Skip to main content

400 Not Out

In the nearly two years since this blog first became a regular feature I have, slightly to my surprise, put up 400 different entries. They cover a lot of ground, although I notice certain themes coming back quite consistently: the future of politics, the need for both economic and social Liberalism, the threats in the international system.

Sometimes the entries are written on the run and doubtless many could benefit from tighter editing.

I think I am finding a consistent voice for myself: sceptical, thoughtful -I hope- and increasingly committed to an integrated view of political freedom.

I will be travelling to Belgrade over the next couple of days, and then going back to Aberdeen, where I look forward to seeing friends and family. As a result blogging may be a little sparse for a while.

I have just read through David Cameron's speech- and I notice that another theme is becoming considerable scepticism about the Conservative Party and especially its leader. I was slightly nettled by one comment he made in what I felt was a rather pedestrian speech. Cameron sought to claim that the Conservatives had always been on the side of the dissidents and opponents of Communism in Central Europe during the cold war. Well, there certainly were many honourable Conservatives who were unflinching in their support- like Stefan Terlezki- but by no means all Tories recognised the moral battle of the Cold War.

In 1983, my school persuaded my to apply to Peterhouse, Cambridge- unknown to me a hotbed of support for the radical right: Michael Portillo in his most unreconstructed form was very much the archetype of the college. As I was interviewed by the admissions tutor- a slightly effete don with a mild drawl and Portillo's own tutor- it became clear that I was a supporter of the eastern European dissidents and also a member of the Liberal Party. The parting witticism: "With your support for Baltic independence and the Liberals, we think you might be too addicted to lost causes" reflected the arrogance of the Conservative Party at its worst.

As Cameron- a man with a similar drawl- claimed the credit for things of which he was not a part of and indeed knew very little about, I felt my gorge rise. I hope that there is indeed an election: I am confident enough in the strength of my own party and more than a little eager to see the departure of yet another Conservative leader.


Anonymous said…

Why the chip on the shoulder? Arrogance of varying degrees is a common denominator to all Oxbridge Dons whether Marxist, Liberal or High Tory. Please don't pretend it was something unique to you as a Liberal. As for Cameron. Bilge. He did not say he was there did he? He put forward the tribute paid by Eastern European dissidents to Mrs T and claimed it as his Party's heritage. But only as you may lay claim to the People's Budget of 1909. Perhaps a little less of the Peacock strutting, huh

Anonymous said…
Dear Cicero and Lepidus,

This goes further than the Oxbridge set. I faced similar drivel while being interviewed by that "Oxbridge wannabe" Harvard. Basically they hinted if you were not WASP or a poor black kid, you're out of luck -- the former because they fit in, the latter because they have to.

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and Brexit are the Pearl Harbor and the Fall of Singapore in Russia's Hybrid war against the West.

In December 1941, Imperial Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States at Pearl Harbor. After the subsequent declaration of war, within three days, the Japanese had sunk the British warships, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, and the rapid Japanese attack led to the surrender of Hong Kong on Christmas Day 1941 and the fall of Singapore only two months after Pearl Harbor. These were the opening blows in the long war of the Pacific that cost over 30,000,000 lives and was only ended with the detonations above Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"History doesn't often repeat itself, but it rhymes" is an aphorism attributed to Mark Twain, and in a way it seems quite appropriate when we survey the current scene. 

In 1941, Imperial Japan, knowing its own weakness, chose a non-conventional form of war, the surprise attack. Since the end of his first Presidential term, Vladimir Putin, knowing Russia's weakness, has also chosen non-conventional ways to promote his domestic powe…

The American National nightmare becomes a global nightmare

It is a basic contention of this blog that Donald J Trump is not fit for office.

A crooked real estate developer with a dubious past and highly questionable finances. he has systematically lied his way into financial or other advantage. His personal qualities include vulgarity, sexual assault allegations and fraudulent statements on almost every subject. 

He lost the popular vote by nearly three million votes.

He has, of course, been under criminal investigation practically since before he took the oath of office. The indictment of some of closest advisers is just the beginning. His track record suggests that in due course there is no action he will not take, whether illegal or unconstitutional in order to derail his own inevitable impeachment and the indictments that must surely follow the successful investigation of Robert Mueller into his connections with Russia.

However, all of that is a matter for the American people. 

It is also a matter for the American people that Trump is cheating…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…