tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post840981800205314793..comments2024-03-04T17:54:32.559+00:00Comments on Iain Dale's Diary: Paxman: How the Political Animal Has ChangedIain Dalehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03270146219458384372noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-27232326752046255332007-05-30T16:11:00.000+01:002007-05-30T16:11:00.000+01:00Paxman should do the weather he is good at that.Paxman should do the weather he is good at that.Fidothedoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13588552210424845667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-60922356062672020322007-05-30T16:04:00.000+01:002007-05-30T16:04:00.000+01:00Newmania & Neil Craig.I guess you were out of the ...Newmania & Neil Craig.<BR/><BR/>I guess you were out of the class they day that they did statistics.<BR/><BR/>The risks are actually not negligible at all- as even a cursory look at the peer reviewed medical literature in the subject will tell you. Whilst the relative health risks from passive smoking are small in comparison with those from active smoking, because the diseases are common, the overall health impact is large. Professor Konrad Jamrozik, formerly of Imperial College London, has estimated that domestic exposure to secondhand smoke in the UK causes around 2,700 deaths in people aged 20-64 and a further 8,000 deaths a year among people aged 65 years or older. Exposure to secondhand smoke at work is estimated to cause the death of more than two employed persons per working day across the UK as a whole (617 deaths a year), including 54 deaths a year in the hospitality industry.<BR/><BR/>So, given that there is incontrovertable evidence that passive smoking kills people,as well as making many others seriously ill; and given that despite this, smokers have continued to smoke in a way that subjected non smokers to passive smoking, then legislation is an appropriate course. If you want to keep smoking in your own space- fine, as far as I am concerned you can do what you like- but you can not harm others.<BR/><BR/>As for the argument that "we can't cut taxes because we want to be in government". What a load of drivel! If all you want to be is Blair II then there really is no point to you. Of course the burden of the state on the citizen must be reduced, both personally and financially. If you have not got the will to do that, then the Lib Dems will be putting it forward next time...Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-7327568477706260832007-05-30T14:56:00.000+01:002007-05-30T14:56:00.000+01:00What Neil Craig said Take that , stick it in your ...What Neil Craig said <BR/><BR/><BR/>Take that , stick it in your pipe and smoke it CICERO......Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-11803526855500516042007-05-30T12:53:00.000+01:002007-05-30T12:53:00.000+01:00eitwrcqkCicero the "evidence" that passive smoking...eitwrcqkCicero the "evidence" that passive smoking kills is well within the limits of statistical error of the relatively few & more importantly small scale studies that have been done. <BR/><BR/>Moreover the alleged deaths (500 annually inn the UK from ALL passive smoking of which that in pubs is only a small part is nothing compared to things like MSRA death in hospitals to which our masters & certainly the Lib Dems devote less time.<BR/><BR/>Moreover if health was the real reason for banning smoking the authorities would have settled for making good air extraction, which can remove 97% of smoke, mandatory.<BR/><BR/>The smoking ban is a vindictive & illiberal law introduced purely because the PC nannies find they can. If the Lib Dems (or indeed Tories or Labour) were remotely liberal parties they would have to oppose it.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-43727556697303785572007-05-30T10:48:00.000+01:002007-05-30T10:48:00.000+01:00CICEROThe risks associated with passive smoking ar...CICERO<BR/>The risks associated with passive smoking are negligible and for those working behind the bar whose risk is most they still work in an environment, hugely less dangerous than almost any industrial and certainly any construction process . You misunderstand the multi dimensional nature if risk . About the most dangerous thing you can do is work on a one drop explosives demo site and this activity is rated at something t like 20% of wages by actuaries ( Deep sea Oil well diving / maintenance the only one I can think of that's worse) . Bar staff for all its ( debatable ) disease risk is about 0.75% . Clearly we should be banning demolition and therefore we will have to bann building things as it is almost always involved. Absurd. It is more than obvious that we should bann driving and absolutely certain that drinking should banned from pubs forthwith. Running down the pavement of quickly ascending your stairs are better candidates and coughing in a public place should be punishable with an on the spot fine. In wartime many of these measures have been thought necessary along with the suspension of democracy. The Liberals would probably like that if it 'protected