Today’s links come courtesy of some very, very strong black coffee.
Dillow: Against equality of opportunity
Chris Dillow’s article here on Liberal Conspiracy sparked debate across the left, with Demos weighing in, pointing out the complexity of inequality with regard to the education levels of parents.
Dillow’s piece also created a wider debate on the nature of our new site, with Lib Dem Voice contesting the use of the word “Liberal” in our title. Are we Liberal, or are we Left? This writer prickles at being described as one of the, “terribly nice left of centre middle class moderates.” I’m not nearly that nice.
No doubt Dillow has a lot to answer for, as “The Diary of Chris K”, another Lib Dem blog, is inspired to mull over whether the Liberal Democrats are indeed a leftwing or rightwing political party. A thoroughly Orange Book take on the current flux within the country’s third party.
Tory Co-Ops… Shome mishtake, shurely?
News that David Cameron has claimed that Cooperatives and Conservatism go together like salt & pepper, has prompted a reaction from another Lib Dem site, Jock’s Place. A very worthy read.
More reaction
OurKingdom has another reaction to a Liberal Conspiracy article, by OK’s editor, Anthony Barnett. Barnett highlights three core issues (”the national question, the EU, migration and identity”), and argues that: -
We need to bring these together as Sunny eloquently sets out. But - and here it really is a but - these arguments need to be addressed to everyone, not just the left. Questions of democracy are now being debated with some urgency and spirit on the right. There is now a Tory campaign for electoral reform, to take just one example, with respect to what is perhaps the most blatant injustice in the British political system. This impinges on the defining question: what kind of state do you want? It is how you answer this which leads on to what kind of government you want. A state that clings to its imperial roots and forms, that exercises royal executive power behind the screen of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’, that looks into the mirror of the mass media and declares that ‘we’ need ’strong government’ (see Cameron playing this riff against Brown), can such an instrument deliver and sustain progress politics?
Let the debate begin!
And there’s more…
Rhetorically Speaking has filed an excellent dismissal of a rather predictable, “political correctness gaawwwn mad” piece from Philip Davies MP, over at The Cornerstone Group’s blog. The Daily (Maybe) puts its weight behind those calling for Sir Ian Blair’s resignation, but argues it’s on grounds beyond the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes: “Any misplaced attempt to keep on a “progressive” commissioner will only serve to ensure that hopes of holding the police force to some sort of account will be that much further away.”
Elsewhere. Justin needs your help (re. Google ranks & Iraqi asylum seekers).
As with all areas on Liberal Conspiracy, it’s your interaction that will be crucial to ensuring that we’re on the ball, and that we don’t allow any brilliant commentary to slip through the net. So, if you have written or come across interesting and insightful content, feel free to drop me an email at aaronh[at]liberalconspiracy[dot]org or leave a comment on the daily net-review thread.
You offer congratulations to an apologist for Serbian war criminals? Neil Clark is a odious man who recently had published an article in Comment is Free justifying the murder of Iraqis who work as translators for coalition forces. And you cheer him on?
You offer congratulations to an apologist for Serbian war criminals? Neil Clark is a odious man who recently had published an article in Comment is Free justifying the murder of Iraqis who work as translators for coalition forces. And you cheer him on? ~ Francis Sedgemore
If you wish to write a piece concerning any of Clark’s articles, email the link and I’ll be happy to read it and link to it. Or, alternatively, you may wish to consider contributing such a piece to this site (I’m sure Sunny would consider it). Sans the personal attacks, naturally.
Aaron Heath - I’m afraid you are making a mistake - and one which will not do this promising site much good.
Please take a look at the CiF article to which I linked above and ask yourself whether you feel this is a blogger worthy of congratulation from a liberal website!
How the hell did that idiot Neil Clark win it? Completely bizarre…
So Sunny are you offering your congratulations too?! :-)
And I’m not privy to his personal hygiene, so can’t comment on whether or not he’s “odious”.
