John Kay has an excellent column in the FT this morning. It is headed:
Do not let petty lobbying laws starve the body politic
The quality of debate matters more than the misuse of small amounts of charitable funding
And concludes:
The quality of political debate is more important than the misuse of small amounts of state or charitable funding; and the expression of unconsidered opinions, or views that people have been paid to hold, are much greater threats to democracy and free speech. A mature democracy should fund, and will thrive on, a diversity of thoughtful and sincerely argued views.
I have little to add. I agree.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The conservative party doesn’t wish for anybody voice to be heard, only the acceptable narrative is from the party.
There should be a healthy conduit for healthy debate. To present a good case without fear or favour, as the senate in Ancient Rome did in the Forum, but without the dreadful colliseum displays. Italy and Greece, how things have changed. Mr Murphy you are our conduit, managing some turbulent and also super flow of ideas.
At present, the House of commons needs to be transformed from a filter of corporate interests to a place where intelligent debate takes place. This will necessitate a change in the intellectual acumen of M.P’s (properly informed about the monetary system, and the ability to use statistics reliably). The shower of largely useless duffers we have now are not up to the job which reduces the chamber to an armpit farting recital hall. it’s utterly shameful and the product of 40 years of downward dumbing.
Goes to prove there is no original thought amongst those who have been educated in the vaunted Public Schools of this country. Nothing new as they think they have nothing to prove.
Dear Richard,
I have been to this ‘tax research’ site before. I realise it is basically acting as a (pretty effective) proxy for a currently (pretty useless) Labour Party but your comment on the FT article is consistent with the socialist brothers policy everywhere in the world that it is ok to steal. It starts with a little charity theft and invariably ends up with a Chavez a Lula a Socrates a Blair, all crooked brothers (but not sharing) everywhere.
So Richard if you ever get into power (which appears to be your aim – you are doing well) then remember the (belated) Ides of March from me and do not put your finger in the national till as it seems to be in the socialist brothers’ DNA.
I post this for the amusement of readers
For the record, I am not a member of the Labour Party and am not seeking political office
Oh hello it’s Bertrand (or Marie?) again, that nice tax evading well educated and interestingly experienced man who no doubt believes it is perfectly fine to steal from everyone else’s purse apart from those of his fellow capitalists that have been filled with centuries of ill-gotten gains and tucked away in secretive jurisdictions.
Welcome back you lovely kind generous man/woman, I would love to see more of your well thought through arguments as they continue to show your complete lack of comprehension for the real world outside of your gated community bubble.
I thought someone would welcome his return
“Marie Pierre Bertrand Boulle” may well have provided the funniest comment ever seen on this blog… sadly he/she posted it 24 hours too early (for April Fool’s day…!)
🙂
Howard,
One possible explanation for your suggestion is that the leap year has not been factored in. Either that or France’s answer to Arthur Mullard thinks this is how the futures market works?
I am amused/bemused.
However, I am also saddened on this issue of right to speak which is not extended to people who hold “traditional”, usually religious, views on marriage, adoption etc. The latest example being the magistrate Richard Page, who was recently dismissed as a magistrate for his opposition to same-sex adoption, has now been suspended by an NHS Trust from his post as a non-executive director.
This is not the same UK I came to fifty years ago where opinions could be voiced, challenged, debated and, if racist, sexist or generally unpleasant, defeated. It is now probably the most intolerant society in the West as is illustrated by some of the platforming going on as well as the court cases. Even Peter Tatchell is worried.
Am I an exception in my concerns?
This person was not suspended for saying what he thought
His opinions were inconsistent with his duty to his employers to be impartial
Not the same thing at all
John Carlisle said “This is not the same UK I came to fifty years ago where opinions could be voiced, challenged, debated and, if racist, sexist or generally unpleasant, defeated.”
Surely the very case you cite of Richard Page is a prime example that the UK is now in many ways a country where such things (e.g. in this case sexuality) are increasingly debated in public and in parliament. After such debate then appropriate laws are then established to reflect the public/political consensus, and the legal system is there to enforce the laws. If the law is inappropriate, then the law can still be challenged as laws (unlike some other doctrines) are not cast in stone or scriptures.
On this occasion the magistrate in question chose to interpret the law with his own religious bias which, while I have sympathy he may well have “believed” he was acting in the best interests of the child, he had no factual evidence to support such a belief but instead stated there was no evidence to counter his belief.
One purpose of the law is to try to rise above beliefs, clarify uncertainty and guide judges in making very difficult decisions. If his argument was the law was unclear or badly worded then that would perhaps have been a more substantial argument, but as it seems his role as a magistrate was compromised by his religious beliefs that appears to be just another sign of the very uncomfortable bedfellows that the politics, religion and the law really are.
So, being impartial is not behaving impartially?
Of course not if it impacts on an employer’s statutory duty of care
Keith
Why do we always need a “law” to govern what are mores or customs? This is not freedom of expression. This is, in Foucauldian terms, another step towards voluntary incarceration, towards being unfree. J S Mill would be horrified.
We are being submerged by parliamentary acts and laws, all of which have a punitive aspect. This suggests to me that, actually, we don’t trust the commonsense of the common man, and have little room for charity.
What a shame!
John Carlisle said “Why do we always need a “law” to govern what are mores or customs?”
I would agree we don’t need laws to govern anything that is not likely to be socially divisive, controversial, discriminatory, inflammatory or immoral (to name just a few things that the law is appropriate to regulate human behaviour).
But there have historically been (and in many cases still exist now) plenty of social mores, norms or customs across the world that would fit into most people’s definition of one or more of the above justifications for the law.
Otherwise we would see no social progress or civilisation, while still accepting such things as slavery, child labour, burning witches, public executions, female genital mutilation, etc etc etc – as being completely acceptable because they have been part of our history and tradition for centuries.
I understand your concern about the law being used in areas where it really should not, but I’m not sure the example you used was one that you would get much agreement on outside of one particular interest group.