I am not fond of the idea of bright young people signing up to become the aparatchiks of the Murdoch enterprise of pandering to the worst tastes of the illiterate, thoughtless, judgemental, prurient, leery working class. I think it is slightly ridiculous to hear Rupert Murdoch’s anti-elitism, coming as it does from a scion of whatever one might call Australia’s Establishment. Andy Coulson has always seemed to present a sort of resentful suriliness, and I can readily accept that Rebekah Wade/Brooks has been a manipulative figure, to say the least. But both he and she seemed to me to do very well at Leveson, though.

Partly, I am programmed to empathise with the accused. It follows, perhaps, that I  find it hard to find prosecutors attractive. But Robert Jay does seem to be bringing something particular to this party. At the least, he seems like the grammar school, scholarship boy swat who at last has a chance to get back at the upper class and working class bullies who in the different ways sneered at him in the playground. At worst, he sometimes seems to smirk at his own rather tawdry successes and to seek Leveson’s approval and connivance at them.

Robert Jay is bound I suppose to seem to be doing the Guardian’s work for it: he is in accusation mode and the accusations are mostly Guardianish. All the same, the upshot is that I happy when the accused come up with good arguments for the News Corps operation.

There is a lofty side to all this. The media can only get so far by being right, and right-on. It ought to be mildly riotous, awkward, smutty and scandalous: that is a feature of its only sure way of doing good, and this is to be counter-intuitive. (On these grounds, I have to accept that the scabrous cartoons of the Guardian are as justified as the topless birds of the Sun.) I suspect Lord Leveson sees this, and that he is probably only too aware that he may not only be coming to the scene of the accident way too late, but also that accidents will always happen and regulations to forestall them may do more harm than good.

That is why Coulson/Brooks seemed to do well as they suggested that the power of the press wasn’t used to corrupt commercial advantage. More generally, they were right to stress that the power of the commercial media does indeed derive from the readership not the proprietors. So far and so far as we can see, the press were not too powerful but the political class was too weak.

Most peculiarly, it is impossible to know whether the push of editorial prejudice is more powerful than the pull of the desire to sell papers. So far as we can see, Rupert Murdoch has lost money when he has pursued his prejudices (say, by banging on about EU arcana). But we can roughtly guess that his opinions have not damaged the nation much if at all, not least becuase they have bored rather than energised the masses.

I imagine Lord Leveson is way ahead of me on all this. He has to balance Max Mosley, the Watson family, Hugh Grant, Ian Hislop, Brian Cathcart, and, yes, Coulson/Brooks. I am mildly confident he will get the answer about right.

Related posts:

1. DSK, “Spiral”, “The Ides…”, Leveson and Max. Now we seem to have the perfect story – and,...
2. Leveson, Week One Max Mosley seems to have swept all before him and...
3. Don’t professionalise journalism, Lord Leveson The first tranche of professors of journalism testified to Lord Leveson...

Most of the arguments, much of the tone and many of the actual participants were unchanged: this was an event which was pretty similar to hundreds of others held over the past 20-odd years.

Of course some things are different. Over the years, it may be that more of the world’s educated people have come to believe in the climate catastrophe theory. What is striking is that the powers-that-be seem to accept that (having tested the proposition) there is a real but quite slight will to act on the matter amongt their peoples. Arguably, command and control polities will be able and willing to act more decisively than the democracies. In the past 20 years, I hazard, politicians have been chastened by their voters’ reluctance to care much. In short, when push comes to shove, climate concern is, as it always was, an elite concern.

The other big thing which has happened is that, at least in the UK, nuclear power has become less unattractive to elite (and some green), and even mass, opinion. Fukushima may have dented this shift a little for now, but its effect may be quite short-lived.

So far as we know, nega-watts (conservation) and low-carbon mega-watts are less attractive or more expensive than fossil fuels at least for now. Working out which will work best will take some time, and had better be done as cheaply and conveniently as possible if the public is to support the adventure. As a right-winger and a pragmatist, I reluctantly accept the solutions will necessarily be mandated by government, but should involve as little government intervention, and as much market implementation, as possible.

