Interesting Links for 15-3-2011

[andrewducker]

• The 5,000 Labour Voters Who Secured This Tory - Lib Dem Coalition
  (tags: libdem conservatives labour voting fptp)
• One Genre to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them - why the BBC's focus on lit-fic puts people off reading.
  (tags: books reading bbc fantasy horror literature)
• Why is Barnes and Noble performing well as a business while Borders has filed for bankruptcy?
  (tags: books borders business economics internet)
• Taiwan hotel offers Batman-sex room with Batman-sex bed. Extra points for saying "I'm the Goddamn Batman!"
  (tags: batman sex wtf)
• A Review Of The Lord of the Rings Movies By A Tolkein Virgin. Amusingly written too.
  (tags: Tolkein review lotr movies)
• Obama defends torture of Bradley Manning
  (tags: torture obama usa military)
• Lib Dems thwart Tory hopes of human rights convention withdrawal
  (tags: libdem rights uk europe)
• Supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton Cycle turbines promise giant leap in thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency
  (tags: efficiency electricity power)
• David Lynch to direct Duran Duran concert.
  (tags: music video DavidLynch DuranDuran)
• Geeks need to stop being negative all the time, and engage in positive criticism for a change.
  (tags: culture geeks)
• Wii sales drop by 24%, still ahead of both MS and Sony
  (tags: xbox microsoft sony ps3 wii nintendo sales)
• NHS plans will not change significantly: Downing Street. This will be....interesting
  (tags: nhs uk government)
• Does Brian Cox have an unlikely lovechild?
  (tags: BrianCox physics funny photo)
• Jobless to be forced to carry out work for no pay. How about creating some jobs and actually paying them?
  (tags: uk government welfare work)
• No, really, pi is wrong: The Tau Manifesto
  (tags: pi mathematics)

Comments

[communicator.livejournal.com]

If those Labour voters had voted Lib Dem, so there were more Lib MPs, they still would have formed a coalition with the Tories, because the stuff which they expressed which Labour voters could get behind was just a ruse to get votes, and promote an anti-poor-person agenda. And as for that comment 'I have grave concerns about the Lib Dems' ability to get over the 50% mark'. Over 50%! You'll be lucky to get double figures.

[andrewducker]

I disagree with your earlier statements entirely. The general sentiment I have seen is definitely a preference for a deal with Labour over the Conservatives. I've not seen any evidence that the Lib-Dem party line is anti-poor in any way.

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

I've been a supporter of τ (well, in as far as the value) for several years, ever since I saw it mentioned. π is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter, not the radius, and yet it is the radius which is the important value. Hell, the diameter is even defined as twice the radius! So many formulae feature the value 2π that it's obvious that something is amiss. Not to mention the fact that a half turn is half τ or quarter π — which is more natural? About the only complaint I've seen is that the area of the circle is π r² vs 0.5 τ r², but again the quantity 0.5 x y² appears with great frequency.

Sadly, I think π is too engrained to change now.

[fub.livejournal.com]

You've misspelled "Tolkien".

[andrewducker]

Fixed - thanks!

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Well. I think it's kind of the raison d'etre of the Lib Dem party. Party for those who dislike egalitarianism, but are too educated to embrace Toryism.

[andrewducker]

You are making absolutely no sense to me at the moment. Your statements are making no connection to any kind of reality that I've ever experienced.

Quoting from the Lib Dem constitution:
"...we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which noone shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity."

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Seriously - you have never heard it suggested that the Lib Dem party is an enabler of Toryism? That it's a party for moderately-privileged people, to entrench that privilege by colluding with the more privileged?

Well, take it as an hypothesis, even if one which is completely new to you, and see if it aligns with the behaviour of the Lib Dem leadership. Or not. Because I have been aware of it as a theory for years, and everything that has happened recently has made it seem sounder and sounder as a theory.

You may feel the evidence disproves the hypothesis.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I feel it was a mistake to watch the extended editions.

Also the books are way, way worse. I didn't really know the plot of LotR until I saw the films, and I read the books twice.

[andrewducker]

I definitely agree that the Liberal-Democrat focus is not as much on egalitarianism as, say, Labour. But the idea that their raison-d'etre is to enable the Tories seems a bit...crazy to me. I don't see why they have to be anything other than their own party, with their own ideals, rather than "Labour Lite" (as some people seem to have viewed them) or "Tory enablers" (as other people do).

A lot of the people in the Lib-Dems are left leaning (see the focus at the recent conference on making sure that the NHS isn't privatised) - and I think that many would vote Labour if Labour didn't keep slipping into terribly illiberal approaches. But their focus is on liberalism, followed by being left-wing, rather than being left-wing as a primary objective.

