Monday, May 02, 2005
Having my say...
Since the BBC web site never shows anything of mine on 'Have your say', here's something I wrote earlier that I might as well put up here:
"Lacking any firm guiding principles, other than expediency and a desire to hold on to power, Blair and his government clearly find it impossible to understand the behaviour of people who do have principles.
"I do not understand how you defend liberty and democracy by undermining it, how injustice will prevent terrorism, or allowing citizens to be treated as criminals without evidence, charge or trial makes any of us safer. The language used by supporters of this irrational legislation is chillingly reminiscent of the language used by totalitarian regimes throughout the last hundred years.
"It is particularly galling for Blair to disparage the Lords as 'unelected' and contrast it unfavourably with the 'elected' chamber when his massive majority is built on electoral support of less than 41% of votes cast (and a mere 24% of registered voters)."
Of course his massive majority this time will be built on an even small proportion of voters, but that won't stop them. It'll be your fault if it happens but there's still time - if we could achieve a hung parliament, then the voting system could be changed (to the one used for the Scottish Parliament) and then the politicians would have to lisen to all of us, not just a few swing voters in marginal constituencies.
"Lacking any firm guiding principles, other than expediency and a desire to hold on to power, Blair and his government clearly find it impossible to understand the behaviour of people who do have principles.
"I do not understand how you defend liberty and democracy by undermining it, how injustice will prevent terrorism, or allowing citizens to be treated as criminals without evidence, charge or trial makes any of us safer. The language used by supporters of this irrational legislation is chillingly reminiscent of the language used by totalitarian regimes throughout the last hundred years.
"It is particularly galling for Blair to disparage the Lords as 'unelected' and contrast it unfavourably with the 'elected' chamber when his massive majority is built on electoral support of less than 41% of votes cast (and a mere 24% of registered voters)."
Of course his massive majority this time will be built on an even small proportion of voters, but that won't stop them. It'll be your fault if it happens but there's still time - if we could achieve a hung parliament, then the voting system could be changed (to the one used for the Scottish Parliament) and then the politicians would have to lisen to all of us, not just a few swing voters in marginal constituencies.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Lies, damnable lies and...
...pretty well anything Tony Blair says. Really.
Isn't it a little odd that prior to giving his final edited summary to the Cabinet as they prepared to vote for (illegal) war, the Attorney General asked for confirmation that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolutions. And that the person he asked was...the Prime Minister. I bet you're wondering what TB answered? He said 'yes'. Surprise! So that's all right then.
Doesn't this seem a little circular? PM wants to start war. Asks AG for legal opinion. AG says, maybe, perhaps, if Iraq in breach. AG asks PM if Iraq is in breach. PM says yes. AG says it's OK then. PM gets the war he wanted.
Meanwhile I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of Labour politicians justifying invading Iraq on the basis that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, that is to say that the ends justify the means. One of Blair's apologists (Ann Clwyd) actually stated it in just those terms on Channel 4 News the other night. Blair has also spoken in these terms repeatedly.
Now, I may be a little old-fashioned, but I was always brought up to believe that 'the end justifies the means' was a Bad Thing. In Blair's World, though, it's only a bad thing if other people do it.
I'm further perturbed by comments on the BBC News site from the public, many of whom seem very keen on TB because he is a 'strong and decisive leader'. Let's think about that for a moment. Can you bring to mind any other 'strong, decisive leaders' who thought and acted as if the ends justified the means. Here's a few to play with: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and , errrm, Saddam Hussein. Do I think Blair belongs with them - no, but he displays distressing tendencies in the direction of authoritarianism. What's worrying is the number of people who by their comments about Blair show that they would vote for such a leader. Now that's scary.
Isn't it a little odd that prior to giving his final edited summary to the Cabinet as they prepared to vote for (illegal) war, the Attorney General asked for confirmation that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolutions. And that the person he asked was...the Prime Minister. I bet you're wondering what TB answered? He said 'yes'. Surprise! So that's all right then.