Nuclear is the obvious odd man out. Right now, it could do a huge amount of heavy-lifting, whilst alternatives really get sifted and effective. We might have what one might call the French option: a large-scale technology which delivers lots of low-carbon electricity, probably at greater expense than its fans suppose but fairly safely, barring accidents.  I have no idea how the public will balance the near-certainty of the occasional nuclear catastrophe against their reading of the horrors of climate change. So far, they seem to face both with some equanimity. My assumption is that – rationally and fairly - the more one takes climate change seriously, the more one has to accept that the occasional Fukushima is worth enduring.

It is tempting to suppose that a small population of nukes is useful and poses a statistically smaller risk of catastrophe. But one might argue that several issues – both technological and managerial - might tempt one toward doing a lot of nukes effectively rather than a few ineffectually.

One curiosity. I noticed that several participants felt that if the public didn’t “get” climate change or the horrors of nuclear or the need to conserve energy, or more spending on cleaner energy, then that was a failure of communication. Maybe. I prefer to suppose that the public has understood a fair amount and just doesn’t care much. More communication might make them care even less.

Another curiosity. A couple of people said that the next wave of persuasion ought to be amongst women, as though females were less persuaded than men but might become better activists for the cause once they were. I said, good luck with that. It seems to me that women are, on the whole, rather less inclined than men to get engaged in rather abstract issues such as climate change and insofar as they do, consider it quite narrowly from the point of view of their own families. And, oh, I added jauntily, modern mothers seemed more inclined to argue (within the family) for a bigger Chelsea Tractor to keep their little ones safe than (out there on the hustings) for  more bike lanes.

But I want to be clear. My un-PC remarks about women were what they were. A bad joke, say. My scepticism about climate change enthusiasm, however, does not flow (I think) from my politics (or sense of humour) but from my reading of the politics of my fellow citizens. That’s why I think it bears repeating: climate change policy must be as cheap and convenient (and as useful on many counts) as possible. That sort of policy may not work very well, but nothing else stands a chance of happening at all. That I am, as a right-winger, drawn to such a point of view should not blind people to its chance of being an accurate account of reality.

No related posts.

The worst offence Iron Lady is supposed to have committed is that it shows her as having severe dementia. But actually, she is mostly portrayed as being about as wrapped up in her past as the next old woman. There are some sadly impertinent conceits (the idea that Denis resented her standing for party leader; that she is at war with his shade; his parting shot about her self-sufficiency) which seem silly, but they are at least self-evidently dubious or unproven. (I haven’t read Carol Thatcher’s book, and stand ready to be corrected.)

The revelation is in the politics. Since this is a movie from Mrs T’s point of view (as its makers keep saying) it isn’t perhaps surprising that we hear her own arguments for her opinions and actions. They do of course, says this right-winger, stand up very well. What I hadn’t expected is that I could recommend the movie to a young person seeking to get a snapshot of those days, and to grasp why so many in the country supported her at the time. The young may even understand why some older people have come to see her as far more right than they thought her at the time.

Bingo.

No related posts.

The professors (as the journalists from the Guardian etc before them) come from a special, nice, serious, public-spirited planet which is worlds away from the bad behaviour of most of the Red Tops some of the time (and some, a lot of the time). It was good to spot Leveson spot this, and in terms say so. Fact is, the tabloids are closer to the majority of the people in the country than are the broadsheets. And the right-wing tabloids and right-wing broadsheets hoover up, or represent, a huge number of decent people.

So the fear is that the self-appointed masters of professional, high-minded, bossy-liberal journalism will hope they can shut down the waspish, irreverent, larky – and, yes, intemperate, vulgar, prurient – journalism which confronts it.

So it was also good to hear some of the professors admit (accept, aver,  insist) that journalistic good behaviour did not have to be taught in universities, but flowed from the culture of the places journalists work.

