Overall, I'm in favour of local government, I like local responsibility as a principle, and I don't think the 'legitimacy' of central govt is greater than that of local. At the same time, I value the ability of the central level to prevail in some policy areas - what local council will risk pushing for a wind farm etc on its territory? Or for some consistency in healthcare in a country with a so far still national health (less convincing, perhaps!). Or immigration. Point being, there is a legitimate question to be asked about relative powers of different levels of government. Preferably not addressed in a spirit of strong-crushes-weak.
My despair: the issue comes into the open, and the government's response is
The statements amount to political posturing and political hubris. It will be up to the electorate to decide in two years' time who is running the country. I hope the majority of Conservative councils will have the sense to ignore this and continue co-operating with the government to benefit their local community.which says nothing, completely ignores that there is an issue to discuss, and is arrogant. Make a principled argument for why the central government should have power in the areas of conflict raised by cantankerous local authorities... but not a principled peep out of the government, except the drivel over 42 days. (Mind you, even Liberty missed the ball on that... And someone tell David Davis that you cannot care for the individual's freedom from state power while supporting edath penalties.)
Not that the Tories have been any better (look at London local govt in the eighties...), and they will doubtless do their own version of the worst when in government. So it's not Labour or the Tories that is the problem, but the absence of principled discussion, driven by the attitudes of those who own and operate the media (on market principles). Which makes this as irrelevant as a calendar under the ocean.
10 comments:
Juxtaposing 'principled discussion' and **** doesn't quite work for me. Windfarm/humpback fin link terrific; try
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19826614.800-corrugated-wings-help-dragonflies-cut-drag.html
for another uplifting link. Calendars do exist under the ocean - the life cycles of many marine organisms are regulated by the moon.
PS Re NS - look for: Corrugated wings give dragonflies a lift
I agree with most of what you are saying. At least, as I often say, there are people like you in the structures and fissues of the system.
Is there a vested interest in aircraft wing/aerofoil manufacture that prevented dragonfly/golf ball styles being adopted like oil companies did with renewable energy?
Talking of science, my new colleague across the desk is talking about the big project involving (or uninvolving) methyl bromide, spaders and soil.
Glad you mention the calendars - I was sitting having dinner last night thinking, I'm sure there must be some reason a calendar would be useful in the ocean...
And it's July! The Large Hadron Collider is coming Soon!!! Goodness, I'm too excited about that.
I take your point about writing 'principled discussion' in the same post as 'Tory'...
Goose - does this make me a fissureman?
You so don't take my point, and quite why quoting the Guardian style guide at me helps, I don't know. For the record, I used the asterisks in order to avoid repeating the language you used - hypocritical to object to swearwords by using them, don't you think?
There is no reason that swearing should detract from 'principled discussion,' if that's what's going on. Swear words have their place, for example when wanting to quickly show the frustrated tone something is written in. Not necessary, but this isn't a news piece!
Yes, it can be lazy and overdone (perhaps/no, in this case), and yes it inhibits both development and maintenance of your wider vocabulary (and those of people nearby, especially children). I do think I swear too easily, and generally try to limit it. (In case there are impressionable pre-majority progeny perusing this blog, I will repair any damage to your vocabularies by posting Oxford's word of the day each day next week.)
Not using asterisks might be hypocritical, but then I think that a blanket objection to swearing is undesirably puritan, and itself hypocritical in most people's cases. And asterisks look so primary school. And tabloid, and timid, and I think the quote from Bronte in the Guardian Styleguide is pretty right on.
~
On the question of humpback fins, so much for the squillions of human hours spent in aerodynamics in god-knows how many decades - the bumpy design applied to a table fan is more effective, quieter and uses 80% of the energy of the compared smooth fin. Go nature!
Yep you are one righteous fucking fissureman.
Myself I am partial to the odd expletive, though sadly they are some of the few words I always spell right, so maybe thats why I like 'em. Obviously they must be used well, but they are some of our most expresive and evocative words and anyone who likes words should like that.
Although I did read something the other week about how millions of bands these days use Fuck in their title and no one even cares, which suggests we shouldn't try and use these words to shock, or at least not in band names, but when they are used goodly and rightly is always for me, a pleasureable reading experience. Pinter uses them wonderfully, as does Irvine Welsh. Sometimes they are very much not needed and stuff becomes stonger when they are taken out, other times stuff improves with their addition.
Certainly there is nothing unprincipled about using swear words, if you have nothing against them youself. If an individual had a principal against using swear words and then they used them it would be unprincipled. But why an individual would have such a principal is beyond me. But then many ideas and attitudes that are not my own are beyond me.
A lot of my favourite songs ever have swear words in unusual places. Thats my favourite kind of swearing.
Incidently I wrote a blog the other day, after weeks in the desert, if anyone fancies a peep.
Oh yeah, and also Chris, there is no way you sweat too much. I swear too much, lits of people I know swear too much, but you are the perfect little baby bear of swearing (i wanted to say baby bear of swear cos it sounds more hip hop), you do it just right.
for sweat read swear obviously. I cannot comment on if you sweat too much. I mean can opne sweat to much since sweating is a nessesary function and if you are doing it I guess it means you need to... like breathing. But then again no doubt some people have funny glands or whatever...
right, must lock library now, so comments must cease!
I sweat far too easily, it makes me quite self-conscious at salsa clubs.
Nice to see you posting again, with your eminently sensible thoughts on our working lives... I didn't take History of Feminism 101 at LSE, but I have a feeling the feminism that got legitimated by the meeja, as far as any was, didn't include such radical ideas, which in turn aren't necessarily femin-ist. But this is better said on your comments page.
Post a Comment