Eh? From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Odious (adj)
1. Regarded with hatred; hated.
2. Deserving of hatred; exciting hatred or repugnance; hateful; disagreeable; offensive; repulsive.
Ok, congrats removed.
Democracy, etc.
Aaron - according to the dictionary, “odious” means “extremely unpleasant; repulsive”. It is in no way specific to personal hygiene.
Neil Clark is ever unpleasant in his writing. He is unpleasant to the very core of his wretched being, and I would give him as much time as I would a member of the BNP.
Like chrisc, I find it difficult to distinguish Neil Clark from a fascist.
Thank you Aaron; that was the right thing to do.
Indeed so - though “anti-war, anti-neconservative” doesn’t quite cover the full gamut of his idiotic and odious views.
To save further embarrassment I would remove all reference to him!
Aaron
So you you think it’s just a matter of opinion - a neutral sort of question - as to whether Neil Clark is odious - and you then remove your congrats because its ‘democracy’?
Is the translation of ‘liberal’ that this site is to adopt something along the lines of ’so open minded that our brains may fall out’?
I’ve taken it out, Neil Clark is an idiot of the highest order.
Aaron Heath - I am not surprised that you have received some personal abuse over this, though I am of course far too mature to indulge in it myself! :-)
Clark is a well-know “idiot” - to use Sunny’s term.
I assume you saw the results of this poll, looked at Clarks’ site, saw his “anti-war, anti-neocon” strapline and looked no further.
An understandable mistake perhaps, but my suggestion now would be to remove any reference to him or at least to draw readers’ attention to (say) the CiF article calling for the murder of the translators.
Paulie,
I hadn’t read the CiF article - I’m not really a regular on the CiF site.
Clark isn’t someone I know a great deal about. OK, I should have googled him, but I was late starting the review today, and it was a last minute addition.
I was merely reacting to some news in the blogosphere. The 2007 Weblog Awards are worthy of mention, and the fact that such a clearly controversial character won it, makes this increasingly so.
Aaron - you can stop digging now!
As an aside, there’s probably an interesting post to be done about this kind of award.
Are there many of them?
What is the point of them?
How may people actually vote?
How easily manipulated are they?
I suppose if we’re talking about news from the web then it should at least be noted that Neil Clark won the 2007 weblog award, so I would have just removed the congrats and let the news bit stand.
Does anyone know anything about this award? I’m intrigued as to how and why Clark won. Is it for the design of his site? Or is it for the strength of his arguments? (sarcasm alert)
I am quite amused to be called an Orange Book Lib Dem! My favourite liberal philosopher is John Rawls, not exactly a standard-bearer of the Right of anything…
However, don’t assume that liberals in general and Liberal Democrats in particular are automatically part of ‘the Left’. I suspect most Party members think that the ‘left-right’ spectrum is a bit vacuous and we should boycott it.
Sunny, he won because no other bugger bothered to mount any sort of campaign. Even Iain Dale stayed aloof from the whole thing.
Steve - I don’t care for web awards much but, um, Iain Dale was promoting it on his site every day. He basically re-posted this every day.
Anyway, the fact Neil Clark won it makes it even more irrelevant and hilarious.
Sunny, that’s a complete lie. I posted it one day and then put it to the top of the blog three days later. I didn’t even ask people to vote for me.
Iain, happy to stand corrected.
A small point: Its 2007, not 2008. Too busy kicking lumps out out of each other to notice, such a glaring error?
Why did Neil win? Basically becasue more people voted for him than they did for anyone else. Easy when you think about it.
If you want the full story, here it is as I see it.
All that aside, he won fair and square, so deserves the congratulations of everyone. It says a lot about the British political class and its hangers on that you won’t do that.
It also helps explain why Neil won: ordinary people like his style.
I didn’t think “Rhetorically Speaking” gave much of an argument about political correctness at all. It was mostly insulting the other side without addressing the fundamental issues. It was, as you referred to it, “a dismissal”, not a reasoned argument.