The seven academics rather make the point: one I could’t readily check, but the remaining six didn’t start out with degrees in journalism. Yes, I do see that there perhaps weren’t courses avaialble when they started out – but the point remains.

I am sceptical of the value of educating journalists in journalism, but especially of any drift toward conformism and control.

This insight flows well with my general feeling that now more than ever, our media will be filled with writing from every sort of source and these trends militate against a recent tendency to require journalists to be professionalised (educated, trained etc) on special courses.

I speak with the personal background of having broken into journalism as an outsider and relishing the very “otherness” that conferred on my work. I like journalism as a trade for outsiders. What’s more, I am allergic to the professionalising trends which some gatekeepers (journalism professors, maybe?) might enjoy. I was stung, in particular by my own experience of the closed shop which was once attempted by the freelance wing of the National Union of Journalists. That way lay the dead hand of control.

Related posts:

1. DSK, “Spiral”, “The Ides…”, Leveson and Max. Now we seem to have the perfect story – and,...
2. Coulson and Brooks shine at Leveson I want to have and give some explanation for why...
3. Leveson, Week One Max Mosley seems to have swept all before him and...

It was fascinating to see Max Mosley seem to tell Marr that he supported the idea of DSK as the victim. Well, we’ll see. But I did have a flicker of anxiety as to whose privacy had been invaded here and whose reputation traduced. Pace Leveson, is the unfolding of this saga showing the presss in a good light? For a start, are the methods of the US journalist and his sources kosher? Would Max Mosley really endose them, on reflection?

I have no idea, yet. But what is so absorbing is that we now have the media and cultural habits of the US and France on display in one case. Presumably the DSK story is a nearly perfect comparative study for Leveson.

Related posts:

1. Leveson, Week One Max Mosley seems to have swept all before him and...
2. Coulson and Brooks shine at Leveson I want to have and give some explanation for why...
3. Don’t professionalise journalism, Lord Leveson The first tranche of professors of journalism testified to Lord Leveson...

On those lines, we ought to beware any nonsense about “Faustian Pacts” in which it is supposesd that celebrities lose their rights if they ever speak to the media; or invasions of privacy are warranted if the reporting is accurate. A celebrity whose kitchen has once been in OK magazine does not thereafter lose the right to leave her curtains open at night. Part of why Mr Mosley is so important is that his case reminds us that his privacy would have been no less sacrosanct had his sex games involved a Nazi theme.

Mr Mosley is right, too, to insist that the principle of prior notifaction is crucial, and foremost. The problems which flow from prior notification are the ones we have to deal with, not flinch from.

It’s worth saying that my normal response is to be sceptical when people take offence at common abuse and other  nonsense. The “sticks and stones” argument is quite a good one. I have been sentimental about the 18th Century habit of bawdy and scurrilous gossip. Happy days, etc. On reflection, I am not sure they were all that happy, but in any case we are in different territory now.

Indeed, it may be that we need a scrupulously honest professional press now and do so exactly because the gossipy, profane and vicious voices of the masses are out there in hyperspace. The media who are in Leveson’s dock are of interest to his Lordship and the rest of us only because they claim to be decent and honest. We are trying to work out ways of making them be what they claim to be.

Related posts:

1. DSK, “Spiral”, “The Ides…”, Leveson and Max. Now we seem to have the perfect story – and,...
2. Coulson and Brooks shine at Leveson I want to have and give some explanation for why...
3. Don’t professionalise journalism, Lord Leveson The first tranche of professors of journalism testified to Lord Leveson...

One episode (“The Calorie”, 24 October 2011) I’m thinking of was devoted to the idea of calorie-counting. The show lined up various people who argued that there was no solid connection between a food’s energy content and its being a contributor to obesity. So far so good, one may say. It may be that it’s no good just going by the calorie count on food packaging. (Thought that’s one of the means by which I am discriminating between foods, and it seems to work, more or less.) Along the way, contributors complained about ”processed food”. The show’s sign-off was to the effect that we might overcome any confusion by insisting on ”real food”.

