I disagree with many things he says, and much of his approach to life. But the Devil's Kitchen has come up with a fantastic quote.
Talking about the growing campaign against heavy or hard drinking, and a paper published on what to do about it.
In order to reduce alcohol consumption among young people, the level of excise paid on alcohol should be increased
Suck. My. Balls.
Mr Kitchen, sometimes you're right on the money.
Hey, possible-readers. Did you know you're being lied to by the state for your own good? By the time that people say you should be taxing something to reduce its use, there's probably something wrong with your model. There are people in it - you're infected!
I'm having a problem now. I can just about keep track of who and what things are. I understand some big basic stuff. But I have severe trouble deciding what is important and what is not. For example; Lockerbie. I don't have a strong opinion, and I suspect it's because I'm scared to put forth the opinion that I do have strongly and with conviction. But I'm scared to do that because I really rather like living in my comfortable world. So my next challenge to myself is to take up a cause. It doesn't have to be one I can make a significant difference to. To stick with the above example, I'm not going to have any luck where the US secretary of state failed, or where 1.5 appeals didn't make any difference. But I could educate people who kvetch about the release. That's a difference as far as someone thinking goes.
And a short story here. I was in a park in Brighton recently, and two girls (sisters, in pink) were arguing over who got to be the princess. By the time I left them, one of them was still uselessly insisting that she could be the princess. The other one had a strange smile on her face and was thinking about being Prince Charming, instead of being rescued by him. Now that's a difference for feminism.
So if I have any readers, feel free to suggest things I should look into and/or get behind. I don't want to be a middle-class statistic, but I don't know what I can do. And no, I won't just be waiting for input. I'll be thinking (and I hope doing) as well.
Devil's Kitchen has a rather chilling dystopian image to put over; all about citizen spies and the state. However, I think he's tilting at the wrong windmill. States, as such, don't plan to control their citizens. People plan to control citizens through the state, to make them 'better' in some way.
But there's a model that is far older than ... well, not far older than politics, in fact. But far more famous. Never mind the rise of totalitarian parties. We are in the grip of a religion. People are doing things because they /believe/ in a set of moral choices. They think that a better society will follow if they are prepared to guide a citizenry down the right path.
There are competing priesthoods, and even cults within those. But they almost all buy into the belief that society is a good thing in and of itself.
(Personally, so do I. I have this little voice inside my head that says 'violence is right in the right cause'. Which is not a good thing for other people to have of me, so I keep it reined in. The thing that keeps journalists safe from the man behind Devil's Kitchen is the same thing that keeps him safe from me. I fear to hurt him, because I will be punished. I don't actually care how he feels - I think he's wrong about how people behave, and the easiest way to show him that would be to hit him. But I won't, because it's against, heh, my religion.)
But there is a very good point in what he says, although I think he's attributing malice where there is in fact a genuine desire for the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Humankind has walked alongside religion for all of recorded history. I think it's hardwired in, and I think that the capacity to believe in the unknown has been displaced onto the amorphous but powerful symbol that is 'society'. My god's better than your god, say the various parties. But they all agree there is a god, and a better future.
I've been pottering around the blogscape for a few weeks now, reading various viewpoint blogs. Other than politically-induced bulimia, I have discovered (read, decided upon) the following.
'Left' and 'Right' are labels that are outdated, but still useful for people who belong to major political parties. But there is a thing called social policy. It's a relatively simple concept, although you can have it in various arenas. The more you lean on it, the more you are investing into a large-scale view of society rather than a small one. So a light social touch lets people do much as they please, under the assumption this will be 'good' in general. A heavy social touch tells people the exact framework in which they should work.
Now, there's a problem here that there are different concepts of 'good', from no person being left behind, to no person having to support others. Many of these concepts are mutually exclusive. But as far as I can work out, it boils down to 'I want' vs 'they want'. Ask anyone on an individual basis what they want and they will reply. Human beings know what they want. But they don't always know if they are giving as much as they are getting or more. To me, that would be an ideal society, assuming that the excess is used to expand society. (Yeah, Utopiansim. So shoot me. I didn't ssay it was /possible/.) That is the basic 'I want' level. But then people go away and think about how to get it, and somehow that translates to 'they want'.
One level of this is unionism, but the contemporary political spectrum tries to take this further, and tells people 'you want'. At which point I think something is broken, because people start to agree tamely.
