It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard
Politics, economics and culture from the master. Unmissable.
Melanie Phillips home page
Melanie Phillips' peerless blog. Read, and learn.
Daniel Finkelstein's Times Comment Central
A daily must-read.
Tim Worstall
Lots of interesting nibbles - and a ruthless swatter of economic gibberish.
Harry's Place
Must-read left of centre blog from writers who understand the threat to the West.
Clive Davis
Always interesting selection of culture and politics, from an Anglo-American bent.
Samizdata
Libertarian blog, packed every day.
Norm's blog
The thoroughly sensible thoughts of renowned left-wing academic Norman Geras, Professor of Government at Manchester. And cricket, too.
Public Interest
Peter Briffa's inimitable take on The Yazzmonster and other assorted demons.
Reform
The public sector reform group; their website is an invaluable source of data and ideas.
Centre for the New Europe
The leading European public policy think tank.
Developed by:
| January | 31 |
| 2004 |
You probably think the most important news this week was the Hutton Report. Or maybe the Commons vote on top-up fees. Perhaps even the down-grading of cannabis.
Well, you’re wrong. The biggest story, by far, was the decision announced on Tuesday by Professor Tony Minson, the Pro vice-chancellor of Cambridge University, to cancel plans for a laboratory which would specialise in primate research. The costs involved in securing such a facility against the activities of the self-styled “animal rights activists” – let’s call them what they really are, which is ‘human suffering proponents’ – have become so enormous that Cambridge decided it couldn’t go ahead with the project.
That one decision, and the context in which it was made, says pretty much everything about the country in which we live, what drives the way our lives are led, and the bankruptcy and cowardice of most decision makers. What Cambridge’s retreat amounts to is this: a group of ill-educated, vicious, warped thugs have so cowed the forces of reason and progress that the latter have simply given up.
One shouldn’t, for a second, blame Prof Minson and his colleagues personally for the collapse of the plans. The heroism of scientists who continue with such research, despite constant threats and attacks, is, in its way, awe-inspiring.
The real problem is far more fundamental, and explains not just why Cambridge University felt it had no choice but to walk away, but also the mindset which underlies two other, lesser, stories this week: top-up fees and Hutton. Life today is guided not by logic and reason but rather by emotion, fear and sentimentality. All logic and evidence point to the need for primate research. But that is irrelevant when faced with the non-arguments and threats of the opponents. Those monkeys are just like us, you know. And they’re sweet. And those scientists are awful – they’re like the doctors at Auschwitz. And I love animals.
When someone, or a body like Cambridge University, tries to take a stand in favour of reason, and is then confronted by the full forces of reaction, the response from the powers that be is not, as it should be, to confront them head on and smash them and their non-arguments into the ground; it is to run away.
So, too, with top-up fees. The opponents of the idea could only resort to emotional blather about ‘poor students’ (who won’t even have to pay anything back until they stop being poor students) and dewy-eyed scene painting, straight out of a Hovis ad, about the barriers which they will face. Sentimental nonsense, presented in opposition to clear sighted, convincing, factual evidence. What did the government do? It so neutered the proposal to try to buy off the unthinking opponents that the measure, if it does indeed pass, will barely be worth having.
And then there is, inevitably, Hutton. Lord Hutton was asked to do a specific job: to take evidence, sift it, and reach conclusions. The evidential process was praised to the hilt by almost every observer. Come his conclusions – tightly argued and backed up in fine detail - which paint the BBC in a none too favourable light, and…well, sit back and smother yourself in the drivel which is now pouring forth. The BBC is wonderful. And you can trust the BBC a lot more than the government (er, yes: that’s the supposed point of a public service broadcaster as opposed to a government which is - shock! horror! – political). And the BBC defines the nation. And I really like that Andrew Marr chap – he always tells the real truth.
It doesn’t matter which way the evidence points. What matters is what you want it to be. If that means that students should have their fees paid by money which doesn’t exist, so be it. If that means that the BBC is a blameless victim, so be it.