But this is nonsense, surely, and we were in effect reminded of some of the silliness of the idea in an episode of the show (“Future Food”, 14 November 2011) which looked at a subset of the foodie movement:  “food futurists” are deliberately messing with our ideas about the stuff. They were toointeresting for the Food Prgramme to ignore, but they were mostly off-message.

Some of my irritation with the the FP caliphate is that they are sure that words like “slow”, peasant, natural, old-fashioned, revivalist, heritage, artisinal, organic, free-range, or co-operative are good. I don’t share that, but I get it.

More particularly and seriously I can’t see that anyone would be wise to construct a diet which avoided processing. Even leaving aside the fact that to do so would eliminate cooking, one has to reckon with getting rid of bread, cheese, pasta and butter. All are processed, and all are variously good or bad for slimmers or gourmands, according to circumstance. Of course, most restaurant food is the ultimate in processing, but somehow escapes censure.

But I can’t see that an all-in-one TV dinner, for instance, or a military rations pack, or a Complan drink, must be assumed to be lesser – or unreal – food merely because they are extremely processed.  Ready-meals can be formulated so as to be healthy, tasty, and indeed artisinal, by turns.

Wherein does “real” food consist? One might go for provenance, animal welfare, conservation values, dietary merit, culinary diligence or talent. I see that ideas of authenticity and naturalness will sometimes come into play, for some people. But we have to remember, for instance, it might well be the case that the “unnatural” pig farming of the UK may have much higher welfare standards than the more “natural” farming of a peasant. And someone might well choose to source their food from intensive horticultural firms rather than free-range or organic beef herds.

The point is that there is no such thing as “real” food.

No related posts.

The protestors are asking The City to explain itself, and (so far as this dedicated reader of the Financial Times can see) there’s been no reply. Where is The City’s answer to the question: Does The City do a good job?

The Big Question for The City
There are dozens of compelling questions, but we can cut our way through them by stressing that the overwhelming – the prior – question is: does The City produce sustainable finance?

This question is urgent, but also searching. The financial system has no merit – no chance of doing good, or of reform – if it collapses, is too volatile or can say little about the future.

So I agree that the Long Finance initiative is on the money when it asks: “When would we know our financial system is working?” The question has the merit both of ordering and of challenging subsidiary questions.

So the question is not whether The City is good for more obviously exciting things such as:

• equity
• the environment
• resource sustainability
• climate change
• the Third World
• work/life balance
• gender equality
• manufacturing vs services
• philanthropy
• its employees
• fast growth.

People who ask The City about such questions have to prove their relevance to reliability. It’s that way round.

Getting a response from The City
The City is the trade association for the totality of its trades and professions. But is it one brand and one business? For all I know, different sectors of The City have profoundly differing interests. Some may thrive on financial catastrophe, for instance.

Even so, I long to see some body – Gresham College, Long Finance, the City’s Corporation, or anyone – making coherent arguments about what The City does, what its benefits – and yes, its tensions – are, and what it seeks from government. It can’t make those cases without first of all saying what it does well enough to need to be left alone, or encouraged, to do. Come to that, it will need to be clear about where it fails, and where it needs to be regulated.

The City cannot merely say it has been part of Britain’s economic success. Its history now includes its recent history which shows dramatic failure to be good at its job.

I can see that there is an argument for The City’s saying very little, for fear of exposing profound conflicts, uncertainties and even sheer nastiness. Better to muddle through and hope for the best.

I can see that some players may not like to make an issue about the incompetence or wickedness of the Square Mile for fear of its revenge.

If those gloomy thoughts are true, then what follows is wishful thinking.

I am, though, inclined to argue that The City’s Corporation is in some sense a professional body whose business is to align the pro bono with the capitalist.

This is importantly a matter of character: if The City was a person, what sort should it be? I imagine it should be ambitious, greedy, reliable, honest, frank. Such a person would seek the advantage of himself; his firm; his firm’s owners and investors and also – in some limited but limiting sense – society and even the future. Some of these are mutually exclusive or at least in tension, and some are unquantifiable.

