In the interests of fairness

Tags: Radio 4 Today Show James Naughtie Nick Clegg Treaty of Lisbon European Union referendum answer the question

Earlier this week I made a post about Nigel Farage's performance on the Today show on Radio 4. Despite my at times strident criticism, Mr Farage either has a good sense of humour, thick skin, or both, as I was contacted via my comments and told that Mr Farage would be happy to answer any questions I may have. Given that in terms of the political blogs out there mine is neither overly political, nor particularly well known, the fact that Mr Farage was interested in answering my questions I think speaks volumes.

On Tuesday of this week, Nick Clegg, the new Liberal Democrat leader appeared on the Today show. And so we get to the title of the blog post. Nick Clegg gave a masterclass in not answering the question, spouting complete bollocks, and changing his party's official position from that which they had stated the day before. I wanted to post the transcript earlier, but things got hectic this week. My bad. And now I frankly can't be bothered to transcribe it - Real Player is acting up (dammit BBC, why can't you concede Real Player is dead like everyone else?), and to be honest it was such a frankly dreadful amount of flip-flop and waffle that I can't bear to listen to it again. Suffice to say that it took five attempts to get him to finally give a straight answer to the question "will you vote against a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?".

When Mr Farage was interviewed on the Monday, the official Lib Dem position was to abstain on the vote. The very next day, Nick Clegg changed the party position, and said that the Lib Dems would join the government, and vote against any amendment seeking a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.

Essentially he has thrown his toys out of the pram. If the Liberal Democrats can't get their in or out referendum, then no-one gets a referendum. I hope the Lib Dems don't decide to deal with other political issues in the same way...

Interviewer: The Tories are questioning why this cancer drug isn't yet available on the NHS, and have tabled a motion demanding the Health Secretary approve the drug. What is the Lib Dem position?
Lib Dems: Well, cancer drugs are interesting, but we feel the real debate is funding of drugs within the wider NHS, and that's the debate we want to have.
Interviewer: So you won't be supporting the Opposition?
Lib Dems: No! If we can't have our debate, then NOBODY gets cancer drugs!!!!

OK, that might be slight exaggeration, but seriously, Mr Clegg. UKIP never had my vote to lose in the first place. But this dithering nonsense and the reluctance to answer the question has made me seriously question my willingness to vote Lib Dem, at least while it is under your stewardship. I used to rely on the Lib Dems to be one of the few parties to tell you something straight (few parties are so willing to admit in an election manifesto that yes, we do intend to raise income taxes...) - this Howard-esque attempt to squirm out of answering the question is deeply disappointing.

Taking the plunge...

Tags: BUPA London 10000 British Red Cross sponsor me

Enough talking about doing it, and time to actually start doing it.

I have registered to take part in the BUPA London 10,000, which takes place on Bank Holiday Monday, May 26 2008, starting and finishing in St James's Park.

The race will start on Birdcage Walk and follow an anti-clockwise route around the City of Westminster and the City of London via Parliament Square, Embankment, Blackfriars Bridge, Queen Victoria Street, Cannon Street, Great Tower Street, Crutched Friars, Fenchurch Street, Leadenhall Market, Cornhill, Queen Victoria Street, Puddle Dock, Embankment, Horseguards Avenue, Whitehall and via Trafalgar Square to the Finish in The Mall.

Runners will pass many of London’s famous sights, including Westminster Abbey, Houses of Parliament, Big Ben, The London Eye, Cleopatra’s Needle, Tate Gallery, Millennium Bridge, The Monument, Lloyds of London, Leadenhall Market, Bank of England, Mansion House, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Horseguards, Nelson's Column and Admiralty Arch. Buckingham Palace acts as the backdrop to the start and finish.

I will be running on behalf of the British Red Cross (the British Red Cross is a registered charity, number 220949). Once I have a sponsorship page set up I'll be sending the link around everyone and hoping that you are all very generous!

Wish me luck!

Advocacy - no substitute for facts...

Tags: Radio 4 Today Show Edward Stourton Nigel Farage Treaty of Lisbon European Union referendum rhetoric

When arguing the point with someone, it helps to be armed with the facts. The interpretation of factual information is what effective argument and advocacy are all about. And when you are wrong about something, you should admit that quickly, it is a sign of maturity. Equally, when you are unsure about something, you should admit that too - doubly so if you plain and simple do not know.