The real culprits are the leaders of opinion, who run scared of the fight against unreason instead of standing strong and pushing for what they know to be right. This week’s cannabis fiasco is typical. Instead of arguing that it’s either harmless or dangerous, both of which positions entail taking on vocal and troublesome opponents, the decision is instead to say it’s a bit dangerous but not all that bad.
I loathe the BBC. I find its funding method iniquitous and its left liberal bias offensive. There, I said it. Come on, then: take me on. Don’t run away from the fight.
MessageSpace
Well, I can't take you on because I agree with every single word you've said in that post, Mr Pollard. Congratulations.
(Just in case the above sounds too grovelling: I think you're utterly wrong in your damnation of rock music and cricket.)
Perhaps you should stop treating all those who disagree with you as ill-thinking fools. (although I agree with you on the Cambridge centre)
At the risk of repeating what has gone before I would like to address university funding.
The first thing to say is that top-up fee proposals have nothing, nothing to do with the ‘cost of a degree’. That is why they are called ‘top-up’ as opposed to ‘tuition’ fees. If they had anything to do with cost of a degree then the supporters would be obliged to acknowledge that the ‘cost of a degree’ includes accommodation, food, books, clothing, cost of participating in clubs and societies (unless employer surveys suggesting that this is important are wrong), loss of earnings during university years and finally any subsequent taxes paid as a result of the expected better salary in the future. And of course Government suggestions that more expensive science courses desperate for students should charge lower fees to attract them would look rather incongruous.
So the main justification for top-up fees is to charge for the ‘value of a degree’. (There are also big issues relating to creating a market in higher education but they are for another day, suffice it to say I believe that the major assets a university can have at undergraduate level are not the quality of its staff and teaching but rather the quality of student it attracts and reputation it has for attracting, the one drives the other – not something I think a market system would help to change - it would merely introduce an extra variable to confuse the prospective student - does a degree charging top rate indicate a good course or a bad one - different universities would no doubt use different criteria for why they should charge certain fees for certain courses).
This (value of a degree) is intended to charge students for the extra money they should earn and use it to pay not only for the university related costs of a degree but actually more outrageously for the costs of the research that takes place at these institutions. For that is what is really meant by ‘ensuring we have world class universities’ – not that they provide good undergraduate courses but that they produce good research. Despite what the supporters would claim these two things are really very barely related.
But if the idea is to charge for the value of a degree then the top-up fees mechanism is nonsense. The value of a specific degree is an unknown and undefinable variable. It will be different for different people, it will be dependent on luck, ambition, whether you are male or female, maybe whether you are blonde or brunette, tall or short, whether you are lucky enough to be fluent in another language maybe as a result of dual nationality… the list is endless. All we can probably assert is that in general a degree adds value to future salary, although even that must be qualified by the fact that it is the brightest and most able who coincidentally tend to end up doing the most value-added degrees. And yet these proposals would have everyone doing the same degree paying the same flat fee regardless of the benefits they gain from it – this is totally unjustifiable when the ‘cost of a degree’ is not the point. Top-up fees suggest implicitly that two people, one who averages £20K over the course of their life and one who averages £50K have got the same value out of their degree. That takes some justifying.
If there was one area of public spending that suits itself perfectly to progressive taxation it is education and the funding of university degrees, at least that which comes from the most obvious beneficiary (this is no argument about idealistic views of ‘free education’) should be no different. A graduate tax formulated carefully would fit the bill perfectly and avoid (probably bogus) arguments about poor working class people paying for middle class perks. (realistically university spending currently comes mainly from middle class taxes). It could be graduated over time to emphasise that the benefits of a degree probably fade over time – perhaps to be charged on those earning over £20K in the ten years after graduation rising to those earning over £30K in the years beyond. Such a policy combined with serious effort to attract business investment and the like into universities, perhaps on one level extending the principle of 'specialist schools' into the university arena would I believe garner far more widespread support and would be perceived as a far fairer method of proceeding. This is just an example, I would be interested to hear flaws in my arguments. Sorry it was a bit too long.
I took my free university degree and emigrated with it to the United States, to my great benefit, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment.
