Liberal Burblings

Archive for August, 2006

Peter Riddell in ‘The Times’ today writes a very fair assessment of the Kennedy resignation episode and Ming’s leadership:

Sir Menzies…did not instigate, or organise, the anti-Kennedy moves last December. It was much broader than that.

Consequently, there is no reason to question Sir Menzies’s legitimacy now. He may be an interim leader…Sir Menzies has restored stability to the Lib Dems, brought on a new generation of MPs and has encouraged fresh thinking.

Elsewhere in ‘The Times’, it is nice to see Paddy Ashdown, being very complimentary about Charles, while acknowledging his weakness of “application”. I was amused by this quote from Paddy:

I get up at 5-5.30 in the morning, do a hundred press-ups, not literally but metaphorically, and start ringing people at 6.30, having contained myself up until then not to disturb them too early, whereas Charles is completely different on that.

Peter Riddell in ‘The Times’ today writes a very fair assessment of the Kennedy resignation episode and Ming’s leadership:

Sir Menzies…did not instigate, or organise, the anti-Kennedy moves last December. It was much broader than that.

Consequently, there is no reason to question Sir Menzies’s legitimacy now. He may be an interim leader…Sir Menzies has restored stability to the Lib Dems, brought on a new generation of MPs and has encouraged fresh thinking.

Elsewhere in ‘The Times’, it is nice to see Paddy Ashdown, being very complimentary about Charles, while acknowledging his weakness of “application”. I was amused by this quote from Paddy:

I get up at 5-5.30 in the morning, do a hundred press-ups, not literally but metaphorically, and start ringing people at 6.30, having contained myself up until then not to disturb them too early, whereas Charles is completely different on that.

I take it all back. Adam Boulton is not mad. He has come back from his honeymoon beautifully refreshed. He has a very sane take on the “A Tragic Flaw” book:

The Scottish Crown Office has clarified why the Celtic Goalkeeper was cautioned (see my earlier posting). In the words of the BBC, the Crown Office have confirmed that:

Boruc was cautioned for inciting an Old Firm crowd rather than for blessing himself… (and they said) the “very limited” action had been taken against the player for gesticulating at the Rangers support. He had also blessed himself in the incident during the Ibrox match. But the Crown Office stressed it would not take action against individuals for “acts of religious observance”. “We would equally make clear that the police and prosecutors cannot ignore conduct which appears to be inciting disorder”

I am delighted that this has been clarified. The Observer report yesterday (“Storm as goalkeeper pays Sign of the Cross penalty”) and Iain Dale’s posting on it were extremely misleading.

Iain Dale, in particular, was at his most hyper-ventilatory on this matter. He used the posting title: “Fined for being a Christian”. Breathe slowly into a paperbag ten times and you’ll be fine, Iain.

David Cameron’s apology for the South African policy of Mrs Thatcher has stirred up a bit of a firestorm within the Tory party rank and file.

Norman Tebbit has disagreed with Cameron and declared: “The policy of the Thatcher government was a success.”

Sir Bernard Ingham reacted by saying: ‘I wonder whether David Cameron is a Conservative.’

Over on Conservative Home, despite a couple of supportive voices for him, Cameron is receiving a right old pulverising from Conservative supporters, raising the question: If his party doesn’t agree with his apology – on whose behalf is he apologising?

Here are some of the choice comments on Conservative Home:

On what basis does David Cameron purport to apologise on my behalf for views I may or may not have held 20 years ago? Ridiculous.

…he is condoning urban terrorism!

Maggie’s policy of constructive engagement with South Africa was very much the right one at the time and it received enthusiastic support among the Tory rank-and-file.
I am sure there are others here who recall patiently queueing at Blackpool to enjoy the hospitality of the apartheid-era SA ambassador, then one of the highlights of the Tory conference.
This, of course, was at a time when the far-right Federation of Conservative Students was urging “Hang Nelson Mandela” so let’s not try to rewrite history. One of the leading FCS figures is now writing DC’s speeches!
…What next? Are we going to spend time condemning the pre-war Tory policy of appeasing the Nazis?