However, there's a further problem of ignorance. People don't know what is good for them, long-term. Pay taxes now so your roads will still be functional 10 years from now? Who knows if you'll still have a car? Introduce immigration controls to stop skilled manual jobs going to foreigners? Who's going to do the cheap-ass jobs then? And these are just the headliners.
These are all complex problems, and they are not going to get better just because people vote more, or even if they hold their politicians to account. The huge and complicated snarl that is society cannot be understood by the man on the Clapham omnibus. If it could be, we'd be in a very different position.
Libertarians say (distillation here) that without state interference there would be more room for 'good'. You're wrong, you lot. Democracy may let people vote to fuck you with knives, but it keeps them from doing so without a vote. I've never met a libertarian who wasn't what I would term over-privileged. The only way your philosophy would work is after a massive eugenics program. You're assuming enough resources, as far as I can work out - and political systems assume there are /not/ enough. If they're wrong, the onus on you is to prove it.
Labour Parties (generalisation here) assume that people want to work, and want to contribute to society, but that the poor need help from the rich. To some degree, I agree with that. If I go into a bank and ask for credit, I have a far better chance than if my poor friends do. (I don't mind the poor! Some of my best friends are socially disadvantaged...) But it shouldn't cripple the rich, or even the well-off.
So if you want to avoid me being seriously pissed off, there has to be a lot more transparency. What /is/ the money I'm paying doing? I know you can't break it down pound by pound, but shouldn't money from Chelsea be spent in Chelsea?
Well, not all of it. There's a lot of money on the King's Road and not so much elsewhere, and if you let Chelsea keep its money because it's not needed in the direct area, then you have a tax haven. I am in favour of low taxes. I am also in favour of people paying those taxes. It's not about the nobility of the working class or the rights of man. It's about people not being so envious that they upset the whole system.
Conservatives say mostly that small changes are good, but right now I'm not going to address the Conservative agenda in the UK. I think it's lost its way.
So there you go. The levels of want. I want (but might be damaging) They want (but might be louder than they deserve) You want (but might be ignored). I come down on the side of those who say 'please'.
I should add, regarding my last post, that I tend to think of 'people' as a homogeneous mass, capable nevertheless of rational thought. And I muddled up two arguments because of that. One point I have to make is that there will always be a settling of society with the more talented in positions of higher earning. In fact, those who /have/ experienced a low sort of life will want a padded fall for in case it happens again. Those who have much self-belief will not.
The other point was the one about tax, which follows on from para 1. But that's already been covered.
Yes, there is great misery brought about through being poor. But you do not deal with that by giving the poor money. You deal with it by making sure they can earn money by working. And yes, that does have to mean 'enough' money. Some people fall through the gaps, but it's better than nothing.
I've been looking over rebuttals to the Rawls position of Justice and Fairness. Let me explain.
John Rawls said that if people had no idea which position in society they would have, then given the choice they would define society to avoid being put in a low and miserable position. He calls it 'the original position'. He's starting from a non-existent point of view, as opposed to the current state, and extrapolating from his guesswork.
You were wrong, John. If you need proof of that, go into any bookmaker's and watch people placing bets. Bookmakers earn a huge amount of money. And yet people still take that risk. Some do it because they think they know better; they may be right, on an individual basis. Some do it because they want a flutter. Humanity is not risk-averse. A society based on being averse to risk will choke in its own fear.
What you were doing was setting up a paper tiger and saying 'people will choose not to be eaten by the tiger'. No we won't. We'll ignore the tiger. Or we'll set fire to it in effigy. Or, as it's paper, we don't even need the effigy.
If I had the original position? I would not assume I was an average person. I would assume that I was me, no matter what the /system/ was. Your model cripples society by enforcing mediocrity as the new standard. Of course the low and the miserable will want resources spent on them. What will you do once you have spent the resources once? Tax and spend again?
For a 40% tax rate, people stay in the country and complain about how much they pay. For a 50% rate, they go abroad. I would be so angry under your model that I would leave the second time you suggested taxing me in favour of 'fairness'. No matter what rate you put it at.
No, I'm not a libertarian. I believe that the state should exist and be fairly hefty, because decent capitalism depends on near-perfect knowledge, and on values such as guilt and happiness being the same for most people. Obviously not the case IRL.
I'm conservative, although I'm not a Tory. I believe that on a small level, libertarian policies work. On a large level, they reinforce people not caring. I am a better and more generous person because the NHS exists. I have grown up thinking it is appropriate to have a safety net and a ladder back up to the high wire.
