Blog

(Minutes from the No. 10 Lobby briefing of journalists)

“Asked if the Government remained committed to a draft Bill on [corporate manslaughter laws], the Prime Minister’s Spokesperson said that it would be inappropriate to comment on the contents of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech. Put to her that she had commented in detail on the Gambling Bill, the PMS pointed out that the Gambling Bill had been included in last year’s Queen’s Speech.”

There is an interesting piece of opinion research available today from the Programme on International Policy Attitudes. The document itself is not long, and worth reading, but the take-away is that the Bush and Kerry supporters questioned don’t merely disagree on matters of policy or principle, they disagree on some fundamental matters of fact. Facts subject to partisan difference include whether Iraq was involved in 9/11 (Bush supporters: yes, Kerry supporters: no), and whether the world supports the Iraq war (Bush supporters: yes, Kerry supporters: no).

It’s just a pity that Jacques Derrida isn’t around to appreciate this.

There are a few theories floating around as to the reasons for this strange disjuncture. These range from “the Bush supporters have been deceived by the Government”, to “George Bush’s supporters are a horde of ignoramuses“. The last is a pleasing historical echo of John Stuart Mill’s description of the Tories as “the stupid party”.

My guess is that those polled are engaging in a bit of reverse-justification: they know the political mast they’ve nailed their colours to, and they have to mangle the facts to get to the answer they had already thought of. Rather like the reverse of this opinion poll (RealAudio file) from Yes-Minister.com.

There are times when even a politophile (or whatever you’d call it) just wants to fold his tent and slip away. Just stroll away from the issues that matter, and try and have what fun I can before the end comes. I’m getting that feeling again as the US election hurtles ever closer, and Salon writes two terrifying pieces.

That Ron Suskind piece in the New York Times Magazine today is worth reading in full. It reinforces one of my central political views, that easy agreement is dangerous, and powerful people agreeing with each other is even more dangerous. Debate is not, to put it another way, a means of gaining agreement for the right view, it is a way of making the policy (or whatever it is) better, just by talking it through.

The president who comes across in Mr Suskind’s piece is solitary and proud. Perhaps these are appealing traits in a leader – they seem to have played well in kings and princes throughout history. But is it a Christian attitude? I’m sure I remember singing something in my school chapel that went:

When I survey the wond’rous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Ron Suskind, quoted at William Gibson’s blog offers a startling view of the current administration’s effect on the world.

Simon Hoggart‘s parliamentary sketch yesterday (which is not yet online) referred to a long-forgotten Lincolnshire MP from the 1830s and 40s. He was a perfect picture of the Tory grandee – opposing the railways, the expansion of education (because he had hated reading at Oxford) and the Great Exhibition (because it would attract foreigners to the country). Will it be 170 years until the views of some modern politicians are the topic for sketchwriters’ derision?

The reference comes from Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon’s new history of the Conservative Party. An article by Mr Seldon on the future prospects of the Tories can be found here.