Nevertheless, I expect many will follow my example, leaving for the US or other countries, perhaps where they can do their research without opposition from Luddite thugs, with now the added financial incentive that their student debt will thereby become uncollectible, as I am sure in practice it will.
I am an American so I really don't count, but it is nice to see such frankness. I just got my butt chewed by a Brit who felt that live would not be worth living without the BBC and how dare they doubt the old girl? And they call us sheep.
Your comments on the BBC and the media reaction to its downfall were 100% accurate. As a Canadian I know bias as we are subjected to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 24-7. If anything it is worse than the BBC for its leftist dogma.
The BBC as it now exists is an absolutely biased and politically motivated propaganda outlet and the sooner it is restuctured from top to bottom, the better for everyone ( even the BBC).
Another Canadian here who can attest that the above poster is quite correct about the CBC being as bad as the BBC. The only area it comes up short is that its hatred for Israel is not quite as vitriolic as that of the BBC, and likewise its worship of the Palestinians as a combination of oppressed noble savage and unrepressed id is not quite as fervent as that of the British state organ. Otherwise it plumbs the depths of mendacity just as deeply as its counterpart.
As an american, I was at one time delighted when we began having access to BBC news in the early days of its broadcast over here.
But seeing the whole of it being caught red handed in guilt, and its reaction of complete denial is disappointing. It just proves the dishonesty has infected the whole group from the top to the bottom.
Apparently BBC needs to fire itself as an entity and either start over, or just give up the ghost.
As to the tree hugging thugs, why not arm our educated constituents with stubbed baseball bats and tell them to bring it on. That's as much dignity as they have earned. Or better yet round them up for research instead of the cutsey monkeys. A little extreme, but I believe thats the kind of treatment they have earned. In reality they need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
I agree 100%.
We have the misfortune to be living at a time which future historians may well call the beginning of the Age of Unreason.
I've seen the argument said many times over the past week, and repeated here, that of course trust in the BBC should be higher than the government, because a government is political.
I do not understand this argument. Just because something is political doesn't mean it can't be trusted. Trust in, and support for a government are two distinct things.
In a week in which many have criticised the cynicism people hold in politicians, such articles, which basically say that in this country only 40% of the people can ever trust their government, are part of the problem.
On a more general point, when people start criticising others' political beliefs as 'sentimental nonsense' is similar to when they start referring to their own as 'common sense'. It suggests they are losing the argument.
I agree with the poster who noted how terrible BBC is when discussing Israel...I read a good deal about the M.E. and BBC is consistently biased against Israel. Ok if they were an Arab source but for the claimsof sound journalism, hardly acceptable.
"A group of ill-educated, vicious, warped thugs have so cowed the forces of reason and progress that the latter have simply given up"
Just for a moment I hought you were on about the Government and the BBC.
The problem is that Hutton does not begin to tackle the systemic bias inside the BBC - for instance its reporting on the Middle East.
Someone ought to require BBC management to de-construct in detail a sample of 50 reports from Orla Guerin, for example. Reports from Israel and from Iraq. Alongside contemporary reports from other journals.
And then analyse why she was recruited in the first place - from which news[paper ad - and what personnel reports have been made on her within the BBC and by whom.
Therein would lie IMHO a clear trail of bias. Bias that mis-informs the average British viewer and gives constant comfort to murderous organisations.
Even more interesting would be a detailed analysis of the "tone of voice" of John Humphrys, and an analysis of the balance of political leanings (eg anti-war?) of the guests chosen for the Today programme.
Freddie,
This quote by Ms. Doucette (BBC anchor for World Service):
"Ms. Doucete, who refers to homicide bombers as "honor" killers, believes "her job is to translate" rather than simply report the news, because "Israel is led by a Prime Minister who believes that it is not Israel's policy that is wrong, just that they have to explain it better." And so she admonishes the Palestinians, "if you want to beat the Israelis, you have to beat them at their own game." Thereupon follows eight pages of clear instruction on how the Palestinians can manipulate the press to their own advantage."
shows the arrogance at play in the organisation and one needs to try and understand how the BBC has duped the world regarding all issues and not just the ME.