What you shouldn't do is argue your personal prejudice as if is a fact, nor should you argue it in the face of contrary facts - no amount of rhetoric overturns factual reality, however much you might wish it.

So on to the Today show on Radio 4 this morning, which saw Edward Stourton interview UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage about an attempt to force a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.

ES: Now do you think you're going to get one in the end?
NF: I thought we would at one point in time, because clearly there is going to be a rebellion on the Labour back benches, whether it's 25, 35 or 45 of them, and I thought the arithmetic was such that there was a good chance of a referendum amendment going through the Commons. However the Liberal Democrats who were elected on a specific pledge that they would vote for a referendum have decided that they're not going to do that. They're terribly keen on a unified European state, they want Britain to join the Euro, and it looks like they're going to support the government, and if that happens it's going to be very very difficult to get the amendment through.
ES: Well, that's one interpretation, I mean they're abstaining it seems on the grounds that they're not being allowed to put their case for an "in or out" referendum, which of course is exactly what you want, and they're arguing that they should be able to do that, now they're abstention surely makes it more difficult not easier for the government?
NF: No, I mean the fact is that the in or out debate comes later, but for the next two months we're talking specifically about this constitution, and I repeat the Liberal Democrats were elected saying they would vote for a referendum. With them withdrawing that support it makes it very very difficult for it to go through, so the best chance we've got of getting a referendum is for that amendment to go through the House of Lords.
ES: Now you still refer to it as a constitution.
NF: Yes.
ES: There is a great argument as to whether it is or not, but you can't deny that it has changed from the original constitutional plan.
NF: Not in terms of substance, no. As Giscard d'Estaing, the author of the whole thing himself said, "we have maintained the substance but changed the packaging" and that's exactly what's going on.
ES: He didn't refer to it as packaging.
NF: Yes he said... he actually used the word packaging and that's what they've done, they've changed it. It's not all in one document, it's now scattered about through different treaties that existed before but it is the same.
ES: But don't you accept that the leadership of Europe now, particularly from people like Angela Merkel, and not least Gordon Brown, who is less enthusiastic about European centralisation perhaps than his predecessor was, has changed substantially in the way that they see the direction of Europe moving, certainly true of Sarkozy in France.
NF: Yes, and what they're very keen on now is, they're keen on having their foreign minister, they're keen on building up the European army, they're keen on making the European Union a global superpower, and that's the language that I hear in Brussels every single week, and this treaty is very important to them. It's a fundamental treaty that gives the European Union for the first time a legal personality, it turns it into a state.
ES: If you could give us the name of someone who has used the word global superpower it would be interesting.
NF: Goodness me, I hear that said in the European Parliament every single week, from the President of the Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering down, they want to become a global power, that's what its about. Giscard himself in 2001, when all of this started, made it clear that is the intention and why in Britain we're pretending this isn't happening I simply don't know.

Sigh. I don't know what my opinion on the Treaty of Lisbon is yet. I haven't read it. I can guarantee that I'll be one of the few people in the UK who will make up their mind on the basis of the contents of the Treaty, rather than the rhetoric of the advocates, both pro and anti-European. Since most people will decide purely on the basis of rhetorical debate, it might be worth looking at what Farage said:

1. If the Lib Dems support the government, then yes, that would make it more difficult to get the amendment. However, by abstaining, they make it more difficult for the government to get the majority, especially if there is a rebellion. True, it would be easier if they supported the amendment, but it is not true to say they are going to support the government, when they have said they will be abstaining. That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Lib Dem position by Farage, and an attempt to spin this to make them look bad, probably to force them to change position.
   
2. Did Giscard d'Estaing say packaging or not? If he did, don't just petulantly stamp your foot when challenged and say "he did, he did it's true" - find the quote, show it, and prove your point. That's not debate, that's a playground spat.
   
3. "...it's now scattered about through different treaties that existed before". What is Farage arguing here? On the one hand, he opposes the Treaty of Lisbon due to unspecified new powers it will grant to the EU. Yet here, he concedes that these powers already exist, in long established treaties. Does Farage mean that the existing treaties are being amended by the Lisbon treaty perhaps? If so, say so - because looking inconsistent weakens any argument you have.
   