somebody'. Liberals believe in JS MIll do they well perhaps a little deeper though on whaty happiness consists of might puncture that silly equation. Not that Liberals generally belive anything of the sort<BR/><BR/>The Conservative Party`s position on tax is complicated by the fact they may have to form a Government. The Liberals are posturing in a Weimarish way and the idea that they would ever say no to that new hospital that new Government initiative will not survive meeting them . Bossy by nature they are the allies of Brown. Heirs to Blair refers to the Blair we imagined him to be in 1997 not the man he becameNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-63878674075784206202007-05-30T10:10:00.000+01:002007-05-30T10:10:00.000+01:00"I should imagine the planet he lives on where Lib..."I should imagine the planet he lives on where Lib Dems are not determined to stop you driving smoking and retaining your money must be a pleasant one . I would like to visit."<BR/><BR/>Actually Newmania you smoke as you like but do not harm anyone else- and unfortuately just smoking in the same room as a non smoker causes them harm. Liberals beleive with Mill that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, whether physical or moral is not a sufficient warrent. . . .Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"<BR/><BR/>As for tax, well at the moment the only party that proposes limits on tax is actually the Lib Dems: the "New heirs to Blair" are firmly in the high tax camp- and should be ashamed of themselves on every front.Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-14380956258834736232007-05-29T20:38:00.000+01:002007-05-29T20:38:00.000+01:00I cant agree with Paxman that the issue for the mo...I cant agree with Paxman that the issue for the modern politician is managerial.<BR/><BR/>In the disastrous 1945-51 Labour admin, health, education and transport were nationalised; they also passed the British Nationality Act for good measure.<BR/><BR/>Governments are still wrestling with the consequences of this socialist utopianism, but none will be successful until they recognise that parliament is a legislative body for this country only, which therefore should not try to run large enterprises or concern itself with the 'rights' of people who don't belong here.<BR/><BR/>The proplem is that the overwhelming majority of politicians are too cowardly and stupid to tackle these issues without which regression is as much a likely outcome as progress.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-75754403956714098262007-05-29T19:48:00.000+01:002007-05-29T19:48:00.000+01:00Who said, The more you know about a subject, the m...Who said, The more you know about a subject, the more conservative your views on that subject become? I think it was Kingsley Amis.Little Black Sambohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16699227938165106710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64463959235747063902007-05-29T16:37:00.000+01:002007-05-29T16:37:00.000+01:00"Most politicians have great ideas of changing thi..."Most politicians have great ideas of changing things"<BR/><BR/>Changing things is frightfully easy. Changing things for the better, however...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-61769426277815304142007-05-29T15:29:00.000+01:002007-05-29T15:29:00.000+01:00newmania said:I should imagine the planet he lives...newmania said:<BR/><BR/>I should imagine the planet he lives on where Lib Dems are not determined to stop you driving smoking and retaining your money must be a pleasant one . I would like to visit.<BR/><BR/>Go, newmania! Good postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-24104167368182976522007-05-29T15:08:00.000+01:002007-05-29T15:08:00.000+01:00I may have expressed myself badly but my view is t...I may have expressed myself badly but my view is that Paxman is indeed in his heart pretty right wing but to continue receiving his wage packet he has to stick to the views of the BBC as loyally as any Sun journalist has to eschew Marxism. I read once of somebody who, in conversation, had indeed found him not averse to hanging, but have never heard Newsnight support this.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-51889549177072874022007-05-29T15:03:00.000+01:002007-05-29T15:03:00.000+01:00I was struck by Cicero`s remarks about Liberal De...I was struck by Cicero`s remarks about Liberal Democrats establishing the limits of the state through ideological debate. I should imagine the planet he lives on where Lib Dems are not determined to stop you driving smoking and retaining your money must be a pleasant one . I would like to visit.<BR/><BR/>In practice they are tax raising statists whose absence from the 20th century divides has left them with no language to even enter a debate on the state and its role.Newmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-67398473313913701332007-05-29T14:58:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:58:00.000+01:00Another big problem, of course, is the client stat...Another big problem, of course, is the client state: the growing number of government and local government employees who, from self interest, will always be tempted to vote for a high-spending party.