Hello,
I've jumped ship to Wordpress.com.
http://noidontknoweither.wordpress.com/
David
Friday 1 April 2011
Sunday 27 March 2011
The Haldane Principle
Hello,
The Observer is reporting today that the Arts and Humanities Research Council will spend a 'significant amount' of its research budget on work into the 'Big Society'. The Government, its correspondent writes, has 'clarified' the Haldane Principle of 1918 which says that researchers should decide on research spending.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/27/academic-study-big-society).
Cue the outrage.
(See a number of entries when you type 'Haldane Principle clarification' into Google).
If this is true, then yes, it is outrageous. The amount that the AHRC has already been almost entirely slashed. To then refocus its priorities for political gain would be a fragrant abuse of Government's powers. However, matters are not as simple as the article first suggests.
For a start The Observer's case is quite hypocritical. This weekend they have also run a piece in their 'Review' section on the Anglo-German socialist intellectual Ernest Schumacher and the influence of his philosophies on the Coalition's 'Big Society' idea.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/schumacher-david-cameron-small-beautiful)
Even The Observer would admit therefore that there are quite strong philosophical routes to some of the main points that the Government is pursuing.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the initial article is not entirely accurate about the Haldane Principle. The idea that the Principle has been an inviolate part of British academic-scientific life since the 1910s is debatable at best. David Egerton, a British historian who concentrates on technocracy (the bureaucracy of technology), has argued that the Principle only really existed from the 1960s, as part of a Conservative attempt to upset Labour's 'White Heat of Technology' drive under Harold Wilson.
(http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-88.html).
Can I also refer you to the following:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/101220-Letter-from-David-Willetts-MP-Haldane.pdf
This is a letter from David Willets to Andrew Mitchell, chair of the Commons Science and Technologies Committee, dated 20th December 2010. In it Willets is responding to a previous letter from Mitchell, which admits that there is some ambiguity over existing Government policy. Willets argues that 'Ministers have a legitimate role' to play in the allocation of funding process. However:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-12-20a.138WS.0 is a written Hansard statement backing up the content of Willets' letter.
So what, you might ask. If a week is a long time in politics, four months must be an eternity. Well, this link is to a table of intended research spending the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) department put out last month:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/m/ministerial-statement-on-the-allocation-of-the-science-and-research-budget-201112-to-201415.pdf
I leave you to make your own judgement there (not least because I'm not very good with figures).
This meanwhile is a link to an article by Professor Peter Mandler, Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society. Though critical of the new version of the Haldane Principle (with good reason for most of the cases he brings up), he notes that the Labour Party were not above 'bribing' Research Councils with extra funds
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150170942349951
As Professor Mandler argues, there are several reasons to be justifiably critical of the new proposals. Nevertheless I'd suggest that there's an argument to be made that in fact the new proposals are at the moment somewhat of an improvement on the older ones. They clarify the existing ambiguity between the Haldane and Excellence Principles, for instance, and move the Government's presence in this field onto a de facto footing.
There's a longer, and considerably more profound, argument that needs to be had about the relative balance of power between the bodies like the AHRC and central government. The one that The Observer is trying to spark off isn't it. It's taken me around an hour to research and write this blog post out in full, with nothing more than a laptop and a Google link as my resources. What appeared in the newspaper today is sensationalist, if for understandable reasons. We need to calm down, take a deep breath, and discuss what needs to be said with that sort of thing.
The Observer is reporting today that the Arts and Humanities Research Council will spend a 'significant amount' of its research budget on work into the 'Big Society'. The Government, its correspondent writes, has 'clarified' the Haldane Principle of 1918 which says that researchers should decide on research spending.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/27/academic-study-big-society).
Cue the outrage.
(See a number of entries when you type 'Haldane Principle clarification' into Google).
If this is true, then yes, it is outrageous. The amount that the AHRC has already been almost entirely slashed. To then refocus its priorities for political gain would be a fragrant abuse of Government's powers. However, matters are not as simple as the article first suggests.
For a start The Observer's case is quite hypocritical. This weekend they have also run a piece in their 'Review' section on the Anglo-German socialist intellectual Ernest Schumacher and the influence of his philosophies on the Coalition's 'Big Society' idea.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/27/schumacher-david-cameron-small-beautiful)
Even The Observer would admit therefore that there are quite strong philosophical routes to some of the main points that the Government is pursuing.
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the initial article is not entirely accurate about the Haldane Principle. The idea that the Principle has been an inviolate part of British academic-scientific life since the 1910s is debatable at best. David Egerton, a British historian who concentrates on technocracy (the bureaucracy of technology), has argued that the Principle only really existed from the 1960s, as part of a Conservative attempt to upset Labour's 'White Heat of Technology' drive under Harold Wilson.