But such a person would begin where Long Finance begins. He or she would ask: Am I stressing and exploring the importance of The City delivering returns for the longer term? The answer might be: I am contributing to the future by being short-termist. Or: I am contributing to sustainability by being a shark.

The point is: the question must be asked and answered by each City person and The City as a whole. And the proper replies and proper actions will only come from people of character: those prepared to be awkwardly decent and awkwardly frank.

Related posts:

1. St Paul’s anti-capitalist camp Much of the encampment and debacle at St Paul’s is good...

The question was: will it be possible for someone to be a full citizen without digital access?

The subsidiary questions revolved around what happens if the answer is No (which I assume people will mostly think).

In particular: Would the state be obliged to provide or mandate access if the market or philanthropy didn’t?

Here’s my attempt at unpicking some of the issues:

(1) How similar are the access problems posed by poverty and disability?

In this context illiteracy is rather similar to blindness: both pose access problems. So it makes sense to note that the disabled are often poor and the poor are often disabled.

(2) Does it help to think of deserving and undeserving poverty and disability?

Society might see illiteracy as a life choice by the idle underclass. But society might equally think that it would pay to use every resource (and perhaps especially digital access) to remedy a socially-damaging concomitant of poverty. A cousin of that thought arises when we think of the obligations of society toward those disabled who volunteer for extreme risk in, say, their sports or by pursuing adventure in the military.

(3) One good analogy is with other services. Is digital access to be considered as the Royal Mail; an energy utility; the BBC; schooling; roads infrastructure? Cautiously, I suppose that it ought not to be like a one-price universal service; we want people to pay for the service if possible; we ought to avoid a universal licence fee; we ought to worry about the deficiencies of a free-at-the-point of use compulsory service; if the state provides infrastructure, that doesn’t mean people have a free right to to use it.

(4) We need to consider the way the culture is being replicated behind paywalls (the Inland Revenue and the latest blockbuster and opera and book and live event are all likewise available in analogue and digital form). This is hugely liberating. What providers can charge for, they can also discount or donate or be paid to distribute.

(5) Early conclusions

Digital access is a good thing and the poorest need it most.
3G dongles and elementary tablets are cheap as chips.
Digital paywalls make it easy to give poor people cheap access.
Digital services can communicate easily with disabled people.
The state has a right to use digital communication only.

The right-wing trick is to square these circles with as little state involvement as possible.

Related posts:

1. RDN on poverty & inequality at Greenbelt I’ve been invited to the Greenbelt religious festival (27/08/11) to debate ” The...

It is of course right that there should be some sort of vague, heartfelt, right-on and hand-wringing and useless protest about capitalism and that it should be heard. It was inevitable that it should seek to bear witness in “peaceful direct action”, and so on. It was delicious that it settled on property which was in part owned by the Church of England, near The City.

The C of E rightly bent over backward to accommodate their fellow-travellers. In the days which have followed, everything has emerged beautifully. The protest has been able to show itself inchoate, and not widely supported. It strikes a note, of course, and then reminds one that making capitalism even better than it has been is not child’s play.

Now, of course, St Paul’s wants to get back to its real business and there seems to be serious muddle as its managing clergy flip-flops between their vague sympathy for the protestors and a desire to see the back of them. As of this morning, it seems that St Paul’s cannot bear to assert itself legally.

I like this situation. It has brought about the perfect confrontation between two factions of the peace and love brigade. Neither side has to change its thinking about the future of capitalism (such as it is). But both will presumably learn lessons about  the limits of protest and public sympathy for disruption.

So far as I know, little would be lost by letting the protest squat continue for as long as possible. The general public will slightly benefit from sensing that the protestors have little to add to the debate.

Related posts:

1. What The City should tell St Paul’s The City faces a severe test from the sort of...
2. DSK, “Spiral”, “The Ides…”, Leveson and Max. Now we seem to have the perfect story – and,...