I don't believe we should be spending most of our money and resources building an elevator back up there, John. We'd only be able to reach halfway, and then we'd have to move the tripwire down.
I will be looking at This speech, which seems to me to be reasonable and rational. So let's tear it to pieces and see how reasonable and rational I am.
Even if the winner is not a reformer, I don't think their tenure will stop the voters' demand to be more involved. I think this is a bit naive, because demand does not translate to ability, or even to concerted or long-term demand. The bankers made a good target. Now MPs are making one.
If we swing back in time we see that the crowd always played a crucial part in the legislative process, making their views felt, long before there was universal franchise. Well, yes. In true democracies, they do. But it's not efficient. The greatest good for the greatest number of people lets some people be very miserable indeed. There are two ways a crowd can make its point felt, and one is shouting loud enough to deafen other things. (The other is by being obviously right, but it doesn't often happen.)
But political parties are now dying. Mmm. That's going to take at least another generation, if they /don't/ find some way to renew themselves. The thing about parties is that they allow filters on the voice of the outside. So the crowd roars, and MPs speak, and a very few people decide.
It's the electorate that is demanding a bigger political say than has been offered by a vote every five years in a general election. Oh, Frank. And you were doing so well. Everyone who can think knows that a general election vote is the smallest contribution you /can/ pay to politics. If you want to make a difference, there are many ways. For one thing, people in Birkenhead can write to you directly. I can write to my own MP. For another, MPs are a loud and flashy show. One person trying to influence things without money can seldom make a difference. (Seldom, but not never.) There are ways to engage with the political process that do not involve waiting five years to make one cross on a piece of paper. Many many matters are and should be dealt with at a local level. If people are demanding more, it is not up to the speaker to give it. It is up to /them/ to find out what they can do.
How many people have read the Telegraph and actually done something other than tell people how angry they are? A 5% increase in circulation and for what? The general election will roll around, and in a year or two this story will be history.
There is also a wish to have a say on who should be the candidate in our safe seats. Well, alright. Personally I don't care about the safe seats. I want to be able to decide who a party puts up in unsafe seats. Then I might actually /join/ one. But I see where you're coming from. Parties don't want to risk their vote in seats that matter. So... safe seats? Alright. I'd like to see primaries there. But I'd like to see fair open primaries that don't have prohibitive costs of entry and advertising. Perhaps I'm preaching to the converted here.
Referenda? Someone learned Latin! But no. Referenda (I learned Latin too) are a way of letting people who are not otherwise engaged shout loudly 'black' or 'white'. They are one of the worst parts of populism, because they combine the slow response of proportional representation with the idiocy of having to put a question to the lowest common denominator, and then make the answer into law. No, no, no...
...where is our vote on the Lisbon Treaty? Tony Blair had it. It's been ratified. Stuff happens. Live with it. Don't make the mistake of speaking about it in the present tense.
We will, in fact, import the Swiss system of referendums into our parliamentary system so as to give the big decisions a legitimacy which they now lack owing to the death of parties. I might /like/ parties to die, but I don't think they will. The whip system allows for a relatively binary approach to the floor. Oh, and then there are Liberal Democrats. A three-party system would be better than two, I think. But there is one heck of a lot of inertia here, and even if one party dies, that will more likely make room for another than cause the demise of their political enemies.
If Coca-cola goes out of business, people buy /more/ Pepsi, not less. Even if they know that soft drinks are bad for them. They're cheap, and they make you feel good.
I know that the pressure from voters for reform is so strong that whoever wins the Speakership will not be able to turn back the tide pushing for a greater voter involvement in how they are governed. I want to believe you, Frank. But I don't. I think you're putting on a brave face. There always has been involvement. There will be a greater delving into those ways.
At least, I hope so. Because I do not want to be in a world where I have a referendum on things I don't care about, but have to attend because otherwise it's apathy.
Last three elections, I've gone to the booth to refuse to vote. How many more times do you /want/ me to do that?
Mike Smith on the Labour List has written a bombastic and yet terrifying article about making policy into law. The Devil's Kitchen intends to boil it up later, but I'm going to take a quick look at it myself. I'd invite my readers to, but I don't have any readers. And anyway, there would be such an overlap between me and the DK if I did, that you'd all know about it.
So here are a few bits... Sentence 1: The Government needs to expand on Yvette Cooper's announcement last week and start to entrench our values and policies in law...
