Randomly Selected Article or Link

My good friend Chris Cook, responsible for opencapital.net has just written an article on how Limited Liability Partnerships could transform capital financing.

This is clever stuff. And, as I wrote the other day in Social Enterprise 101: More than profit we need to be looking at this sort of stuff to help finance 'community interest' capital projects.

"Your typical loyal Conservative wife" has long been a synonym in some circles for what the rest of us shirt-lifters affectionately call "fag-hags". Actually - it's a bit more than that - she is a byword for heterosexual "cover" for gay men wanting to make their way in supposedly homophobic conservative politics. Ffion Jenkins got the same when she married Willie Hague. If truth be told, the same was said of Sarah Gurling, now Mrs Charles Kennedy, and of Sarah Macaulay, now Mrs Gordon Brown.

So, it's terribly tragic for everyone concerned when you hear of a real case of shall we say "sexual confusion" and there is speculation as to whether someone was really hiding his light under a bush, so to speak, all along. Doubly, trebly in this case, tragic when there are children involved. But no more so than if he was running off with another woman. So all credit to David Cameron if he holds to his word and refuses to judge Greg Barker's political ability and future on what is a bit of a personal mess. This is, after all, the twenty-first century, and not the nineteen-eighties when his party would be condemning his new "pretend family relationship" with legislation.

Since Greg is 40, and I am approaching the same, I can identify with him in a way - certainly my feelings have changed, becoming more open to finding love in people of either gender. It's not terribly trendy to say so in the entrenched "gay community" just as much as the "heterosexist community", but we need to appreciate that sexual identity is more fluid than the last two or three hundred years' of predominantly British macho-masculine history has led us to believe.

Has he always identified in secret as "gay" but been living a double life? He's sired three children, after all. People change in all sorts of ways. Loves change. He seems no better, or worse, than anyone who, after some years of marriage, has lost the fire that was once there and fallen for someone else. The gender of his new love should make no difference to the rest of us. It likely will to his kids - just because other children can be the cruelest.

But...he did work for one of those Russian kleptocrats we grace with the term "oligarch". That's the real skeleton in Mr Barker's newly redecorated closet. And if he ends up getting fired for anything, it should be the hug-a-huskie stunt he led his boss on a few months back!

But if there are young, gay, Tories out there (I can never quite understand why) Cameron's support for Barker will I hope make them think twice about taking on a fag hag till death do they part for the sake of a selection meeting.

This posting has been a very long time in the making. In fact, as is usual, I've been more than normally ponderous about our political system since the local elections and it has prevented me doing anything else. I wanted to be careful about what I say, lest I be seen simply as having sour grapes at having lost - but I hope you will see that far from it, I am hopeful of achieving more, and for others moreover, outside the formal government structure than inside it.

I have fallen out of love with democracy; at least the corrupt, broken, power-hungry, centralizing, suffocating, nanny state, infantilizing political game we seem to have wandered into at some point.

Whether it's Labour's desperation to beat me that made them put out a leaflet that can only have been intended to damage my personal standing and reputation negligible though it may be already, the various tit-for-tat accusations that ran right through the Crewe by-election and the London mayoral elections, Westminster's divorce from the rest of the country as regards how much they get to spend of our money feathering their personal nests and how much we should know about it, it stinks.

I was watching again the "Open Minds" interview with Milton Friedman the other day and when it was put to him, as in J S Mill's formulation, that democratic government is the way in which we put good, ungreedy and unselfish people in charge to prevent bad, greedy and selfish people from taking over his response was simple: "government is an institution whereby the people with the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men get into the position of controlling them".

And who can argue, in the system we now have. The prize is enormous. Whoever lies his or her way to number 10 has the prospect of controlling nearly half of our entire national income. The mechanism of getting the top jobs is a sham - none of them in my opinion are competent to claim more wisdom than sixty million others of us that makes them able to take such a responsibility and they're only ever elected by a few thousand of those sixty million. Even in local government, tied up as it may be in red tape and Whitehall edicts, still the unscrupulous seem to make it to the top - look at Oxford Labour's own little lotacracy.

Tony Blair seemed to think he was virtually messianic, and now he believes apparently that he can solve all the world's problems now that he is no longer encumbered with such a small salary as the UK Prime Minister and the petty problems of Britain. But it doesn't matter who it is, Blair may have brought it to a head but neither Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Blair or whoever else may come next, has the capacity or competence to decide so much for so many.

And I don't think that I can suffer under this system much longer. If I was a young Muslim I'd probably be rounded up and accused of being "radicalised". Well I am radicalised. Radicalised and angry. It's a good job they've imposed a ban on unauthorized demonstrations outside of parliament, else I would hire a bunch of JCBs and lead a crowd to dismantle the Palace of Westminster stone by stone and cast its occupants into the river and hope they all wash up somewhere halfway up the Amazon where they would not be found for half a millennium - well actually I probably wouldn't, because I don't have that sort of courage, but I curse Guy Fawkes for having failed his opportunity!