(http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-88.html).
Can I also refer you to the following:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/science-technology/101220-Letter-from-David-Willetts-MP-Haldane.pdf
This is a letter from David Willets to Andrew Mitchell, chair of the Commons Science and Technologies Committee, dated 20th December 2010. In it Willets is responding to a previous letter from Mitchell, which admits that there is some ambiguity over existing Government policy. Willets argues that 'Ministers have a legitimate role' to play in the allocation of funding process. However:
'it is for the Councils to decide on specific projects and people to fund. In all of these decisions, Ministers should take account of advice from a wide variety of expert sources'.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-12-20a.138WS.0 is a written Hansard statement backing up the content of Willets' letter.
So what, you might ask. If a week is a long time in politics, four months must be an eternity. Well, this link is to a table of intended research spending the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) department put out last month:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/docs/m/ministerial-statement-on-the-allocation-of-the-science-and-research-budget-201112-to-201415.pdf
I leave you to make your own judgement there (not least because I'm not very good with figures).
This meanwhile is a link to an article by Professor Peter Mandler, Vice-President of the Royal Historical Society. Though critical of the new version of the Haldane Principle (with good reason for most of the cases he brings up), he notes that the Labour Party were not above 'bribing' Research Councils with extra funds
'if these bodies responded to the government agenda by themselves reserving some of their research funds for government priorities'.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150170942349951
As Professor Mandler argues, there are several reasons to be justifiably critical of the new proposals. Nevertheless I'd suggest that there's an argument to be made that in fact the new proposals are at the moment somewhat of an improvement on the older ones. They clarify the existing ambiguity between the Haldane and Excellence Principles, for instance, and move the Government's presence in this field onto a de facto footing.
There's a longer, and considerably more profound, argument that needs to be had about the relative balance of power between the bodies like the AHRC and central government. The one that The Observer is trying to spark off isn't it. It's taken me around an hour to research and write this blog post out in full, with nothing more than a laptop and a Google link as my resources. What appeared in the newspaper today is sensationalist, if for understandable reasons. We need to calm down, take a deep breath, and discuss what needs to be said with that sort of thing.
Monday 14 March 2011
Some thoughts on the Japanese earthquake
Hello,
My prayers and thoughts go out to those there.
I've been wondering what to write about this. It seemed as though I should say something. It's always difficult though to know what exactly to say in the face of such terrifying, destructive nature disaster. When thousands are dead, and thousands others have lost their possessions and their homes, any response seems somewhat trite.
When one is looking, as we are even now, at the immense suffering of others it can also become a great barrier to any sort of religious faith. The great question arises - what sort of loving God could allow this to happen? This can become coupled with the very sensation that any response apart from donation, sympathy and awe is somehow unworthy.
Is now the time to discuss that great question? Perhaps not. We should after all be busy donating our time, energy and resources to helping the Japanese people, rather than debating theology surely? Yet that question strikes at the heart not only of our Christian faith, but also at the heart of why we are attempting to help Japan.
My church leader at home once said something during a service last year that shocked me initially. He asked us to give thanks to God for the Haitian earthquake. Today I still wince in part at the thought of this. How could we, in a sense how dare we give thanks for the suffering of so many? With pictures being beamed into our homes of the great hurt being undergone, what sort of monsters were we to give thanks for this event?
Yet in another sense I can see what he was saying. If we believe that God's purpose lies in all things, then it lay in that earthquake. God's hand was at work.
How? How could a supposedly loving, merciful God want so many of his children dead? The answer I think is that He didn't. But He saw a way to make His world a better place and He took it. As Haiti slowly began recovery last year, many Mainstream Media outlets noted how church attendance in that country rocketed. We in the West meanwhile remembered our wealth in comparison to others. Good came out of the evil of the earthquake itself.
That's what we should consider here. Not so much questions over the fallen nature of Creation, but what God-driven good can come from what is happening to the Japanese, and what it is that we are all, individually, called to do.
My prayers and thoughts go out to those there.
I've been wondering what to write about this. It seemed as though I should say something. It's always difficult though to know what exactly to say in the face of such terrifying, destructive nature disaster. When thousands are dead, and thousands others have lost their possessions and their homes, any response seems somewhat trite.
When one is looking, as we are even now, at the immense suffering of others it can also become a great barrier to any sort of religious faith. The great question arises - what sort of loving God could allow this to happen? This can become coupled with the very sensation that any response apart from donation, sympathy and awe is somehow unworthy.