I admit, I missed the announcement. I had to go look it up. And then I had to go floss my head. But the concept of a government not entrenching values and policies in law seems a strange one to me. What have you been doing, boys? Sitting on your hands? You've had since 1997. I just pointed out my own view on this. Labour is the radical party that has done nothing radical this time round. I can't think offhand of much they have done. However, I admit to being only newly awakened from my dogmatic slumbers.
They want to to stop a potential Tory government undoing Labour’s achievements of the last decade. But Tory governments don't tend to dismantle what Labour governments create. That's what being a conservative is about. Small changes, not radical ones. And if the government makes a big swing or changes to society while you're in opposition? Best to leave it there unless you can prove it's broken.
That's just the first sentence. But it seems to me they are holding up the Tories as a threat there, so people will be motivated.
A bit later on: If Labour could shift the ‘centre ground’ of political debate left... New Labour achieved office because the Tories were on the downturn /and/ there was a shift to the right /by/ Labour. I don't know how much weight to give to either of those, but NL certainly didn't want to shift the ground to the left back then. I see this as an appeal to the working class. "We haven't abandoned you. We were just pretending to."
(I recall Blair shocking the Labour party by saying that they needed to be more Thatcherite - not just in their conviction politics, but actually in their economics. Alas, I can't cite this. If anyone /does/ read this blog and can help me, I'd love to know.)
The entirety of paragraph 2 makes sense if paragraph 1 is correct. Given that Labour had time to get into power and keep it, there is room for a swing to the left that drags politics along with it. But I don't believe it happened. I believe that Labour pandered to the working classes without giving them anything that could be supported. Remember, 'pander' is a work that means 'to pimp'. Increasing public spending is not left-wing. It is bribery. Left wing policies work to improve the safety net for the poor, and to make it more comfortable to land on and less inviting to stay on. Producing a class of NHS middle managers so that they can pay for your housing boom is not left-wing. So I attribute the 'hug a hoodie' campaign to Tory disarray, and a perception of the central ground having moved, not its actually having done so. Civil partnerships and environmental change were always going to be on the cards, and it was always likely that the conservatives would be dragging their feet on them. It was just 'steam engine time'.
Alright. Paragraph 3. Parliamentary sovereignty means that the British people have no fundamental rights and there are no laws which parliament cannot change or abolish with a simple majority. Apparently this is only a bad thing if the Tories are in power. The Terrorism Act is used to stop people on the streets if policemen have had a bad day. (See Eyes passim) That is one law that I really do not want enshrined any further. There are others, most of which have to do with my personal information being held by 300,000+ potential idiots.
... Given this, the Tory response to this ‘unprecedented’ crisis could be truly terrifying and hugely damaging. Crises are by their nature unprecedented. Otherwise they'd have known solutions. And yes, I think it will be a very damaging and painful experience. Amputation usually is, and we don't have the money left for anaesthetic. Or, to put it another way, the public sector is going to have to shed jobs until the Job Office bursts at the seams. And then there's still the balance of trade problem.
Paragraph 4 is basically Labour threatening to stab the football if they are put in goal. The proposals announced by Yvette Cooper to introduce a legal duty to tackle child poverty could provide a model to embed the gains made over the last 12 years. Last I looked UK child poverty was still shamefully high. 24th out of 29 European countries. At least we're better off than Lithuania. We are not going to hit the 2020 target of abolishing it. When that was announced, I thought it was a pipe-dream, but I'm veering towards idiotic statement of intent. And then a constitution for the health service and a requirement to provide certain levels of care... I'm going to leave that one alone. Everyone knows the current NHS system is moribund, and it needs taking out and shooting. And everyone knows that the new contract system happened under New Labour, and I'm pretty certain everyone knows that junior doctors don't get the time on the wards that they need any more either. And if I get off on a rant about this, it'll never stop.
What is being proposed is a general increase in public spending by providing more bureaucracy. I can't see another layer of systems improving efficiency, really I can't. It's like nailing go-faster stripes made out of wood onto a donkey. It doesn't help, and it's only satisfying for the people doing it.
Paragraph 5 is good 'tell 'em what you told 'em' stuff, thus revealing that Mike Smith studied essay-writing. It's preaching to the choristers - and given the current situation, it's preaching to those who have arrived despite the snow. Those are either the ones who really believe in God, or the ones who want to impress the choirmaster. People who go to LabourList are unlikely to be politically neutral. So what Mike is doing is helping them to word their own arguments, and telling them they are right to feel worried about the Tories, and they should spread the word. It's setting up the fight as Red vs Blue, Left vs Right. This is, to my mind, a bad thing.