4. "...they're keen on making the European Union a global superpower". NATO is a global superpower. OPEC is a global superpower. All associations of states that have grouped together to achieve a common goal are "global superpowers". Just because you are a global superpower does not mean you are a unified state. It just means you are powerful, globally. Poland, or Luxembourg (as examples) could not effectively barter with a powerhouse like China, or the USA. As part of the EU however, the European economies can exert an influence on larger powers. This can be a good or a bad thing, depending on your point of view, but being a global superpower is a consequence of states acting collectively, and it is disingenuous to ascribe sinister motives or meanings to this. And indeed, I'd rather live in a world where "the superpowers" are collectives who need to come to decisions as a result of compromise, within themselves, rather than the world we used to live in, run by sole superpowers that answered only to themselves and so could act capriciously.
   
5. "...a fundamental treaty that gives the European Union for the first time a legal personality, it turns it into a state". Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Wrong. The EU already has a legal personality. That has been long-established. Most intergovernmental organisations, and a fair few non-governmental organisations have international legal personality. The UN. The ICRC. These are not states. International legal personality is one of the consequences of statehood, but statehood is not a consequence of international legal personality! Feeding the public false information does the entire debate a disservice.
   
6. Naming a single person who used the phrase "global superpower" should be easy if, as Farage says, he hears it every week in the Parliament. Yet he avoids it. He claims everyone from the President down uses it, but that is a sweeping statement. Specifically name the President. Say he used it. Then say when he used it and in what context. Don't make sweeping claims, tar everyone with the same brush and expect everyone to agree. Again, this type of prevarication and rhetoric weakens any argument - he would have made strong forceful points if he could have said "X said it last week in this debate, Y said it during this Committee meeting, the context was transforming the EU into a state." Instead, he is relying on the old canard of "a well known fact", and presenting that as a clincher. It isn't.

My position on the Treaty may well be in opposition. Or I may support it. I have yet to decide. But I can tell you this. My support will not be won by anyone who can bring nothing more than rhetoric, misdirection, inaccuracy and spin to the debate. And on this performance Farage is passionate in his opposition, but cannot articulate those reasons without resorting to statements of dubious veracity.

Still bullshit, and still sloppy journalism

Tags: News of the World sloppy journalism Madeleine McCann Jane Tanner

***UPDATED***

The News of the World front pages this morning with a police sketch of a man seen by a holidaymaker in the Algarve around about the time of the abduction of Madeleine McCann. They responsibly declare this man to be "Maddie's Kidnapper" and the "Beast who took McCanns' little girl".

Full story here: Paper shows Madeleine 'suspect'

Bullshit. There is no proof this sketch is of anyone connected. The eyewitness merely saw this person in the area. At best he is someone the police would wish to speak to in order to "eliminate from their enquiries". But to categorically say that this is the kidnapper? No, that is bullshit, and worse it is prejudicial bullshit. Do the papers want a fair trial that results in a conviction?

Here's the update. The News of the World is betraying sloppy journalism by declaring this person, categorically, to be the kidnapper. But the BBC have also been guilty of sloppy journalism. I was relying on their information until such time as the News of the World printed their story. They have since updated their site, but in the original news report, they stated that the "new eyewitness" was Jane Tanner, the same Jane Tanner who is a friend of the McCanns, and indeed is one of the so-called 'Tapas Nine'. This is not the case. The new eyewitness is Gail Cooper, not Jane Tanner.

This led to some confusion, and to me wondering why, two months after her last "eyewitness" sketch of a man with no face, she was coming up with a new one. (Image courtesy of Anorak.co.uk)

But my original point remains more or less valid. Why did it take six months from the night of the kidnap for Jane Tanner to come up with her police sketch? And why, eight months after one of the most high-profile missing person's cases in recent years, two months after a high profile "sensational" eyewitness police sketch, after months of this story not falling out of the public eye...

...why has Gail Cooper only come forward now??? This is categorically not like those cases where you may not have know that you saw anything at the time. This case has received such saturation coverage that if you were anywhere near the Algarve in May 2007 then you must have thought about everything you saw whilst there. It is inconceivable that someone could only now have realised "oh hang about, I did see something suspicious, now I think about it".