Is now the time to discuss that great question? Perhaps not. We should after all be busy donating our time, energy and resources to helping the Japanese people, rather than debating theology surely? Yet that question strikes at the heart not only of our Christian faith, but also at the heart of why we are attempting to help Japan.
My church leader at home once said something during a service last year that shocked me initially. He asked us to give thanks to God for the Haitian earthquake. Today I still wince in part at the thought of this. How could we, in a sense how dare we give thanks for the suffering of so many? With pictures being beamed into our homes of the great hurt being undergone, what sort of monsters were we to give thanks for this event?
Yet in another sense I can see what he was saying. If we believe that God's purpose lies in all things, then it lay in that earthquake. God's hand was at work.
How? How could a supposedly loving, merciful God want so many of his children dead? The answer I think is that He didn't. But He saw a way to make His world a better place and He took it. As Haiti slowly began recovery last year, many Mainstream Media outlets noted how church attendance in that country rocketed. We in the West meanwhile remembered our wealth in comparison to others. Good came out of the evil of the earthquake itself.
That's what we should consider here. Not so much questions over the fallen nature of Creation, but what God-driven good can come from what is happening to the Japanese, and what it is that we are all, individually, called to do.
Monday 7 March 2011
Do artists need to be accurate in order to reflect History?
From the Guardian, some thoughts about artistry, historical accuracy and Ridley Scott's Robin Hood
P.S: The Guardian's dating service advertises itself with 'Find your Soulmate'. Wonder what the paper's official policy on the afterlife actually is?
P.S: The Guardian's dating service advertises itself with 'Find your Soulmate'. Wonder what the paper's official policy on the afterlife actually is?
Friday 4 March 2011
Defence #7; Tea and Humbug
Hello,
Just a quickie.
A few days ago the Prime Minister announced in the Commons that Britain was 'taking the lead' on the Libyan crisis. This 'lead' included the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone over the country to counter Gaddifi-loyalist forces bombing the rebels.
As the Ink Spots blog points out though, without the US Navy enforcing a no-fly zone would be highly difficult at best. The UK does not have an aircraft carrier active at the moment - HMS Ark Royal is going to be decommissioned a week today. The next carrier, the Queen Elizabeth class supercarrier HMS Prince of Wales will not be ready until 2020. It's interesting to note that on 26th February the conservative Daily Telegraph was calling on the Prime Minister to help economically isolate the Libyan regime.
As Ink Spots argues, we are increasingly facing a simple fact that was first relayed to us in 1956 - the UK can do virtually nothing militarily on the international with the United States. At Suez we needed their approval. Now it seems we need their help.
Just a quickie.
A few days ago the Prime Minister announced in the Commons that Britain was 'taking the lead' on the Libyan crisis. This 'lead' included the possibility of enforcing a no-fly zone over the country to counter Gaddifi-loyalist forces bombing the rebels.
As the Ink Spots blog points out though, without the US Navy enforcing a no-fly zone would be highly difficult at best. The UK does not have an aircraft carrier active at the moment - HMS Ark Royal is going to be decommissioned a week today. The next carrier, the Queen Elizabeth class supercarrier HMS Prince of Wales will not be ready until 2020. It's interesting to note that on 26th February the conservative Daily Telegraph was calling on the Prime Minister to help economically isolate the Libyan regime.
As Ink Spots argues, we are increasingly facing a simple fact that was first relayed to us in 1956 - the UK can do virtually nothing militarily on the international with the United States. At Suez we needed their approval. Now it seems we need their help.
Thursday 3 March 2011
The Browne Review - just how much research was done?
Hello,
Times Higher Education* carried this article about two months ago, which completely went under my radar. They logged an FOI request (presumably with Vince Cable's lot) to ask how much money the Browne Commission had for research, and how much of that they spent.
The results are quite interesting to say the least. According to THE, Browne et al had a research budget of £120,000. Not that much, one might think, considering what was at stake in the research. They spent £68,375 - which if my shaky maths is right works out at around 57% - mostly on a single opinion survey.
Which if a report in today's THE is true, they then mostly ignored. This was a survey in which the majority of respondents reportedly believed that £6,000 was the maximum that should be charged - and where respondents from lower income groups were the most debt averse.
The amount of research that seems to have been done is astonishingly light considering the monumental changes to the Higher Education sector that have resulted from this review.
I leave you with a few thoughts. Firstly, one critical of a university. The Financial Times's education correspondent has reportedly seen an 'internal document [from Cambridge University] preparing for their 2012 submission on fees'. It recommends that the University adjust its current target range for state school entrants from 58% to somewhere between 61-63%. A rise, in other words, of 5% (in their target range, remember) in response to a tripling of fees.