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-85394856579356230222007-05-29T14:51:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:51:00.000+01:00Cicero [1.51PM] You say: "I think that the major p...Cicero [1.51PM] You say: "I think that the major problem is that the state tries to do too much."<BR/><BR/>I agree. But following a close second must surely be government's addiction to legislation, as a substitute for sound management.<BR/><BR/>Whenever a new problem presents itself, ministers snatch up the statute book and propose a new law. Then the great object is to get the legislation through Parliament, preferably in the teeth of opposition. This counts as a victory (or sometimes, "a victory for common sense.")<BR/><BR/>Half the time it's only window dressing, designed to get the government through a difficult week. They know this really, but behind the scenes they argue, "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-23260210040388912692007-05-29T14:38:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:38:00.000+01:00It's a good book. I am going to go back and re-rea...It's a good book. I am going to go back and re-read it now (when I get the chance).<BR/><BR/>For some reason there are 2 copies lying around and about my house at the moment!Kerronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02411755932445989855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-18417846745701449502007-05-29T14:32:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:32:00.000+01:00Ideological struggle is not over. NuLab/The Tori...Ideological struggle is not over. NuLab/The Tories/LibDums all cling to a small hill marked "centre ground" and squabble over the detail about exactly where one sits, but the differences are splitting hairs.<BR/>The left is now dead, look how they could not get 45 Labour MPs to back a left wing candidate against Brown. <BR/>The opposition is now from the right, with people like myself that increasingly believe that the bureacratic/welfare/nhs state is destroying our nation, is inefficient and not fit for purpose, is highly wasteful and merely entreches poverty (keeps 'em voting Labour tho) and cannot possibly achieve what it is designed to do. We desparetely need to do something different.<BR/>How about starting with entitlement based welfare rather than needs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-91288493409083827742007-05-29T14:26:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:26:00.000+01:00The system may need managers in this modern world,...The system may need managers in this modern world, but being a good politician is no qualification. There's no lack of good and even great managers in this country - the size of our economy is depite government, not because of it. If you need an enlightened debate, there's more to be found in any one issue of the Harvard Business Review than any aamount of government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-2124186789427207892007-05-29T14:13:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:13:00.000+01:00I wonder if Paxman considers how many of our polit...I wonder if Paxman considers how many of our politicians are psychologically unfit to manage themselves, let alone our country?<BR/><BR/>So many of the pathetic wretches are so clearly right off their trolleys and so puffed up with compensatory mechanisms they've evolved to mask their dire inadequacies that they've no business governing anyone.<BR/><BR/>How do we take our power and freedom back from these crazy hijackers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-55401503192654096292007-05-29T14:12:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:12:00.000+01:00I think you are spot on, Iain. Politicians - like ...I think you are spot on, Iain. Politicians - like the rest of us - want to be loved, but I have hardly met one who does not acknowledge that they would be better off setting policy frameworks, agreeing resources, and then leaving detailed decision making and management - and public accountability for it - to real experts whom the public perceives as being untainted by the insidious influence of party interests. So why don't they? The problem could be two-fold: <BR/><BR/>we allow ourselves to be handcuffed by constitutional conventions that are little more than fictions (a shouting match at the Despatch Box and a five-yearly vote is deemed true accountability; Ministers know everything that happens in their Departments all the time, etc, etc) <BR/><BR/>and when a cookie jar is placed in front of them, they can't resist dipping in to it. Their power is still insufficiently constrained and they are only patchily bound by rules of procedure. <BR/><BR/>It is easy to see why some decisions are made - or perceived to be made (eg gerrymandered hospital funding and major infrastructure announcements)- in the interest of staying in power; and why, with the burden of handling, or at least owning up to specialist problems beyond their abilities, they