Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Tagsacademics agencies animal Beer business capability closures commercialisation communications conservative conservatives cycling defence development effectiveness efficiency funding government health judiciary justice labour leadership LibDem liberals Liberty maritime meddling media meta military NHS parliament performance pet photography policing policy Politics procurement rambling rat review Royal Navy startups tactics technology
Much has been made this week of the decision by some members of the Liberal Democrats to form a pressure group within the party. I started by writing “another” but at the moment there is only really one formally established, the Social Liberal Forum. Liberal Left sees itself as representing the disenfranchised whose views are not being listened to by the leadership and those in Government. A counterweight to that amorphous and informal more classically liberal segment within the party described pejoratively as “Orange Bookers”.
Internal debate is very healthy, and it would be good if that was happening. Instead there is sniping from all sides of the debate. A rather unhealthy desire to hound them out, in much the same way that those of us in the more classical mould have been subject to at times ourselves. That’s not productive.
I see two aspects that concern me. The first is that the protagonists saw fit to establish a second identity to the economic left of the party, rather than seek to exploit the already established SLF. Might we conclude that they weren’t able to garner sufficient support from within that bloc? In which case can they truly be said to represent the majority of LDs, as they claim?
A more significant concern is the conflation of “ends” and “means”, with an effort to claim ownership of the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution because of a disagreement over the means by which that constitution is delivered.
The words are familiar, they’re printed on our membership card:
“…safeguard a fair, free and open society…liberty, equality and community…no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity”
My objection is that the protagonists of Liberal Left are asserting that those they disagree with have abandoned those principles because we advocate a different route to achieving them. Some of the policies they advocate seem to me to be likely to deliver outcomes very different from those we seek.
They disagree with our coalition. That’s fine, I’m not too keen on our partners, but I’d have been less keen on the alternatives. For a party that advocates pluralism and has a history of coalition at the local level I find it disturbing that we can’t cope with the tensions that it presents magnified at the national level. Essentially coalition is only acceptable if it takes one form, disappointing.
It maybe that there is an unreconcilable difference of opinion that goes far beyond the desired ends, but I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that indicates that and has sufficient support from any area in the debate
That said I’m somewhat confused by how an enthusiasm to embrace the statist authoritarians of Labour, and the interventionist Socialists of the Green Party helps us deliver that liberty, equality or community and avoid enslavement by conformity.
A bottle conditioned traditional ale with a warm amber colouring and a light natural aeration. At 4.2% a pleasant strength.
Served chilled to below cellar temperature the bottle instructions suggest decanting before serving. Straight from the bottle gives very little sediment and a very gentle head.
The sweetness of honey is strongest on the nose with only a slight hint of heather coming through. The first mouthful is rich with a thick texture permeated with a sharp gassiness. Rather sweet it’s more reminiscent of a summer ale as its slightly lacking in hops or nuttiness and seems to vanish quickly from the palate.
All in all a very pleasant bottle, probably suiting white meat, fish or hard cheeses.
Appreciating that I’ve already been very quiet for a while I should probably state that whilst I’m in Afghanistan I’ve been blogging at http://kabulmustela.wordpress.com in an effort to keep my military stuff apart from my more generalised ranting about how we have the tyranny of the majority imposed on us in the UK
Feel free to join me over there, if you haven’t already seen it.
Yesterdays vandalism and thuggery reported in the Telegraph this morning.
Interesting that they chose not to contextualise the photo they used, which in other sources appears to show a group of schoolkids surrounding the van and shielding it, although given the damage whether that was a useful move or not is debatable. Pretty shoddy journalism, but that typifies the coverage yesterday across the media.
Still, protesters complaining that they were going to miss transport home, and they’d be late for tea do suggest a lack of forethought. If one is unprepared to deal with the consequences one shouldn’t participate in the protest.
I’m also interested in the latter part of the article, students trying to lay blame for the violence on truanting children. Lack of moral courage springs to mind as the immediate response, again take responsibility for ones actions. But I guess that’s not the point of the protests, they’re not wanting to take responsibility for their own lives, they want the state to provide, yet not compensate the state for the benefits received.
Still, one hopes that the schoolchildren are punished for their non-attendance at school.
We have a cat. He’s fifteen years old and has a lovely relaxed nature. He loves being fussed, and sunning himself. He’s a lot slower now than he used to be, but even in the spring he was able to catch a bird in the garden, and until last year was fairly regularly bringing the odd mouse in.
He’s not well, hasn’t been eating and when he does he’s sick very quickly. We’re treating that medically but it really looks as if that’s not having any significant effect. It’s possible a surgical intervention might have an effect, but at his age there are big risks around giving him a general anaesthetic. He’s listless and clearly in pain, but still walking around, making his way up and down the stairs, and responding to being talked to or fussed.
We have a decision to make, and at the moment that decision is when we take him on his final journey to the vet. There is a possibility that his heart will give out before we do that, and in some ways that would be best for him, as he hates being in the car.
As a Buddhist, it’s a difficult decision to make: the taking of life, or being responsible for the taking of life, is itself something that one should avoid. I tend to take a western view of these principles though; rather than the fairly simple ”reincarnation” concept, lifetime to lifetime, we experience our world moment to moment. Each of our experiences is the moment of rebirth, influenced by what has gone before. That has parallels with modern thinking around physics at both the macro and micro scales.
So what is my intent around this life that I have had some influence over? He looks to us for food and shelter, although he’s demonstrated himself capable of doing both for himself over his life. I do feel some responsibility for him now, perhaps there was something that I missed and we could have had some form of intervention, whether medical or surgical, earlier. Perhaps that would have given him a little longer. It would be easy to play virtual histories, I don’t know now whether we could have done anything, or perhaps an intervention would have brought this moment forward.
The intent is to find the point where his quality of life isn’t sufficient, to find a point where his pain makes him more miserable. With one of my pet rats I left it too long, and she suffered to assuage my guilt about taking her to the vet. Again as a Buddhist, I know the effect the choice will have on me; I carry that forward into my next moments, each of which become an aggregate of our decisions and choices, the interplay between them.
I am very glad that it is a decision that we are able to make. We’re driven to think about his quality of life, not his length of life. As an animal, the end of his suffering has more dignity than a human.
I compare the way we treat pets with the inhumane way we deal with people suffering in similar ways. Friends have died of cancer, with the associated loss of dignity as they approach their final weeks; friends and family who suffer dementia with an ever increasing reliance on others for help with the most basic of functions. In the former case there is an opportunity to make a choice, in the latter the opportunity for choice is long gone and with it one’s dignity as human.
In a liberal society, surely the individual should have a choice over their end of life? The ability to identify the conditions of the choice, and what triggers should be put in place for others to act if that choice cannot be exercised.
I’m conscious that I’m exposing a dichotomy: our cat is unable to make the choice, so we do, yet I want the same opportunity for myself. We can’t speculate as to whether a pet would make the choice, and communicate it to us should he have the language. They communicate with us, but they don’t have the cognitive abilities to make that decision. They clearly make choices, but they’ve learned the consequences of these through experience. We can make the decision for ourselves, we know the consequences of ending our life, we should be allowed to do so.