By which I mean: stuff that is really interesting, that I had been saving for some wonderfully themed blog, and then lost the will. It’s all dumped here.
Ed Conway has written a post I was hoping to: Hung parliament risk rises. Markets say So What
I have not commented on Nick’s great performance last night. I met Nick in 2007 in a Pret A Manger. (stalking is such a useful networking method* …) where we talked about thorny issues like Liberty and What sort of a Career would be good for Me. Very generous of him given that a week later Ming resigned and life got v busy. I called for his leadership campaign, and have for a while waited for the moment when the Great British Public would catch up with my sense of his potential; I found him very convincing on a range of issues, and he wasn’t really trying. I think there is more good stuff to come.
Tom Clarke points out that a swing from Labour to LibDems would still put Cameron in power. This d*mned voting system …
Clearly the nastiest sh1t from the other parties is about to be directed at the Liberal Democrats. Starting with the Nice, though, Julian Glover like Matthew Parris likes to occasionally use his column for Tory Advice. But it concludes:
Perhaps it’s lucky, after all, that Chris Grayling’s chances of becoming home secretary are already weak. Soon Cameron may have to contemplate offering the seat to the runaway winner of last night’s debate.
While Martin Kettle sees it as a threat to Labour:
It looks very much as if they haven’t woken up to the LibDems – even now. A few fully representative polls along the lines of this one, and Labour could be in a fight for political survival.
The League of Ordinary Gentleman have an intelligent discussion of libertarianism and slavery, somewhat belying my rude description of the ideology when you derive it from Devil’s Kitchen.
The Indie points out the Liberal immigration policy on regularisation is backed by Boris and other conservative thinkers.
A Tory Candidate reminds us why Tory attitudes to the society still sound unfeeling and, well, lacking in practical use:
I visited a Sure Start centre a couple of weeks ago where there were six 16-year-old girls with one-year-old babies. Three were pregnant again, none by the same boy, and they saw nothing wrong in this “lifestyle choice” … We have to tell these girls that it is unacceptable to get pregnant outside of a stable relationship unless they can support themselves, that the taxpayer cannot afford to keep them and that they have to train to work when they leave school …. I did not divorce lightly, but what we are saying is that children do better in two-parent families academically and socially, and commit less crime. What is wrong in recognising that in the tax system?
Does any of this really make sense? She regrets the existence of pregnant teenagers; talks of how we need to talk to them more openly about sex; admits it will all take a generation; says it’s nicer when people have both parents; then says let’s recognise it in the tax system. It’s just a stream of consciousness about stuff, but where is the idea that something she is proposing will actually change things? I’m not so much repelled as confused.
Finally, I want to draw attention to Demos’s provocative pamphlet about terrorism. I think there may be a lot of sense in this; understanding wannabe terrorists as misbehaving teenagers and gang members. This is good criminology as far as my dim understanding gets it.
*well, actually a mutual friend suggested he would be good for career’s advice.