Doesn't this seem a little circular? PM wants to start war. Asks AG for legal opinion. AG says, maybe, perhaps, if Iraq in breach. AG asks PM if Iraq is in breach. PM says yes. AG says it's OK then. PM gets the war he wanted.
Meanwhile I'm increasingly disturbed by the number of Labour politicians justifying invading Iraq on the basis that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, that is to say that the ends justify the means. One of Blair's apologists (Ann Clwyd) actually stated it in just those terms on Channel 4 News the other night. Blair has also spoken in these terms repeatedly.
Now, I may be a little old-fashioned, but I was always brought up to believe that 'the end justifies the means' was a Bad Thing. In Blair's World, though, it's only a bad thing if other people do it.
I'm further perturbed by comments on the BBC News site from the public, many of whom seem very keen on TB because he is a 'strong and decisive leader'. Let's think about that for a moment. Can you bring to mind any other 'strong, decisive leaders' who thought and acted as if the ends justified the means. Here's a few to play with: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and , errrm, Saddam Hussein. Do I think Blair belongs with them - no, but he displays distressing tendencies in the direction of authoritarianism. What's worrying is the number of people who by their comments about Blair show that they would vote for such a leader. Now that's scary.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Rant No 2
Unpaid secret policeman or whatever happened to the rule of law?
I've just come into contact with a change to employment law that took place last year. I now have to ask every candidate for a job to provide proof that they have the right to work in the UK. Yes, that's right, people born here have to bring along a passport (or failing that an official document with their National Insurance number plus their full birth certificate - the one that names both parents). It sems that this is so very important to stop people working illicitly here, and that it's so important to stop illegal workers that all 60 million Britons are assumed to be lying cheats unless they prove otherwise. Nice.
You may think this is not much of a problem. After all, most people have a passport or a P60 plus their birth certificate. But think for a moment - do you want to be living in the kind of society where your papers are demanded just so you can go for a job interview? Doesn't that sound familiar? Like South Africa in the days of Apartheid or one of the states of Eastern Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Union. An ongoing requirement to prove your identity to agents of the state.
And brilliantly it co-opts employers as police informers. It's the employer who is liable to prosecution for failing to make these checks, so effectively we have been conscripted as unpaid secret policemen spying on the working population for the government.
What's more, it completely inverts a basic principle of British justice: that one is innocent until proven guilty. Here one is assumed to be guilty until once can prove one's innocence, a concept which strikes at the core of . It's hard to believe that the government that passed such (another) illiberal measure is filled with lawyers, many of whom made their reputations (when in Opposition) mouthing off about human rights. And all you need to do to get away with despicable legislation like this is to dress it up as a measure to control migrant workers - and the Tories just roll over to have their tummies tickled. You call that an Opposition? Cos I don't. The question of to what extent they need to be controlled (rather than protected from exploitation) will be addressed later.
It is perhaps not surprising that 'New Labour' are capable of such stupidities. They seem not just to have no respect for tradition (their own or anybody else's), but to actively despise anything that isn't new. Yet it is shared tradition (or culture if you like) that holds society together, that indeed creates a society. Here once again we see though we can see a view of Britain where it is the state, not the citizens, that is all important; the state which doles out bits of freedom to the citizens, rather than citizens giving up bits of their own freedom to the state for collective reasons; and the state which decides what is best for everyone.
Sometimes I don't know where to turn. We've drifted into an authoritarian nanny state, and seem to lack the will to do anything about it. Let Down by Labour, can't Trust the Tories - what's a boy to do?
Up next: Say No to ID Cards - the spy in your wallet.
I've just come into contact with a change to employment law that took place last year. I now have to ask every candidate for a job to provide proof that they have the right to work in the UK. Yes, that's right, people born here have to bring along a passport (or failing that an official document with their National Insurance number plus their full birth certificate - the one that names both parents). It sems that this is so very important to stop people working illicitly here, and that it's so important to stop illegal workers that all 60 million Britons are assumed to be lying cheats unless they prove otherwise. Nice.
