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.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Consul

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

Lepidus
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

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...