end up dissembling in the face of Paxman's questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-22658301689258742022007-05-29T14:09:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:09:00.000+01:00Iain says: "And that just about sums up the dilemm...Iain says: "And that just about sums up the dilemma of a modern politician or someone who is thinking about going to politics. Paxman has picked up on the Nixonian idea of 'making a difference'. The problems of modern Britain are very different to those of thirty years ago, and as Paxman says, they are more managerial. Not a very exciting reason to enter the political arena is it? Most politicians have great ideas of changing things, whereas in actual fact they are managing things - usually very badly. Food for thought. Discuss."<BR/><BR/>So the problems of modern Britain are 'managerial'. That's not how I would describe the situation we are now of having GIVEN AWAY to the EU the ability to govern. ourselves! This is so obvious that only 'clever' people could overlook it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-84374308400676942392007-05-29T14:01:00.000+01:002007-05-29T14:01:00.000+01:00It follows that the wisest ministers are those who...It follows that the wisest ministers are those who realise soonest how very little power they really have. (Paxman)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Very true, and a very good argument for substantially reducing the size of the state, cutting politicians' eitist power and fat cat salaries, pensions and perks and adopting the Swiss system of direct democracy.<BR/><BR/>Let's have a system where anyone can submit a constitutional initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn the politicians lunatic parliamentary decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-15652246868335385242007-05-29T13:56:00.000+01:002007-05-29T13:56:00.000+01:00Paxman is clearly very very far to the right of wh...Paxman is clearly very very far to the right of what the BBC allow him to be<BR/><BR/>No he is not ,he has slightly repositioned himself like Andrew Marr recently but he sucks up all the Liberal assumptions and digests them easily . He is defined by opposition to the establishment as it appeared in the sixties to the baby boom generation as are they all( The country the monarchy and the countries traditional institutions...eg parliament). He is always trotted out as prominent BBC journo not actually connected to the Guardian but he is the same kind of animal.<BR/>OBSERVER<BR/>Good point , and if we had a polity that discussed moral issues then the overwhelming case for the death penalty and implications of not having it might be a little clearer. Paxman accepts this state of affairs and sneers in effect at those who do not like itNewmaniahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11922161971821380803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-88536517631952719872007-05-29T13:51:00.000+01:002007-05-29T13:51:00.000+01:00I think that this basic point (although not others...I think that this basic point (although not others in the book) is well taken. As you know one of themes that I blog regularly about is the relationship of the individual to government and society. Although I can concur with Benedict that more local control is probably a good thing, I think that the major problem is that the state tries to do too much. For me, Liberalism is about setting the limits to state power in the personal, social and political arenas. In that sense, the debates inside the Liberal Democrats are increasingly ideological and not managerial at all- it is not simply a question of how the state runs things, but whether it should be involved in certain areas at all.Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-26312863610879083362007-05-29T13:50:00.000+01:002007-05-29T13:50:00.000+01:00Roy Jenkins could honestly recall his time as Home...<I>Roy Jenkins could honestly recall his time as Home Secretary and say that he had achieved something, in endorsing the reforms to the laws on abortion and homosexuality</I><BR/><BR/>You forgot about abolition of beat-policing, abolition of the death penalty, and making sentencing policy therapeutic.<BR/><BR/>In fact we can all imagine a different Britain had Woy Jenkins never held public officeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6214838.post-64039228326227219182007-05-29T13:38:00.000+01:002007-05-29T13:38:00.000+01:00Iain, I have often thought that ministers were in ...Iain, I have often thought that ministers were in themselves fairly powerless to affect the public services, at least in a positve way.<BR/><BR/>That is one of the reasons why local accountability is a good idea, and the best way of achieving that is with vouchers and the like, or broadly speaking John Major's last government and its policies of fund holding GP's and grant maintained schools. <BR/><BR/>That said I had not thought of Paxman as a Conservative on the Major wing of the party before, and I suspect neither has he. Perhaps someone should tell him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com