I can’t believe we are questioning the wisdom of Mrs T’s policy on SA. It was the right thing to do.

Cameron does the easy things – a press release about history.He’s incapable of doing anything difficult…

We are running the risk of being accused of blatant hypocrisy. Margaret Thatcher was only reflecting the views of the Tories of her day, many of whom thought Apartheid was rather a “good thing”. Very few Tories opposed it…

Tory Hq’s new address.
Conservative and Unionist Party
C/O The Minstry of Truth
Winston Smith Building
1984 Orwell Square
Airstrip One.
If anyone would like to apply for the position of. Re-writer of History of the above party, who is also an expert in airbrushing techniques, please apply to the above address. Cameron sycophants especially welcome.

David Cameron’s apology for the South African policy of Mrs Thatcher has stirred up a bit of a firestorm within the Tory party rank and file.

Norman Tebbit has disagreed with Cameron and declared: “The policy of the Thatcher government was a success.”

Sir Bernard Ingham reacted by saying: ‘I wonder whether David Cameron is a Conservative.’

Over on Conservative Home, despite a couple of supportive voices for him, Cameron is receiving a right old pulverising from Conservative supporters, raising the question: If his party doesn’t agree with his apology – on whose behalf is he apologising?

Here are some of the choice comments on Conservative Home:

On what basis does David Cameron purport to apologise on my behalf for views I may or may not have held 20 years ago? Ridiculous.

…he is condoning urban terrorism!

Maggie’s policy of constructive engagement with South Africa was very much the right one at the time and it received enthusiastic support among the Tory rank-and-file.
I am sure there are others here who recall patiently queueing at Blackpool to enjoy the hospitality of the apartheid-era SA ambassador, then one of the highlights of the Tory conference.
This, of course, was at a time when the far-right Federation of Conservative Students was urging “Hang Nelson Mandela” so let’s not try to rewrite history. One of the leading FCS figures is now writing DC’s speeches!
…What next? Are we going to spend time condemning the pre-war Tory policy of appeasing the Nazis?

I can’t believe we are questioning the wisdom of Mrs T’s policy on SA. It was the right thing to do.

Cameron does the easy things – a press release about history.He’s incapable of doing anything difficult…

We are running the risk of being accused of blatant hypocrisy. Margaret Thatcher was only reflecting the views of the Tories of her day, many of whom thought Apartheid was rather a “good thing”. Very few Tories opposed it…

Tory Hq’s new address.
Conservative and Unionist Party
C/O The Minstry of Truth
Winston Smith Building
1984 Orwell Square
Airstrip One.
If anyone would like to apply for the position of. Re-writer of History of the above party, who is also an expert in airbrushing techniques, please apply to the above address. Cameron sycophants especially welcome.

Posting updated at 18:07 26/8/06 (title further updated at 19:00 28/8/06)

This is an interesting story on BBC News. “Artur Boruc (the Celtic goalkeeper) was cautioned for a breach of the peace over (an) incident at an Old Firm match at Ibrox in February…the Crown Office said the decision was based on the player’s behaviour, rather than a single act. In addition to crossing himself, the player was alleged to have made gestures to the crowd at the start of the second half of the game on 12 February. “

The BBC story gives the pros and cons of the case. An eyewitness, Mr Eugenides, gives his account. I will not jump in with a comment either way.

I would just add one little footnote. “Crossing yourself” with the sign of the cross is not necessarily a denominational thing. People of many Christian denominations do it. Certainly, I know many Anglicans who do it all the time. Indeed, on television at St Paul’s Cathedral I have seen Prince Charles (next in line to be head of the Church of England) crossing himself. That said, I readily acknowledge that there were other actions and circumstances involved in this incident. Of course, I would never condone using “crossing oneself” as part of some sort of communication with a football crowd. It is a private thing.

The man has just got married to Anji Hunter. He has been on a wonderful honeymoon in Micronesia. And yet he has been blogging from his holiday! Is he mad?

It is worth looking at some photos (all very proper) of Anji Hunter. I can honestly guarantee that if I ever get the chance to go on a holiday with my good lady wife (let alone a honeymoon with Anji Hunter) in Micronesia, I will not go near a computer.