I do agree that some of the leadership (and no doubt a chunk of the party) are more fiscally liberal than I am, but the majority don't seem, to me, to be that way. The problem, of course, being that a coalition with the Conservatives is going to infuriate the left-wing of the Lib-Dems as much as it is infuriating the social-conservatives.

Of course, that Labour's financial approach has seemed to be an essentially Conservative one for the last decade or so hasn't helped there - the whole country seems to have moved in that direction, and it's troubling.

[andrewducker]

The books certainly meander a lot.

And his lack of ability to tell people apart if they have the same hairstyle really doesn't do him any favours.

Also, he doesn't half want to be spoonfed. I don't see why we need a background for what Balrogs are before we get to see them. We _do_ get a "they woke something awful" and "a demon from the older world" (both paraphrased). But apparently that's not enough for him...

[marrog.livejournal.com]

It does seem like the manifestation of a dislike for a whole genre of film/fiction rather than a particularly balanced response. I think there are a lot of very valid criticisms for the LotR films (for example wooden/2d characterisation), but he's frequently willfully misunderstanding and playing for laughs in a usually amusing but sometimes rather dense way.

Now me, I hate most fantasy stuff for a lot of the precise reasons he cites, but I completely adore the LotR films, so they really can't be that bad.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

"Geeks need to stop being negative all the time, and engage in positive criticism for a change."

Worst. Link. Ever.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

The whole point of Liberalism is to *oppose* privilege. The fact that we've gone into coalition with one Thatcherite party, rather than the other, doesn't change that. See http://andrewhickey.info/2010/11/26/what-i-mean-when-i-call-myself-a-liberal/ .
The political compass ( http://politicalcompass.org/ ) is an incredibly flawed tool, but for what it's worth I have known precisely *one* Lib Dem member (out of ~50 or so I've seen take the test) not in the bottom left hand corner, usually very far left. My own score today (retaking the test for this) is Economic Left/Right: -7.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.82 , and that's pretty much average for most Lib Dems I know.
As for privilege, many of the most active Lib Dems I know are unemployed or working in extremely low-paying jobs (call centre work, bar staff etc). Many have severe disabilities. Many are LGBT (often two of those initials at the same time). Those groups have all been failed, *badly*, by Labour. Working with Labour would be no better than working with the Tories as far as those things are concerned.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Liberal is obviously used in more than one way. In America it is used as a blanket term for non-conservative. However, within the British tradition liberal is opposed to egalitarian, it's about entrenching the privileges of the few against the interests of the many. And we see this in the mockery and distaste that (British-definition) liberals have for working class interests.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

No. It isn't.
Liberalism is a separate tradition within British politics, but one which you seem not to actually understand in the slightest. As an example, have a look at the lyrics of The Land, the party anthem:

Hark! The sound is spreading from the east and from the west!
Why should we work hard and let the landlords take the best?
Make them pay their taxes on the land just like the rest!
The land was meant for the people.

*THAT* is what British Liberalism is about. There is a *huge* tradition of Radical Liberalism in this country, one that is dedicated to getting rid of privilege of all types. Again, look at the preamble to the Lib Dem constitution, which Andrew quoted previously:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which noone shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

That's as far from "being opposed to egalitarianism" as you can get.

Now, there are very real disagreements to be had over what the best way is of furthering those aims, whether it be for example the Market Socialism many Lib Dems support, the Georgism of the Land Value Tax campaign within the party, or the Social Democratic tradition the party shares with Labour. You can also argue that *none* of those will work, and argue for total state socialism or anarchism or some other system.

That's fine. Argue that we're getting it wrong, if you want. Argue that we're going too far or not far enough, argue that our policies will have effects that aren't desirable, or that we didn't intend. Fine.

But DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE accuse me of having 'mockery and distaste for working class interests', especially not from what is obviously a position of utter, absolute ignorance about what Lib Dems actually believe and actually stand for. To accuse others of deliberate bad faith, without even bothering to do the most cursory research into what their actual statements are, is absolutely disgusting.

[cosmolinguist]

I've never heard this either. I've never heard of anyone saying Liberalism is opposed to egalitarianism, or that it mocks working-class interests. As surprised you are at the Andrews not knowing what you're talking about here, I am surprised that you could exist in the bubble universe you do, not touching at any points the one where the words mean what we think they mean.

The only thing I can think of here is that you are meaning a very specific Lib Dem leadership here. But their importance to the party is a lot less so than it would be in the other parties; we believe in liberalism and democracy even amongst ourselves!