Yet again the waters are muddied in this case by "new eyewitness evidence" from people who are neither "new" nor "eyewitnesses" rendering most of what they have to say as anything but "evidence".

Apologies for the disruption...

You might have noticed a little bit of disruption to the blog this past week. January posts suddenly became December posts etc. There was a reason for this, which I won't go into here, but it was necessary in the circumstances.

I would like to point out that using a site ripper on this site violates the Creative Commons Licence it is published under. You are allowed to copy, distribute or transmit this work if you attribute it to me, agree to allow it's distribution under the same terms, and only for non-commercial purposes. Moreover, ripping the site may be a violation of the Creative Commons Licence under which the site template is distributed, resulting in a violation of not only my rights, but the rights of the designer of the template I have used.

Finally, I am entitled to decide who does and does not view this site, and it is a policy that anonymous proxy servers are barred. If you can only view this site through a proxy server, then it is probably because your IP address was blocked. Please contact me if you feel I have blocked your IP address in error.

Normal service has now been resumed, as you were people....

Like your soul....

Tags: science technology cool stuff nano tubes

I'm only wearing black until they invent a darker colour...

Looks like they just have...

Lighter than (Macbook) Air

Tech Tags: Macbook Air Macworld Expo keynote first impressions

Normally, Steve Jobs' big keynote address at the Macworld Expo would leave me excited. Last year we had the iPhone, and wow, I got caught up in the excitement about that.

This year?

iTunes Movie rentals? Maybe, at some point in the future, I might make use of it.

New features on the iPhone? Exciting, but only if you own one. In the meantime, what about improvements in memory, use of 3G networks?

The Time Capsule? Sure, it's great to have an Apple-made hard drive for use with Time Machine, but I don't have Leopard, so don't have Time Machine. And you can get more memory for cheaper from other vendors.

*** Update 18 January 2008 *** OK, I've just had another look at Time Capsule. It works wirelessly and it acts as a wireless base station for any computer, and they can all back up to it. That is very cool, and it actually has more memory than I thought it did. You can still get cheaper, but not with those features!

But the big announcement is the Macbook Air. This is the ultra-small, ultra-portable Macbook that was rumoured.

Well, it's not that small. It is thin, it is light, but it is still full-sized. On the one hand this is good. The screen is a good size, the keyboard is fully functional. I have used smaller computers, and they are horrendous to try to use. They take a lot of adjustment, and you will never be as fast with a half-size keyboard as with a full-size one.

The small laptop that I tested had no CD/DVD drive, and this is a feature that has been repeated with the Macbook Air. This is the future, but is it the future too soon? Apple took a huge risk in 1997 when they released the iMac without a floppy disk drive. Is this a similar brave decision? The future is flash drives, external memory, and the internet. Whilst the future of DVD may be Blu-Ray, the Macbook Air is really not that kind of computer. It is a portable, on the go computer, not a workhorse one that may need DVDs etc.

What it does better than other laptops I have tested without CD/DVD drives, is enable use of external drives. There is an Apple-branded external drive available for purchase. And I am intrigued by the feature that allows the Macbook Air to make use of the CD/DVD drives of other computers, be they Macs or PCs.

Finally, the Macbook comes with the option of a regular hard-drive, or a solid state flash drive. Solid state drives are the way computers are going. And the size of the drives available on the Macbook (64GB) is certainly the largest I have seen in a laptop. Working against this however is the price. The Macbook Air jumps from $1799 to over $3000. This price will eventually come down, but at the moment the Macbook Air is a nice, innovative piece of kit, but probably only for the early adopters.

A quandry

Tags: tattoo mythos cthulhu

Well, there was the Celtic knot/thistle one. Then tonight I saw these...

Wanty...

Small change...

Tags: feedburner changes to feed

Very slight change on my blogs. I have turned off Feedburner's "summary" function on the feeds, so instead of getting a very small snippet, and a message to go to my site, you get the whole post instead.

Hopefully all my subscribers will still come to the site, and not just read in their feed aggregators!

I've made the change because with some recent posts the only thing that has come through is the title and the first few of the Tags, which really doesn't give anyone a flavour of what the post is about. So let's see how this goes.

So...

Tags: what was I thinking? disappointing my parents this is going to hurt ain't it

...what do you think?

Left or right shoulder?