You may think this is not much of a problem. After all, most people have a passport or a P60 plus their birth certificate. But think for a moment - do you want to be living in the kind of society where your papers are demanded just so you can go for a job interview? Doesn't that sound familiar? Like South Africa in the days of Apartheid or one of the states of Eastern Europe before the collapse of the Soviet Union. An ongoing requirement to prove your identity to agents of the state.
And brilliantly it co-opts employers as police informers. It's the employer who is liable to prosecution for failing to make these checks, so effectively we have been conscripted as unpaid secret policemen spying on the working population for the government.
What's more, it completely inverts a basic principle of British justice: that one is innocent until proven guilty. Here one is assumed to be guilty until once can prove one's innocence, a concept which strikes at the core of . It's hard to believe that the government that passed such (another) illiberal measure is filled with lawyers, many of whom made their reputations (when in Opposition) mouthing off about human rights. And all you need to do to get away with despicable legislation like this is to dress it up as a measure to control migrant workers - and the Tories just roll over to have their tummies tickled. You call that an Opposition? Cos I don't. The question of to what extent they need to be controlled (rather than protected from exploitation) will be addressed later.
It is perhaps not surprising that 'New Labour' are capable of such stupidities. They seem not just to have no respect for tradition (their own or anybody else's), but to actively despise anything that isn't new. Yet it is shared tradition (or culture if you like) that holds society together, that indeed creates a society. Here once again we see though we can see a view of Britain where it is the state, not the citizens, that is all important; the state which doles out bits of freedom to the citizens, rather than citizens giving up bits of their own freedom to the state for collective reasons; and the state which decides what is best for everyone.
Sometimes I don't know where to turn. We've drifted into an authoritarian nanny state, and seem to lack the will to do anything about it. Let Down by Labour, can't Trust the Tories - what's a boy to do?
Up next: Say No to ID Cards - the spy in your wallet.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Rant No 1
...and your point is?
Maybe there isn't one. But what the hell, I need to rant. Ranting is good - it clears the head of all that oppressive clutter, freshens the air and makes the world seem a sunnier place. So, to business...
'Professional web designers'
Why is it that so many 'professional' web designers produce sites whose underlying code is so very, very bad. Code that doesn't comply with any published specification and that fails to meet any published standard. Code that perpetuates pointless intrusions like commenting-out javascript and styles surely indicates that the designers haven't learned anything new since about 1998 (the last time such a thing was at all needed - if it ever really was). Still sniffing for browsers and screen resolutions is so last millennium. Still its only a web site, no-one dies (well not unless they're using a web interface to contact a health professional or run a nuclear power station, I suppose), so a shiny surface may seem to suffice. And don't get me started on accessibility. But in what other profession would ignorance of and failure to apply relevant standards be accepted in a self-proclaimed 'professional'?
There's a word for professionals who produce work that looks acceptable on the surface but is garbage underneath. Cowboys.
Maybe there isn't one. But what the hell, I need to rant. Ranting is good - it clears the head of all that oppressive clutter, freshens the air and makes the world seem a sunnier place. So, to business...
'Professional web designers'
Why is it that so many 'professional' web designers produce sites whose underlying code is so very, very bad. Code that doesn't comply with any published specification and that fails to meet any published standard. Code that perpetuates pointless intrusions like commenting-out javascript and styles surely indicates that the designers haven't learned anything new since about 1998 (the last time such a thing was at all needed - if it ever really was). Still sniffing for browsers and screen resolutions is so last millennium. Still its only a web site, no-one dies (well not unless they're using a web interface to contact a health professional or run a nuclear power station, I suppose), so a shiny surface may seem to suffice. And don't get me started on accessibility. But in what other profession would ignorance of and failure to apply relevant standards be accepted in a self-proclaimed 'professional'?
There's a word for professionals who produce work that looks acceptable on the surface but is garbage underneath. Cowboys.