It seems that when they did not agree with something they created their own reality.
The above quote comes from a document used by PASSIA which was covered in Frontpage Magazine:
This week, in response to a question from our news agency, the U.S. government has finally acknowledged that the U.S. Aid For International Development (USAID) indeed funds the Palestine Academic Society For the Study of Academic Affairs (PASSIA), the PLO lobby group in Jerusalem which trains PLO media professionals
>Life today is guided not by logic and reason but rather by emotion, fear and sentimentality.
This implies that life yesterday was different. Care to give an example?
100 percent agreement here. You take some of the words out of my mouth.
Stephen
You can loathe the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation yet still find Hutton's conclusions perverse. I too loathe it, the 'unique' way it is funded (money extorted under pain of a fine/imprisonment) and its outright left wing and anti-Semitic bias. Yet still, it is utterly clear that Hutton is wrong.
It doesn’t matter which way the evidence points.
No, Stephen, it matters very much what way the evidence points. The evidence points against top-up fees. The evidence points against Hutton's conclusions. That's the point. The evidence shows that selling degrees will benefit nobody in the long run. The evidence shows the government lied and Gilligan's initial report was accurate (though his Mail article, and his later behaviour, were reprehensible). A bunch of destructive dogmatists won their top-up fees, and the State closed ranks and re-institutionalised the notion that governments can't possibly do anything wrong.
[...]
The real culprits are the leaders of opinion, who run scared of the fight against unreason instead of standing strong and pushing for what they know to be right.
But look what happens to people who do stand strong and push for what they know to be right - they're condemned by law Lords and forced to resign.
[...] I loathe the BBC. I find its funding method iniquitous and its left liberal bias offensive.
When people are offended by something that doesn't exist, then sentimental claptrap really has won.
Gregg, baby, you're wasting your breath. You'll find Comrade Pollard in complete agreement with the News International line. There is a rational explanation, but it's lucre not logic. ;)
What the BBC did wasn't so bad. It was the refusal to admit that they are not always 100% right that brought them down. People who think they are perfect are the most dangerous.
The Lyse Doucet story is an excellent example of how smear campaigners are happy to cite any old made-up nonsense about the BBC.
Ms Doucet talked about suicide bombers in an interview, and then moved on to "honour killings" where families murder their daughters for having boyfriends, etc. Some very stupid commentator misunderstood what was going on, and the meme has proved near-unstoppable...
Can somebody tell me when it was that the self-righteous wing of the Right assumed full ownership of "logic and reason"? The way they tell it, only they have access to either these days.
First, I agree with you completely on the animal rights activists, oops,
I mean morons. Like all fanatics however they obscure any merit their concerns might have. For those who haven't read it, Philip Larkin, certainly no sentimentalist wrote the following poem.
Ape Experiment Room
Buried among white rooms
Whose lights in clusters beam
Like suddenly-caused pain,
And where behind rows of mesh
Uneasy shifting resumes
As sterilisers steam
And the routine begins again
Of putting questions to flesh
That no one would think to ask
But a Ph.D. with a beard
And nympho wife who -
But
There, I was saying, are found
The bushy, T-shaped mask,
And below, the smaller, eared
Head like a grave nut,
And the arms folded round.
At the risk of being cute - who can possibly object to research being carried out on Archbishops ?
handjob thumbs cynthia @X@ nurse handjobs download @X@ hadjob vivien @X@ erotyka puszyste @X@ cyce dupska sperma @X@ cipka nastolatki @X@ control ejaculation jasmine @X@ avaleuses jenny @X@ teen squirt movie @X@ plumpers breasts porn @X@ little breast clip @X@ pornstars melons free porn @X@ pozycje na sofie porn @X@ seksowne mamusie @X@ wielkie darmowe @X@ members hand jobs freeporn @X@ get a ahndjob liveshow @X@ tug jobs give me avi @X@ biust orgietka nimfomanka @X@ cipeczki niewolnica @X@ prysznice zuzanna @X@