The next two more critical of the Government. Secondly, as I said yesterday, we need to bear in mind the level to which universities are now on their own. David Allen, Exeter's registrar, is quoted here in The Guardian saying that Exeter believes that it will need £7,000 'just to stand still' after the Government withdraws its university funding. The BBC quotes the National Audit Office in saying that the new university funding system leaves increasingly more institutions open to the risk of bankruptcy.
Thirdly that the Government is still unclear over what cap it is going to put on international students' entry into our HE system. Remember that internationals pay a considerably higher fee for their tuition than British students. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe it's no exaggeration to say that they have helped keep the HE sector going.
Pity the poor student, eh? This is beginning to look like a bit of a mess.
David
* They dropped the Supplement from the title a while ago, but I still tend to think of it as the Times Higher Education Supplement. Hence the references to THES in past blog entries.
Times Higher Education* carried this article about two months ago, which completely went under my radar. They logged an FOI request (presumably with Vince Cable's lot) to ask how much money the Browne Commission had for research, and how much of that they spent.
The results are quite interesting to say the least. According to THE, Browne et al had a research budget of £120,000. Not that much, one might think, considering what was at stake in the research. They spent £68,375 - which if my shaky maths is right works out at around 57% - mostly on a single opinion survey.
Which if a report in today's THE is true, they then mostly ignored. This was a survey in which the majority of respondents reportedly believed that £6,000 was the maximum that should be charged - and where respondents from lower income groups were the most debt averse.
The amount of research that seems to have been done is astonishingly light considering the monumental changes to the Higher Education sector that have resulted from this review.
I leave you with a few thoughts. Firstly, one critical of a university. The Financial Times's education correspondent has reportedly seen an 'internal document [from Cambridge University] preparing for their 2012 submission on fees'. It recommends that the University adjust its current target range for state school entrants from 58% to somewhere between 61-63%. A rise, in other words, of 5% (in their target range, remember) in response to a tripling of fees.
The next two more critical of the Government. Secondly, as I said yesterday, we need to bear in mind the level to which universities are now on their own. David Allen, Exeter's registrar, is quoted here in The Guardian saying that Exeter believes that it will need £7,000 'just to stand still' after the Government withdraws its university funding. The BBC quotes the National Audit Office in saying that the new university funding system leaves increasingly more institutions open to the risk of bankruptcy.
Thirdly that the Government is still unclear over what cap it is going to put on international students' entry into our HE system. Remember that internationals pay a considerably higher fee for their tuition than British students. I don't have the figures to hand, but I believe it's no exaggeration to say that they have helped keep the HE sector going.
Pity the poor student, eh? This is beginning to look like a bit of a mess.
David
* They dropped the Supplement from the title a while ago, but I still tend to think of it as the Times Higher Education Supplement. Hence the references to THES in past blog entries.
Wednesday 2 March 2011
And the fees go up
Hello,
Well, it's happened. This morning the university announced that it will be charging £9000 a year for degrees as of next year.
I wasn't going to comment on this - largely as I'm employed by the university as a postgraduate seminar tutor. Then I thought 'blow it', and decided to jot some thoughts down. They may not be too radical ideas down here though.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this decision. The first is that it is utterly unjustified. I can see their point.
The university is currently undergoing a massive rebuilding programme as part of the 'Forum Project' (the picture on the left is the Main Library as of a month ago). The building work this afternoon - though they did apologise for it - was particularly loud.
All in all, this has been massively intrusive for those living on campus. Work is carry on right next to some of the halls of residence, and so privacy has been an issue.
(The work is scheduled to finish in 2012, as the new fees system will come in).
There's also the question of cost-effectiveness. The university has been openly looking to challenge Oxbridge, London and the larger, more established (mostly Russell Group) universities for some time. When it's placing on the University League Tables slipped out of the top 10 this year, it was big news on campus. As far as the current university management are concerned, Exeter has the potential to be a first-grade university and they intend to get us there.
The university has already promised that it will be bringing in new procedures for widening access. The question many seem to be putting though is whether we are bringing in the new price rises in order to be seen as being on a level with Oxbridge.
To that all I would add this (and again, I am a paid employee of the university*). Given that the Government is slashing the grant money for STEM subjects considerably, and abolishing funding for the Humanities, what rational choice will universities have than to raise their fees by as much as they think they can get away with?
* So accept my words here with all the necessary salt you see fit.