Here’s one comment left below a Boulton vacational blog posting:

“Adam, Relax enjoy your holiday – forget about this blog remember you might get lumbered with those awful party conferences when you return. “

And Adam replied:

“…there’s been some comment about my continuing to blog while on holiday (and honeymoon). Thanks very much for your postings on that. As you know this is a very new medium – I think it’s important to keep it well-nourished in its early months.”

You are mad, man! For goodness sake, get some therapy – fast!

You may be wondering why I have been silent from the blogosphere for the last two weeks. Then again, you might not be wondering. Either way, I can tell you that two weeks ago I quietly slipped my mooring in Blogoland and went under-cover and, indeed, incognito to North Norfolk to conduct vital, exhaustive and clandestine tests of the preparations for Norman Lamb MP’s tour of the villages in the constituency.

Posing as a normal tourist, complete with laughably insufficient camping equipment for the English weather, I toured the villages of North Norfolk to check that the notices announcing Norman Lamb’s arrival in the location were on the local noticeboards.

Of course, I had to be careful not to be spotted by Iain Dale’s network of contacts. So silly cropped trousers and wet trench-foot-inducing campers’ sandals were the order of the day.

But there I was, gamely fighting in the interests of Liberal Democracy by surreptitiously sidling up to the many parish noticeboards of North Norfolk:….Hoveton…..Little Walsingham….(er that it’s)…you name any North Norfolk village and I may well have got there (and indeed, more likely, didn’t) to carry out the vital task of checking that the local parish clerk had put up Norman’s notice.

I can happily report that preparations for Stormin’ Norman’s tour of the villages are at an advanced stage and we can expect an excellent tour to take place, starting on September 4th at Hoveton.

Warning: This blog contains idle and unfounded speculation. There’s a surprise.

The Pakistani Cricket team manager Zaheer Abbas has claimed a “huge victory” after the revelation of Darren Hair’s letter to the ICC when he offered to resign for a $500,000 pay-off.

I am delighted that Mr Abbas thinks this and that, with the postponement of the ICC hearing into the cases against Inzamam-ul-Haq, it has been confirmed that the Pakistani team will be playing the one-day series against England.

The test series has consisted largely of very entertaining and excellent cricket. It is right that the due processes of the ICC are carried out very thoroughly and in a calm way. Giving plenty of time for both sides of the cases to be prepared is absolutely right and a huge relief. One of the saving graces of the current dispute is that relations between the England and Pakistan teams have remained very good (with the possible exception of the question mark over Duncan Fletcher’s attempt to talk to the match referee last Sunday morning).

All the pressure has been on Hair, but we are yet to hear from Billy Doctrove, the other umpire at last weekend’s match, who also took the decision to change the ball.

For what it is worth, I would guess that Pakistan will be found not guilty of ball tampering but guilty of “bringing the game into disrepute” by failing to emerge from the dressing room after tea.

There is a sort of justice and internal logic to that dual outcome. Umpire’s are quite right to make “on the spot” decisions which, with the benefit of time, can turn out to have been wrong. The Umpire who is always right has never been born. I suspect this will be the case in this instance.

However, failing to emerge after tea (complicated as it was by the various comings and goings to and from the field of play) is a definite no-no and I suspect that Pakistan will be found guilty of this charge (which is far graver in terms of the possible consequences than the ball tampering charge).

From what I have read, the Pakistan team will be happy with this. I am delighted by that – it could be a just outcome all round.

I have to give great credit to Inzamam-ul-Haq. It has been said that his team “love” him like a father. This is remarkable and one might suggest, unique. However, one feels that the support and public relations work from the chair of the Pakistan Cricket Board and their manager, has not been as consistently excellent as it should have been.

One final point of idle speculation: I borrow the words of Dominic Lawson in the Independent.

In 2003, Darrell Hair moved to the UK and was quoted as saying:

“I intend to be actively involved in umpiring for the next few years, whether it be with the blessing of the ICC or village mates in Steeple Bumpstead,”

As Dominic Lawson wrote earlier this week:

“Steeple Bumpstead it is, then”.