In the local elections, nearly 70% of people did not vote. Even in generals, nearly 40% didn't vote last time. The Libertarian Party believes that this is a vast pool of voters who would readily switch to their, and my, image of a new Britain, with renewed freedoms and less state intervention. But I'm a Liberal, if not especially a Democrat, and my party is one of the three larger parties the LPUK blames for the lack of imagination in political discourse that has created this situation. And indeed, our regular flirtations with vaguely socialist redistribution policies rather than liberal level playing field policies, do seem to make us bed-pals with the two conservative parties trying to maintain their duopoly. Do I have to make that leap into the unknown of the Libertarian Party in order to have some hope for change? Or can I pursue change, with a reasonable hope of getting it, through a party so deeply embedded in the political "game" as the Lib Dems?

In 1745 David Hume suggested that one day we may come to the conclusion that our current system of government needs complete overhaul. I for one have reached that point. And David Hume's prescription in the "Idea of the Perfect Commonwealth" seems to me to be vastly superior to the decrepit institutions and structures we currently have to endure. I'm not sure any of the current setup is salvageable. That current setup is coercive, corrupt and centralized. It is now clear, more than ever before, as Rousseau said, "The English think they are free. They are free only during the election of members of parliament."

ID cards, the surveillance state, the lost war on drugs, the uneven playing field allowing monopolization and exploitation, drinking on the tube, detention without charge, foreign wars in support of oil hungry allies, petty bureaucrats spying on our every move, raiding our bins, taxing us through the nose. Is this what J S Mill was suggesting? Our parliamentary system was created in times when communications were difficult. Yet even then they took less power to themselves than now, when we are all a phone call or internet connection away from forging links with millions of other individuals on this planet.

The time has come for mutualism instead of representative government. People getting together either locally or in geographically dispersed interest groups focussing on particular problems in those communities. Refusing to accept that all the answers can come from a clunking fist in London or his puppets in the Town Hall.

But how do we do that, without turning spin into revolution?

The future of diplomacy?

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow and West | Primary school wins 'blog' award:

A primary school has won an award for its innovative international links with schools over the internet.

Staff and children at Woodhill Primary School in Bishopbriggs have set up blogs on subjects including French language and healthy lifestyles.

Technorati Tags: internet

Lots of handwringing going on today about the state of science education and in particular how to encourage more young people to keep studying the subjects to A level and beyond.

Emma Brockes in today's Guardian says at one point that "Science lessons have always been thought of as boring, but what seems to have changed is adolescent tolerance of it." I'm not so sure - at least as a viewer of the most recent Channel 4 "That'll Teach 'em" series where they took a class of current GCSE students back in time by thirty or forty years to give them a flavour of a 60s/70s grammar school education.

What came over there was that science lessons have become boring. Gone are the days of loud bangs, noxious smells and pulling things apart, of distilling alcohol and teasing out amorphous sulphur chains. Although I was good, even if I do say so myself (A grades at O level in Physics, Chemistry and Maths - Biology even then was seen as an also ran science because you didn't need it to get onto any serious "discovery" type university courses like medicine or biochemistry), I reckon I remember more of my own O level courses than those kids appear ever to be taught nowadays for the mushed up GCSE "Science" course. And, when faced with the "real science" of cutting things up and making smells and flash-bangs and playing with electron beams and van der Graaf generators and so on, the kids on that program really warmed to it.

Is it all a health and safety thing? Certainly some of what we did at O level (chemistry in particular) could have been dangerous - and in our school Pyrotechnics Club we would create things that today would now only be found on "extremist" websites and would get you four years at GTMO for knowing. Or perhaps squeamishness - the kids on the program had clearly never dissected anything before and once they got over the first few seemed to really enjoy it - even the vegetarians. Or is it just money? Safety aside, sciences should overall be cheaper nowadays I would have thought. There is much more you can do with cheap computers before you get into the lab situation.

My young niece got a "chemistry set" for Christmas last year. I was pleased to hear it. But when I saw it, it was no chemistry set of the sort I remember. Nothing to burn or anything like that. Just some collection, it seemed, of things that make different coloured and shaped crystals if you leave them for a few days.

Science is about discovery, often exciting discovery. And discovery requires risk. If all the risk is taken out of the classroom they're not going to discover anything and not going to get the "science bug". I wish now I had kept my head and insisted on doing Physics and Maths at A level. They are the hardest things to get back into at a higher level - you can always read up on history, law and so on later if you want to, but with maths and sciences beyond a certain level somehow it's much more difficult.

Let ten years olds make bangs, smells and laser guns, let them poke around in the guts of rats or frogs and we'll soon have people wanting to do sciences I'm sure.

Technorati Tags: education