Well, it's happened. This morning the university announced that it will be charging £9000 a year for degrees as of next year.
I wasn't going to comment on this - largely as I'm employed by the university as a postgraduate seminar tutor. Then I thought 'blow it', and decided to jot some thoughts down. They may not be too radical ideas down here though.
There seems to be two schools of thought on this decision. The first is that it is utterly unjustified. I can see their point.
All in all, this has been massively intrusive for those living on campus. Work is carry on right next to some of the halls of residence, and so privacy has been an issue.
(The work is scheduled to finish in 2012, as the new fees system will come in).
There's also the question of cost-effectiveness. The university has been openly looking to challenge Oxbridge, London and the larger, more established (mostly Russell Group) universities for some time. When it's placing on the University League Tables slipped out of the top 10 this year, it was big news on campus. As far as the current university management are concerned, Exeter has the potential to be a first-grade university and they intend to get us there.
The university has already promised that it will be bringing in new procedures for widening access. The question many seem to be putting though is whether we are bringing in the new price rises in order to be seen as being on a level with Oxbridge.
To that all I would add this (and again, I am a paid employee of the university*). Given that the Government is slashing the grant money for STEM subjects considerably, and abolishing funding for the Humanities, what rational choice will universities have than to raise their fees by as much as they think they can get away with?
* So accept my words here with all the necessary salt you see fit.
Saturday 19 February 2011
Saturday 12 February 2011
Defence #6: Tea and Unsympathy
Hello,
While I work out how to make those two posts on Gerry Adams into something worth reading, here's a very interesting article on Tea Party hostility to the US Defence Budget, and the subsequent disagreements within American Republicanism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/12/us-military-tea-party-movement
While I work out how to make those two posts on Gerry Adams into something worth reading, here's a very interesting article on Tea Party hostility to the US Defence Budget, and the subsequent disagreements within American Republicanism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/12/us-military-tea-party-movement
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Adams and Northstead II: Just what is actually going on?
Hello again,
[Ignore this for the moment. It'll be rewritten eventually as a piece on the British Constitution - David, 13th Feb 2011]
The Northern Irish blogger Slugger O'Toole has now suggested that it's illegal to appoint Adams as Steward against his will. He argues that the wording of the 1975 House of Commons Disqualification Act means that he cannot be appointed if he doesn't want the job. Namely:
[Ignore this for the moment. It'll be rewritten eventually as a piece on the British Constitution - David, 13th Feb 2011]
The Northern Irish blogger Slugger O'Toole has now suggested that it's illegal to appoint Adams as Steward against his will. He argues that the wording of the 1975 House of Commons Disqualification Act means that he cannot be appointed if he doesn't want the job. Namely:
'8.— (1) No person being a member of the House of Commons, or for the time being nominated as a candidate for election to that House, shall be required to accept any office or place by virtue of which he would be disqualified by this Act for membership of that House, or for membership of that House for the constituency for which he is sitting or is a candidate.'
So Adams is back to being an MP. Alex Massie meanwhile is arguing in The Spectator that in taking the Stewardship he could be disqualified from standing as an Irish MP.
Article 40.2.2 of the Irish Constitution states that:
'No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.'
At which point I'm persuaded to go back to my thesis........
Sinn Fein and the 2011 Irish Election; a re-written post.
Hello,
This is a re-written version of a post I did earlier. Originally it was a briefly done, humorous piece. I thought it also raised an important point and so I wanted to re-do it properly.
Still though, anyone who gets bored easily by politics will probably want to skip this one.
Until recently Gerry Adams, the President of Sinn Fein, was the British MP for Belfast West. He resigned his post a few weeks ago in order to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming Irish Parliamentary elections.
At the last Irish General Election, the party lost one of its five seats in the Irish Parliament (the Dail). This time round though, things are different. Though The Economist was openly questioning its survival, in 2007 the long Irish economic boom that had transformed it into the 'Celtic Tiger' was still, just about, going.
How times change. Barely two years later (April 2009) the respected economist Paul Krugman wrote this article in the New York Times that the worst case scenario for the United States was that it could 'turn Irish'. Between December 2007 and May 2010 the unemployment rate in the Republic has trebled, according to the OECD.
Which is where Mr. Adams and his party come in. Witness this electoral broadcast:
Now admittedly the probable next Taioseach - Enda Kenney of the main opposition Fine Gael party - has publicly stated that he lead his party into coalition with Sinn Fein. However, in that report the Irish Times put Sinn Fein's poll ratings at 10%. Their political commentator, Deaglan De Breadun, has urged us to admit that Sinn Fein are not going away. 'It will be suprising' he wrote in an analysis piece on Friday 'if they don't make it to double-figures in this election'.
