Randomly Selected Article or Link

Some people appear to be criticising the way Simon has handled the sexuality issue on the basis that what he said a couple of weeks ago was misleading, or perhaps some kind of legalese "technical" answer along the lines of - "Are you gay?" "No, I've had sexual relations with women". Or that he's been avoiding the "B" word ("bisexual"). Many such people are people who should know better, having often struggled themselves with their own sexual identity. Some have not, but would just prefer some kind of "certainty" that they can then celebrate because they understand the label.

I believe that as liberals we should all accept and celebrate that there are a whole range of sexualities and that people self-define. This nineteenth century word invented to describe a pseudo-medical "condition" (and by implication some kind of either illness or moral deficiency) has no place in the twenty-first century liberal's dictionary. Until we reject such categories we will continue to see people hounded till someone pins them down to some neat classification (including those categories we decide label someone a criminal or of criminal intent).

I always remember a constituency dinner where Conrad (Lord Russell to non-Lib Dem readers) explained that a fundamental difference between us and Labour was that we treated every person as an individual where Labour tries to categorise everyone into "manageable" groups. To me, that individuality has *got* to include something as basic to our make-ups as our sexual self-definition.

Now, whether Simon shares that view and whether he was trying to convey some personal self-definition is another matter and I/we obviously don't know. But I just want to say how much I loathe these attempts to categorise people according to some arbitrarily defined labels. My only criticism of Simon if this is the case is his belief that this could be conveyed through our conventionally hide-bound national newspapers!

Jeez - I must read some Foucault...:)

I was at the Not-the-first-hustings yesterday at the South Central Conference at Newbury and was impressed by both Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne. I saw nothing to make me change my loyalties away from Chris, but one thing in particular Nick said (twice at least) was worth flagging up I thought.

I think the first reference was in his speech when talking about how to re-engage voters in an era when so many people say "what does government matter when the global conglomerates have all the power" he seemed to say that government should seek to control (as in rein in not own I presume) big business. Then again, when one of the questions was about how to sell Europe, he suggested that one of the benefits of Europe was the ability of governments to club together to control such global corporations.

I'm don't recall whether these were the only references to what one might call "economic" policy but they stuck in my mind because, whilst the media seem to talk about Nick being on the "economic liberal" (code for "right wing" in the economically illiterate media) part of the party, these are the sort of anti-corporate slogans that characterize Caroline Lucas or Naomi Klein more than they would Milton Friedman. Further, in reference to his past role as an EU trade negotiator, he seemed to believe that this in fact meant Euro-protectionism rather than freeing global trade.

On the other hand, Chris, who I think it is generally accepted is more grounded in economic theory, cited yesterday Hobhouse and the early twentieth century liberal reformers as his heros and today on Andrew Marr's program Lloyd-George. These guys knew all about the best mechanisms for helping the poor working classes - free trade and anti-monopoly.

I can't say whether Chris shares my view that the welfare state as conceived by these reformers was a necessary but essentially temporary measure only needed in an economic system that favoured the land-owner, capitalist and banker. But as a land value taxer, I would identify Chris with an "economic liberalism" that in a sense supersedes what many call "social liberalism". That believes that if we get the economic system more equitable, by reducing protectionism and monopolistic advantage, we create greater opportunity for the "little guy" than we can do by state led intervention in people's lives and wealth and consequently need a smaller safety net as a result.

Economic liberalism is "of the left" not the right. Its aim is to break the class and wealth based advantages enjoyed by the privileged and give the working person a greater share of the value of his or her production. Chris, I think, understands this. But Nick does not seem to be the "economic liberal" the press portrays him as, at least judging by those comments yesterday, but rather takes a protectionist and interventionist stance. A position which also has a big following in our party to be sure; this is not a value judgement, but it is a position I do not personally support (any longer).

All it goes to show really is that we cannot put any credence on the media who mischaracterize "economic liberalism" as something of the right and "social liberalism" as something of the left, and, having failed to understand either put our two candidates in those false categories. Nick might be on the "right" in the sense that he is apparently a protectionist, but it's not the sort of "right" the meedja seem to understand!

One often hears claims from defenders of the landed aristocracy that they are but stewards of the land pro tempore.

So much for "stewardship":

Fife Council has backed 150 villagers who face eviction after a wealthy laird put their homes up for sale.

Landlord William Wemyss has written to 49 households, informing them their homes will soon be on the market.

The move has shattered the tiny Fife mining village of Coaltown of Wemyss and provoked claims of a "modern day Highland Clearance".

Many of the tenants earmarked for eviction are elderly pensioners, including one 97-year-old woman.

The Wemyss family owns 70 cottages in the village, 49 of which are being sold off, netting the family more than £6m.

Tenants last week received a four-line letter from Mr Wemyss, informing them that their homes are being sold "as an investment portfolio" and giving them details if they want to purchase their own property.

But, most in the village are unable to afford the asking prices of about £130,000 and the quaint cottages are expected to generate much interest from investors or people looking to buy holiday homes.

Nice way of doing business. Positively Victorian landlordism at its worst by the sounds of it.

Technorati Tags: coaltown of wemyss

Courtesy of the OED:

[< Anglo-Norman and Middle French mortgage, mort gage (1283 in Old French; also as gage mort (1267); French mort-gage (now arch.)) < mort MORT a. + gage GAGE n.1, after post-classical Latin mortuum vadium (from 12th cent. in British sources) < mortuum, accusative of mortuus dead (see MORT a.) + vadium pledge (see INVADIATE v.). Middle French mort gage {goesto} post-classical Latin morgagium (from 14th cent. in British sources), mortgagium (a1564 in a British source).
Extended use (sense 1) is found slightly earlier in English than the technical legal sense (2); such extended use is app. not found in French, but may perh. have been developed in English directly from the legal use in Anglo-Norman and Middle French.
For the explanation of the etymological meaning of the term current among 17th-cent. lawyers, cf. the following:
1628 E. COKE First Pt. Inst. Lawes Eng. 205 It seemeth that the cause why it is called mortgage is, for that it is doubtful whether the Feoffor will pay at the day limited such summe or not, & if he doth not pay, then the Land which is put in pledge vpon condition for the payment of the money, is taken from him for euer, and so dead to him vpon condition, &c. And if he doth pay the money, then the pledge is dead as to the Tenant, &c.]

Parents to pass on mortgage debt:

A new mortgage allows parents to leave to their children not only their homes but their home loans as well.

Grip of Death, right enough.