I thought I had, in the ten months the Lib Dems have been in government, heard every possible slander and slur and insult against us. Most of them completely lacking in merits such as truth or usefulness. But yours are new to me, and they really take the flipping biscuit.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

Quoting some anthem hardly constitutes a rebuttal of my case. Your tone is insulting, and you are responsible for supporting an extreme right wing regime which is harming real people right now. This is real, it is happening right now, and you are responsible for it - jointly responsible.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

The fact that Lib dems commenting here purport not to know that their party is reversing redistribution tells us nothing. People are in desperate straits right now, and the poverty is going to get worse. This kind of mock-innocence 'oh, are we supporting the interests of rich people I never noticed' makes me more angry than the actual right wing policies themselves. But the price will be paid, come May, and in every election following.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

"Your tone is insulting"

Good. It was meant to be. All your posts in this thread have been both ignorant *and* insulting.

"you are responsible for supporting an extreme right wing regime which is harming real people right now"
Just like *every fucking government in my lifetime* has. Or do you really think the last government did no harm when it killed *TWO MILLION FUCKING PEOPLE* in Iraq? When it closed *two beds on mental health wards per day, every day* during the time it was in power? When it made it possible to detain people indefinitely, without trial or accusation, for having 'personality disorders'? When it used PFI to systematically drain money from the NHS into the hands of private contractors like Balfour Beatty? When it inflated a property price bubble to create a false sense of economic growth, ensuring that most people under the age of forty will never be able to own their own home and will have to keep funneling money to landlords forever? When it introduced tuition fees? When it said before the last election that it would make the same cuts that are being made now?

Yeah, very fucking left wing. Very supportive of the working classes. Very anti-privilege.

NONE of the three main parties are economically left-wing, don't kid yourself. And they never will be while we have the system we do now. The Lib Dems are the most left-wing of those three, but are constrained by the current system to working with one of the bigger two. WHICHEVER of those parties we worked with, the result would have been "an extreme right wing regime which is harming real people right now", and the only option we had as a party - or that any of us have as individuals - is to try to minimise the damage while attempting to change the system so better options are available in the future.

YES, that requires compromising with evil Tory fuckers. But frankly, I'd rather compromise with evil Tory fuckers than with a bunch of war-criminals who took what was a party of the left - a party whose values I didn't totally share but which *HAD* some values - and turned it into a second Thatcherite party, one which was and is in many ways *EVEN WORSE* than the Tories.

And you have the gall, the unmitigated fucking gall to DARE to accuse me and the people I work with of 'disliking egalitarianism'? To accuse us of acting in bad faith?

Damn right, I'm insulting you. You deserve it.

(Andrew, feel free to delete this if you think I've gone too far. But I'm actually restraining myself enormously out of respect for the fact that this is your blog, not mine...)

[alitheapipkin.livejournal.com]

(applauds quietly in the background) Well said. I'm not a party member but I've voted Lib Dem all my life and am also appalled at being branded as anti-poor when I'm a darnsight more socialist than New Labour.

[andrewducker]

No, no. I also find the idea of Labour accusing anyone else of being Right Wing barking mad. Or of someone defending a party that brought in detention without trial by accusing other parties of being a regime.

I have a preference for Labour over the Tories on some respects, but I'm not kidding myself that Labour haven't been abolutely awful in many respects (the points you raise, plus not reforming the benefits system, plus not actually making the argument that we need to raise taxes to pay for the redistribution and instead leaving us paying out huge amounts of money in interest payments).

[cosmolinguist]

SO, have I got this right?

You: Lib Dems are doing bad things and are bad people!
Lib Dems: Um, not only do we not think that way, but we can't even understand how you could.
You: And they're ignorant too!

Looks like you've got a pretty good deal going, there.

Still, let's talk about facts instead. The Lib Dems have increased the income tax threshold so that lower earners will pay less, or none. The Lib Dems have fought Tory proposals to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, and won. Here's a list of stuff we've done. Here are the manifesto promises we've been able to put into practice in ten months as the weaker party in government.

Where is the entrenched privilege in extending the vote to prisoners? In aiming to offer equal marriage to all couples, mixed- or same-gender? In decreasing or eliminating income tax for low earners?

I know plenty about that stuff, but I don't know what you're on about.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I have to go out now. What you are doing - you - is literally wrong, and you will literally be destroyed by it. The fact that a bunch of closed minded people can gang up on a solitary voice in a partisan way proves nothing. In fact it is exactly what I have seen on this blog today which will destroy you. The insults, the triumphalism. It doesn't matter what you say to me, or think about me, because nobody outside of this little pat-on-the-back circle believes you, or will ever believe you again.

If you think I am one person, and insulting me will make me go away; well - you are right - it will make me go away, but so what? What have you all won? You have turned this into a place where people all agree with each other. Congratulations.

[communicator.livejournal.com]

I am not Labour. I am not even a member of the Labour party.