to selling a gun over the counter to a man who walks in and asks for “a shotgun to kill my wife with”.
No thanks.
Later
John
In the Times today is an article by Alan Milburn. He’s touted as an arch-Blairite by the press and in a lot of respects exemplifies the progressive politics that keep me aligned with the Labour Party.
His Article has a lot to say about what we need if we’re to win the next election and what the issues now are.
Here’s a key paragraph:
How we respond to globalisation, not by resorting to economic protectionism but through open markets, free trade and a new accent on skills and employability. How we build genuinely inclusive societies when there are huge pressures going in the opposite direction, notably a widening gap between rich and poor. How we deal with the causes and consequences of global terrorism and get the trade-offs right between protecting wider society and defending civil liberties. How we avoid racial conflict in an era of global migration. How we deal with the challenge of demographic and environmental change. And, in particular, how we fulfil the desire people have for greater control in their lives whether through more choice over how services are delivered or through a better balance between work and family life. These were not the main challenges then. But they are now.
That’s progressive politics and you know what disturbs me? That’s what David Cameron sounds like. It’s a cunning play by the Tory leader - he senses that Labour is going to fracture and that in a moment of brash idiocy the New Labour project will be scrapped, or at the very least become an anathema in the eyes of those who’s ideals gave it life.
The Labour backbench will swing to the left, it will do everything it can to implode in a grotesque rite of socialist-seppuku. The challenge the party faces is in reminding them of why they were elected in the first place.
Cameron’s ready to sweep in from the wings and take the centre ground with lower taxes and public sector reform - we’re not facing the prattling of a right wing parliamentary bingo-caller, pandering to the prejudices of his diminishing and aging audience - we have an actual opponent who wants to claim progressive policies for his own and who will take the country with him.
The issues for the new political future are exactly as Alan Milburn describes them, the question is whether Labour can deal with them with the same forthright attitude that he has demonstrated.
Later
John