Why is any of this important? Firstly because SF are attempting, it seems, to make more of themselves than simply being the party of Irish unity. Secondly, because they have never stopped being the party of Irish unity. Witness this from their manifesto.
Sinn Fein becoming a presence in the politics of Eire could have ramifications for a long time to come.
This is a re-written version of a post I did earlier. Originally it was a briefly done, humorous piece. I thought it also raised an important point and so I wanted to re-do it properly.
Still though, anyone who gets bored easily by politics will probably want to skip this one.
Until recently Gerry Adams, the President of Sinn Fein, was the British MP for Belfast West. He resigned his post a few weeks ago in order to stand as a candidate in the forthcoming Irish Parliamentary elections.
At the last Irish General Election, the party lost one of its five seats in the Irish Parliament (the Dail). This time round though, things are different. Though The Economist was openly questioning its survival, in 2007 the long Irish economic boom that had transformed it into the 'Celtic Tiger' was still, just about, going.
How times change. Barely two years later (April 2009) the respected economist Paul Krugman wrote this article in the New York Times that the worst case scenario for the United States was that it could 'turn Irish'. Between December 2007 and May 2010 the unemployment rate in the Republic has trebled, according to the OECD.
Which is where Mr. Adams and his party come in. Witness this electoral broadcast:
Now admittedly the probable next Taioseach - Enda Kenney of the main opposition Fine Gael party - has publicly stated that he lead his party into coalition with Sinn Fein. However, in that report the Irish Times put Sinn Fein's poll ratings at 10%. Their political commentator, Deaglan De Breadun, has urged us to admit that Sinn Fein are not going away. 'It will be suprising' he wrote in an analysis piece on Friday 'if they don't make it to double-figures in this election'.
Why is any of this important? Firstly because SF are attempting, it seems, to make more of themselves than simply being the party of Irish unity. Secondly, because they have never stopped being the party of Irish unity. Witness this from their manifesto.
Sinn Fein becoming a presence in the politics of Eire could have ramifications for a long time to come.
Bankers' salaries #2: some thoughts upon competition and game theory
Hello,
This is a continuation of the previous post on bankers' salaries. The blog post by Robert Peston that I highlighted touches upon an interesting point that I wanted to consider more fully.
Part of what Peston's post suggests is that the problem with lower said salaries lies with the risk to one's own institution. As I said previously, if you are offering your employees less than what they could get elsewhere, so the theory goes, you risk losing the best and brightest to your competitors.
Now Peston draws a comparison with English Premier League football clubs here and salary inflation that's worth following up upon. His argument is that the average salary for a Premiership footballer is now largely divorced from actual performance. This is what has, for better or worse, created the situation we now see in the EPL: a league of three parts (those who can afford to lead, those who can afford to stay, and those who can with some risk afford to take part).
We can extent this parallel further. Essentially now clubs like Manchester United are the AIG of the footballing world. Despite the level of debt that the Glazers took upon the club when they purchased it, it is in no-one's interest for United to fail. Much the same can be said of Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool (increasingly less so there), Manchester City and possibly Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle.
Yet United, especially, are despite their power trapped by circumstances. To be able to afford to do what they're doing, they need to keep on winning. To afford to win, they need to keep on doing what they're doing.
It's this that interests me. Part of what I'm doing for my thesis involves looking at Anglo-German relations in the early 20th century (1905-1914). Diplomatic relations between countries are complex things; since the advent of Pluralistic International Relations theory (1960s/70s I believe), they have tended to be thought of as happening across multiple levels. What I'm looking at though is defence relations. These were characterised by one series of events: the Anglo-German (naval) rivalry of 1906-1914.
Basically put, British strategic doctrine of the time rested on a loose policy called the 'Two Power Standard'. What this meant in practice is that at all times the Royal Navy should have the capacity to defend the Home Islands and the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) against the conceivable enemies of the Crown. Especially important was the Home Waters (those around the British Isles). Now in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Germany began to build a major 'High Seas Fleet' that threatened to usurp British domination of the North Sea/Channel/Western approaches region.
This was not the sole cause of the First World War, but it played a considerable part in starting it. Both sides began to build ships up and beyond what was, malcontents argued, necessary for national defence. Efforts were made to encourage a reduction in armaments, but crucially neither side trusted the other enough for it to work.
There rests the nub of the matter. How do you encourage a manoeuvre that both sides will benefit from, but if one side takes independently will threaten their position? I would suggest four possibilities -
1. Do it anyway: And place your money on your potential opposition being brow-beaten by international/domestic pressure into following you.