So, not a fisk. But you do get a nice image of someone nailing things to donkeys to take home and try to forget.
Standard and Poor rate credit for countries. Today they said that the outlook for government debt in Britain was negative - which means that it's hard to sell money, if you're British.
Which is good, right? You don't want to be going into debt. Except that this just means you have to pay a /premium/ to get into more debt.
As far as I can work out, every time since the war that Labour has got into power, they have done something radical and very expensive. Then the Conservative party has taken over and been conservative - not undoing the radical thing, but not changing much. They've also paid for it, by hook or by crook. Often, this is painful, and sometimes they do things like get into a war over 2000 sheep and some penguins.
But this time around Labour has been expensive and I can't think of a single radical thing they have /done/. What have you done with our money? 2000 sheep want to know!
Today, I'm going to look at a particular matter. MPs and Pay.
The current annual salary for an MP is £64,766, according to UK Parliament website. Some get more money if they have particular posts, like Speaker.
The UK median average annual salary is around £25,000. So MPs get paid more than twice the average salary.
Question: how many hours do they work, compared to someone who /does/ receive the annual national wage? Because they sit in the House about 40 weeks a year. Sometimes they can argue all night, but there's not always a call for them to do so. However, I'm certain that it's above the national average, and probably significantly above.
The question now becomes why you should pay MPs. I think that right now, you have to pay them because otherwise intelligent and charismatic people will have no reason to move into politics from wherever they are.
I am flailing in all of my presentations to the blog-reading world because I believe there is a disjunct between democracy and what democracy does.
Democracy ensures that majorities get what they want, in blunt terms. If you're in a good one, then it's not just one majority, and if one advantage misses you, another will pick you up next time around. But that doesn't always happen.
What has this got to do with MP pay? Well, money is what you give people to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. And right now there is a perception problem with politics. An us vs them mentality exists, with us saying 'they do not care about us'. What we should be saying is 'we care about us, and we do it via democratic methods'. That is, we take real care over the selection of our MPs.
The current view gives people who have business sense and acumen no reason at all to enter politics. Take a pay cut just to be told I'm useless by association? No thanks.
So either we need to bribe people more, or we need to blame them less.
Daniel Hannan writes for the Telegraph that 'the only parties that still talk of "reviving our manufacturing base" are Respect, the Scottish Socialists and the BNP.'
He says that as if reviving the manufacturing base is insane. But the current UK deficit is over 50% of what we earn per year. I don't know exactly where to get the latest figure, so by now it might be through that window and breaking into the house next door.
As I understand it, you can export things or expertise. And you can import things or expertise. And if you import more than you export, you pay the difference. This is fine if your economy is growing, because you can link the amount you bring in to the rate of growth. So you can add to total debt, but not add to the percentage debt that your country has. But in real terms, Britain has the biggest public debt ever. Some of this came from throwing cash under the wheels of banks to help them gain traction again. It's hard to slow down a juggernaut. I'm going to assume for the moment that I can't solve the problem of whether it was worth doing that, and just look at debt as 'about 50% of GDP'. The working population is a bit under 30 million. And here's the kicker. There's a UKP200bn deficit. That's the gap between stuff coming in, and stuff coming out.
Even with huge public sector cuts, there's a massive debt to service. Even if the deficit leak is plugged, there's an awful lot of money to pay back.
So either the economy has to grow within itself, so there's more money but a pound maintains its value, or it has to export things and/or expertise.
But subsidising manufacturing is much the same as a high rate of public spending - it is subsidising the job market. Taking money that could be paying off debt, and using it inefficiently. If you get a 2% increase in growth and a 5% increase in debt you've just damaged the country. Those numbers don't come from anywhere. They're just an explanation for myself. But a 200,000,000,000 pound deficit is a staggering amount of increase in debt. Manufacturing won't deal with it.
So the next task I'm setting myself is finding out which sectors of the economy move how much money to where. I won't go into it in details, but I want to find out what Britain is good at. Other than losing at cricket. Bah humbug.
There's a problem with me reading political blogs to try to catch up on politics. I've been irritated ever since I had it pointed out that people who study in an area think that area is important. People who don't, generally don't believe it. But now, in an effort to become politically active (which I think is a good thing) I am crossing the floor. I'm becoming one of a self-selecting sample.
So please put your hands up, everyone who doesn't read this blog. Nobody? Sweeeeeet!