To bad. I think the topic of political correctness is an interesting one. RS did little to advance the debate.
A Google alert in my mailbox reveals that Neil Clark has responded to his critics. I won’t link to his site, in the same way I wouldn’t link directly to the BNP’s site.
The apologist for Serbian war criminals and election candidate for the national socialist “British People’s Alliance” refers to me as a “nerdy warmongering cyber-bully”, and those who agree with me above as my “blackshirted chums”. How ironic. Clark has never been known for the eloquence of his prose, and as for the “nerdy” tag, I assume this is due to me being a science journalist by trade. How original.
Neil Clark: not nice, and very, very dim.
Gentlemen, while this is most amusing, I’m afraid this is not the place to start exposing each other (so to speak). Inevitably all this descends into farce and mud-slinging and I’m trying to avoid letting that sort of culture perpetuate itself here. I haven’t received any legal threats from anyone (yet) but I’ve still edited out the claims.
Sunny, it’s your blog but you should be aware that I’ve exercised very great restraint in describing Mr Clark’s conduct and protecting him from the consequences of it, and I take strong exception to your reference to “mudslinging”. Mr Clark’s conduct and his abuse of the legal process may be farcical but they are not “amusing”. The accuracy of a writer’s claimed sources and his (admittedly ludicrous) attempt to use legal bullying in order to suppress his misrepresentation of a Srebrenica denial organiation are a matter of public interest. There is no obligation on you to carry that information yourself and you’re perfectly within your rights to edit my comment. But, I repeat, I take exception to your then using your editorial position to misrepresent what I have written - which no one can check against what I’ve said because you’ve deleted that comment. If you’re going to remove my comment, then kindly remove all of it, and reflect very carefully on what you’ve said in comment 34.
Oliver Kamm is in this case correct. When dealing with political extremism there is no room for anodyne comment. This is not “mudslinging”, but asserting and defending liberal democratic values, and showing respect for historical fact.
Sure, I’ve taken those comments off now. If there’s anything else you want deleted of yours, please let me know.
Ah, you’ve misunderstood me. My point was that if you disallow my factual observation that Mr Clark is a liar, a cheat, an ignoramus and a vulgar fraud who pretends to be a girl so he can fake his Wikipedia entry (since deleted on the grounds that he’s not notable enough to have one) - as is your prerogative, and as I would probably do in your position - then I’d be obliged if you removed the entire comment, and not only that part of it. Merely leaving in the information that I voted for Mr Clark makes no sense without that context. I voted for Mr Clark because I believe even someone exposed for fakery should not be denied a lollipop if here really wants it.
Exile,
Whist you think Oliver Kamm is mad, re your Gimlet comments, I know he is playing games.
Olly, on the nuclear option? Explain yourself, or favour the intellectual position that you seem to do. What is most annoying about you is that maybe, just maybe, Hiroshima or Nagasaki were justified, but you are playing the game that consequent actions are A-OK. No, they are not, and you are a complete utter apolologist for that .
Try explaining yourself here. I doubt your apologism will get much truck.
Silence from the blessed Oliver Kamm.
This post will be repeated until either he gets his shit together, or Sunny thinks it’s not, err, funny.
Sunny,
So far, the lack of a response from Oliver Kamm, who might well be a person to be frit of, suggests that he is only up for hitting rich folk. Oh, err? what a tit?
Well, Exile,
I think Oliver Kamm is probably right about Neil Clark. I also happen to think he - Olly - is an intellectuals intellectual. Y’know, the sort that says ‘well I was right’, when the entire planet is turned into an illuminated parking lot . And he, probably, would be intellectually correct. Fuck that.
That is not a person I want to engage with. He is frankly, this generations Dr Strangelove. Whereas Neil Clark is this generations idiot on a stick. Sorry, neither of you are getting my vote.
- direct link -
Francis Sedgemore