2. Start small: One of the reasons the 1993 Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel worked is that both sides started negotiating on relative small details before working their way up to the bigger picture. Thus a culture of compromise is created, and in ironing out the small issues frequently the larger ones are compensated for as well.
3. Agree to trust and verify: The SALT talks between the USSR and the USA in the mid-1980s were underlined by the shared principle to allow observers from each country to report on the other's decommissioning. The initial attempt at trust was underlined by actual verification.
4. Appoint a neutral referee: Switzerland or the nearest relative equivalent is normally good.
Why bother at all? Because if you don't the situation tends to escalate and the entire system in which you're working is threatened.
This is a continuation of the previous post on bankers' salaries. The blog post by Robert Peston that I highlighted touches upon an interesting point that I wanted to consider more fully.
Part of what Peston's post suggests is that the problem with lower said salaries lies with the risk to one's own institution. As I said previously, if you are offering your employees less than what they could get elsewhere, so the theory goes, you risk losing the best and brightest to your competitors.
Now Peston draws a comparison with English Premier League football clubs here and salary inflation that's worth following up upon. His argument is that the average salary for a Premiership footballer is now largely divorced from actual performance. This is what has, for better or worse, created the situation we now see in the EPL: a league of three parts (those who can afford to lead, those who can afford to stay, and those who can with some risk afford to take part).
We can extent this parallel further. Essentially now clubs like Manchester United are the AIG of the footballing world. Despite the level of debt that the Glazers took upon the club when they purchased it, it is in no-one's interest for United to fail. Much the same can be said of Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool (increasingly less so there), Manchester City and possibly Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle.
Yet United, especially, are despite their power trapped by circumstances. To be able to afford to do what they're doing, they need to keep on winning. To afford to win, they need to keep on doing what they're doing.
It's this that interests me. Part of what I'm doing for my thesis involves looking at Anglo-German relations in the early 20th century (1905-1914). Diplomatic relations between countries are complex things; since the advent of Pluralistic International Relations theory (1960s/70s I believe), they have tended to be thought of as happening across multiple levels. What I'm looking at though is defence relations. These were characterised by one series of events: the Anglo-German (naval) rivalry of 1906-1914.
Basically put, British strategic doctrine of the time rested on a loose policy called the 'Two Power Standard'. What this meant in practice is that at all times the Royal Navy should have the capacity to defend the Home Islands and the Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) against the conceivable enemies of the Crown. Especially important was the Home Waters (those around the British Isles). Now in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Germany began to build a major 'High Seas Fleet' that threatened to usurp British domination of the North Sea/Channel/Western approaches region.
This was not the sole cause of the First World War, but it played a considerable part in starting it. Both sides began to build ships up and beyond what was, malcontents argued, necessary for national defence. Efforts were made to encourage a reduction in armaments, but crucially neither side trusted the other enough for it to work.
There rests the nub of the matter. How do you encourage a manoeuvre that both sides will benefit from, but if one side takes independently will threaten their position? I would suggest four possibilities -
1. Do it anyway: And place your money on your potential opposition being brow-beaten by international/domestic pressure into following you.
2. Start small: One of the reasons the 1993 Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel worked is that both sides started negotiating on relative small details before working their way up to the bigger picture. Thus a culture of compromise is created, and in ironing out the small issues frequently the larger ones are compensated for as well.
3. Agree to trust and verify: The SALT talks between the USSR and the USA in the mid-1980s were underlined by the shared principle to allow observers from each country to report on the other's decommissioning. The initial attempt at trust was underlined by actual verification.
4. Appoint a neutral referee: Switzerland or the nearest relative equivalent is normally good.
Why bother at all? Because if you don't the situation tends to escalate and the entire system in which you're working is threatened.
Bankers' salaries #1; What to do about them
Hello,
Robert Peston, the BBC's Business Editor, offered us this interesting post last week in which he quoted Sir Philip Hampton (Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland) saying that:
The BBC News report can be seen here.
Peston seems to be arguing that pay rates for members of the Financial Services industry have behaved broadly like pay rates for Premiership footballers. The outstanding members of the industry have earned that sort of levels of remuneration. However these levels of pay have subsequently been followed by the industry as a whole, meaning that many are now substantially overpaid given their relative performance.
How then can we encourage a culture of responsibility among the bankers? This would be worthwhile - we don't want to encourage a mentality of free and easy access to reserves of money among this class (ultimately). The problem comes in how to get one of the banks to take the first step. Why should you offer to pay your staff less when they can do the same work for a different bank and get the normal rate of pay?