I've just worked something out. The reason that I object to big-party politicians. (Please note this isn't the same as big-party politics. I'm going to look at that separately.)
People who have power over you, the reader (who probably doesn't exist yet, but that's beside the point) are just people. But they tell you that they know better than you about what is good for you.
The basis for this is that they believe that there is a definition of 'good' that is external to you. It exists and they have magical access to it because they are in a position to look at it.
That's all very well and good, but they should be making damned sure you have access to it as well. If I choose not to let you walk into the road blindfolded, I'm saying that my decision is better than yours. But I've defined the field 'better' for myself, as one where I don't want you run over. It might be that walking into a road blindfolded is absolutely fine. If your ears are good, and it's not bicycle country.
This is the big question about society that bothers me. How far is someone else allowed to make decisions for you? Is it as the point where you want to be blindfolded while jaywalking? Because that's an analogy, and I know that some people will say 'line x is the blindfold'. And other people will say 'line x is walking into the road with your eyes open'. And others will say 'line x is doing it with intent to stop traffic'.
Big party politicians affiliate themselves with assumptions. One of those is that they know best. That really pisses me off.
Mind you, small party politicians may do the same. I just haven't got there yet.
Longer answer: they are a one-policy party, with extra, populist, ideals tagged on. These generally appeal to working-class voters, but if PLCs had huge voting blocks, I'm pretty certain the BNP would be in favour of open trade and against protectionism. They would still be scared angry little people, though. And then the voting populace is scared and/or angry, they chime better with the BNP tune.
The perspective of Left vs. Right is a broad, dialectical interpretation of a set of factors or determinants.
Translation: this page was written by someone with a Latin education. What is says is that there's an artificial (that's the dialectical bit) divide. Socrates used the method of having person A talk to person B, and try to persuade them of things. This is dialectics. But a 'dialectical interpretation' seems to me to mean that 'Person A identifies with one thing, and identifies person B with another thing'. And then they both agree that they are different, and it makes them feel good.
But I'm going to buy into this system for a moment. Left and right are different approaches to solving a scarcity problem. That's what I think it boils down to. There's been a lot of drift over the course of history. The corn laws are pretty pro-capitalist, but nobility (read, landowners) opposed them. I'm going to stick to contemporary definitions.
The problem is that the easy 'vs' definition is a lie. What you have is more a cloud of little magnetised bars, with 'L' and 'R' instead of N and S. So 'tax the rich' is economic-left. But it's not much to do with other spheres. 'jail should be a punishment for offences' is further to the right than 'jail increases re-offending rates'. Both are then used in dialectics (see how it creeps in?) to persuade other people of things. Pulling numbers out of a hat would be cheaper, and you could tie it into the National Lottery ball machines for added pizzaz.
So in loose area, the contemporary right is concerned with ensuring that individuals have the freedom to operate as they wish to. The left is concerned with ensuring that individuals have the freedom to operate as they wish to...
Oh. You see the problem here, world? So let's think of the right as car A, and the left as car B. The driver of car A decides to drive around London. He uses the M25. The driver of car B decided to drive around London. He uses the North Circular. Which one 'wins' this race can be measured, but only for a particular time. Sometimes, the M25 is the orbital car park it's famed as. Sometimes, weight of traffic on the North Circ means driver B should be taking a bike. Or the tube. Or a unicycle.
But the important thing is that both drivers believe they are getting around London in the best way.
So: to do the best for people, the Right says 'leave them be, let them help each other' and the Left says 'give them a designed structure within which they cannot fall too far. This will help them'.
I think that's the difference between left and right.
The Devil at Devil's Kitchen has drawn my attention to a strange thing. He says that the BNP is ultra left-wing. This gives me my first project. I'm going to understand that statement.
I need to know what the right and the left represent, in that case. As far as I recall from history lessons and hearsay, 'left' and 'right' come from the French pre-revolution period when the nobles sat on the king's right in parliament, and the rabble sat on his left, in a position of less honour. Which sure made him popular with them.
Regardless of whether that's true, or simply good to hear, I'm going to look into left vs right. I'd tell people to wish me luck, but there aren't any people yet.
There's a lot of work out there. But it's time to pick up my sub to Private Eye again, and work out what else I should be reading. I don't want to set a maximum budget, but I'd like to think about a minimum one.
Then my plan is to look at a couple of issues that are hovering around eye-level with neon lights on, and actually notice them.
I swore I never would touch politics from the inside.