Well here the Government may have to go back on its basic ideology and simply enforce a cap upon salaries at the banks it owns. In essence, introduce performance related pay to be decided upon in each case by an independent committee attached to each bank in which the state has a majority ownership.
Robert Peston, the BBC's Business Editor, offered us this interesting post last week in which he quoted Sir Philip Hampton (Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland) saying that:
"This explosive growth in financial services meant that thousands of people, arguably tens of thousands of people, are extraordinarily highly paid. The most peculiar thing about it all, actually, if you look at the last ten years of massive increases in pay is that the performance for shareholders has been pretty disastrous really across most banks. Some of them have gone out of business altogether and most banks have had a relatively poor performance for shareholders"
The BBC News report can be seen here.
Peston seems to be arguing that pay rates for members of the Financial Services industry have behaved broadly like pay rates for Premiership footballers. The outstanding members of the industry have earned that sort of levels of remuneration. However these levels of pay have subsequently been followed by the industry as a whole, meaning that many are now substantially overpaid given their relative performance.
How then can we encourage a culture of responsibility among the bankers? This would be worthwhile - we don't want to encourage a mentality of free and easy access to reserves of money among this class (ultimately). The problem comes in how to get one of the banks to take the first step. Why should you offer to pay your staff less when they can do the same work for a different bank and get the normal rate of pay?
Well here the Government may have to go back on its basic ideology and simply enforce a cap upon salaries at the banks it owns. In essence, introduce performance related pay to be decided upon in each case by an independent committee attached to each bank in which the state has a majority ownership.
Monday 24 January 2011
Who wrote the Gospels?
Hello,
The following comes via the blog The Failed Atheist. It's a sort-of-but-not-actually-mine follow up to a few earlier posts on the historical origins of the Bible. Namely this and this.
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Let's start the new year with a Marxist
Hello,
Quite a few things that deserve comment have accumulated while I've been off doing others things. However I wanted to highlight today's Guardian, where Tristam Hunt interviews Eric Hobshawn.
 |
| 'Borrowed' from socialistunity.com |
I would hope that he wouldn't be too offended if I described Hobshawn as a figure from another age. His age (93) has some part to play in that. The main cause of that statement though is his political views - Hobshawn is a Marxist. He is a controversial Marxist too. Many have accused him of conducting an apologist campaign for the Soviet Union (especially the Stalin-era USSR). I don't want to go into that at this point, but if you read some of the comments on this Guardian editorial in praise of Hobshawn then it should give you some idea.
Now unlike a great many names that I mention on this blog, I have actually read some of his work - I got through a fair chunk of his The Age of Capital, 1848-1875 during a research trip to Edinburgh last September. He writes fluently and engagingly, highlighting the seminal role that socio-economic forces played in the development of capitalistic empires during the mid-to-late nineteenth century. He displays too an exhaustive knowledge, binding together into his grand overview developments in cattle farming in the American midwest, nationalism in central Europe and movements in Russian ballet.
There are some flaws to the book. A reader looking for central figures to hang their understanding of the narrative on will be look in vain (there's a reason why I only got through 'a large chunk' of it). He freely admits too to being casual in his referencing; understandable perhaps given the range of knowledge on display but nonetheless a violation of one of the cardinal rules of historiography (show your working!).
Then of course there's the Marxism. Hobshawn is not shy in admitting his ideological influences (there's an entire chapter labelled 'The Bourgeois World'). Nor is he alone in holding such views. Hunt, himself an historian, seems sympathetic in that interview, while Marx's ideas on economics and globalisation are receiving hearings not only in Historical Departments but also in Business Studies schools.
I wouldn't like to say that we should all embrace our inner dialectic materialist. There are many reasons, mainly ideologically, why when reading what Marx, Engels and Hobshawn say, we should take their words with a large pinch of salt. If you going to read Hobshawn, please read Niall Ferguson (or another neo-liberal historian) to counterbalance Hobshawn's words. Yet that doesn't mean we should stop our minds against consideration of what Marx had to say. Or indeed, and dare one bring some literary criticism into this, the times in which he and Engels said it. Marx and Engels had some interesting, apt and realistic points to say about globalisation, economics and society. Even if you disagree with them (and I write this as a conservative Christian), it's worth listening to what they had to say (and I write this as a man who hasn't picked up his copy of The Communist Manifesto in quite a while).
P.S: For an alternative view on Hobshawn - one that emphasises his questionable attitudes to the USSR - see this Times article here
P.S: For an alternative view on Hobshawn - one that emphasises his questionable attitudes to the USSR - see this Times article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)