Compare and contrast

It looks to me as though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been moonlighting as an actor, playing Edmund Pevensie in the Narnia films:

It must be all part of the efficiency drive to send senior government ministers out to earn a few bob. And he did wonders with his voice for the part. Why he uses the other one for politics, I'll never know.

Shock news from a nef fellow

This is Ann Pettifor in the Guardian in October:

In other words, pensioners, savers, companies, households and individuals are lending to the banks. (src)

Yes, she really has just told us all the shock news that savers are lending to banks. As though this was never the case before the credit crunch!

The reason Lib Dems stay in post

After Norman Baker's high-profile wobble, Vince Cable totters (src), but ultimately carries on. I can't be alone in thinking that all these Lib Dems are hanging on simply because David Laws isn't yet able to take a place back around the Cabinet table.

After all, suppose that he were available to replace Vince Cable. What would a former vice-president of JP Morgan and head of a currency desk at Barclays know about business and the City? And quite how quickly do you think they'd have been able to make a new sign for the Secretary of State's door?

Thinking of the chilluns

If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, I strongly believe that 'the children' must be the first. Whenever some imbecile wants to do something imbecilic, they always wheel out 'the children' as their justification. For example, here is how Miranda Suit of Safer Media defended the proposal to force Internet Service Providers [1] to make accessing pornographic materials an 'opt-in' rather than an 'opt-out':

What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children (src)

Now, I can see how this idea might appeal to the Cameroon tendency in government: indeed, it came from Ed Vaizey, who is very much in that political circle. It structures choices so as to dissuade people from pursuing a particular activity [2], without completely depriving them of the option. This is so-called 'libertarian paternalism', in the sense that it is neither very libertarian nor very paternalistic.

But it is also fatuous, and for two reasons. Firstly, because of the appeal to 'the children', which should mean almost immediate exclusion from the debate. Practically any lunacy is justified 'because of the children', and the state is interposed where parents would often be better placed.

Secondly and more importantly, though, is the simple fact that if it is technically feasible then there is no bar to this being done already. Why shouldn't Safer Media put their money where their mouth is, and set up an ISP? They can implement all the blocks they want, and will probably charge a slightly higher fee. Parents who want the service can buy it, and people who don't want it (or, which is the same thing, don't want to pay for it) don't have to. No coercion necessary, no force of law, no structuring of adults' choices. Only a freely-offered product which can be freely chosen or not chosen.

The difficulty is that campaigners don't see the world like this. The option they reject is Gandhi's wonderful description of 'being the change you want to see in the world'; the option they choose is enforcing the change by the law. I would prefer it if they tried to persuade us through the ordinary processes of everyday life, rather than through the peculiar process of politics.

[1] For Apprentice fans, you will notice that I know what ISP stands for, and the CEO of Viglen doesn't. Go figure.
[2] Perhaps I should clarify that I'm hardly banging a drum for the use of pornography, as regular readers will understand. Defending a political or civil right to do something is not the same as assigning it moral, aesthetic or cultural value.

Don't knock the Dawn Treader!

One of the criticisms I keep seeing from Christians in the States about the new film (which I am hoping to see in a few days, so I'll shut up soon) is that Eustace's change comes after he does a load of good stuff to help people, beating a sea monster and the like. And they suggest that this changes Eustace's transformation from being an act of Aslan's grace for a penitent dragon into a works-based salvation.

I'm not convinced they've read the books recently. For if they had, they would recall what Lewis had written:

It was, however, clear to everyone that Eustace's character had been rather improved by becoming a dragon. He was anxious to help.

Lewis goes on to paint a picture of dragon-Eustace finding and despatching wild animals as food for the ship. He brought back a 'great tall pine tree' for use as a new mast. He was an excellent hot water bottle, and a very good means of transport for scouting parties. In short, it sounds as though the film is actually quite true to the book in painting a helpful dragon-Eustace who learns to enjoy being sociable and useful, rather than a 'useless Eustace'. If there is any squabble to be had on this, and I think there is not, then it must be had with Lewis and not the studio.

It may be possible to knock Voyage for other reasons. In fact, I rather fear it will be all too easy to do so. But in reality, this isn't one of them.

Three reasons to love the Dawn Treader

The latest in the series of the Narnia films, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, is released in the UK today. With all the kerfuffle over whether they have made a reasonably faithful adaptation, or whether the film-makers have eviscerated a lovely story, I thought I might write a little about why the book is one of my favourites; indeed, probably my favourite of the seven. I should warn you that this is replete with spoilers.

The first thing I would point to is that Dawn Treader is basically a story of the Christian life, and the main character is, indubitably, Eustace. He is, after all, introduced immediately to us, with the immortal line, 'There was once a boy named Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.' And just as the book's title names one voyage, the book's plotline really details another voyage: that of the boy thus introduced, and of whom it was said in the concluding sentence, 'everyone soon started saying how Eustace had improved.' Not that Lewis is sentimental about the change in his main character. He writes,

It would be nice, and fairly true, to say that "from that time forth Eustace was a different boy". To be strictly accurate, he began to be a different boy. He had relapses. There were still many days when he could be very tiresome. But most of those I shall not notice. The cure had begun.

The change, of course, which was effected in Eustace is one only available at the hand, or more properly the paw, of Aslan, one which is not pleasant but is deeply necessary, and one which to boot comes with some heavy baptismal imagery.

So there is my first reason for loving Voyage: Eustace's voyage, and the things it teaches us about our own voyages.

The second thing I would point to is the solid and noticeable presence of Christ throughout the book: the more Aslan a Narnia book has in it, the more I love it as an almost certain rule. One of my favourite scenes from the whole of Narnia is found in Voyage, after Lucy reads 'a spell "for the refreshment of the spirit"':

She said, "That is the loveliest story I've ever read or shall ever read in my whole life. … I must remember it. Oh dear, it's all fading away again. … It was about a cup and a sword and a tree and a green hill, I know that much."

And she pleads with Aslan, who promises to tell that story to her for years and years to come. What story might it have been?

That is easily answered, for at the end of the book they meet a Lamb, who has prepared a breakfast of fish for them. (Remind you of anyone?) And they look to the Lamb, and soon see the Lion, who tells Edmund and Lucy that they are to learn to know Aslan by another name. The book makes it plain, plainer than in any other book, that this character we meet in Narnia called Aslan is intended to be none other than the Christ we know in this world. That is my second reason for loving Voyage.

And my third reason is for Lewis' wisdom. The major example, which has always stuck with me ever since reading it, is the words of Ramandu, the retired star:

"In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."

"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is, but only what a star is made of."

To this scientifically-trained mathematician, more prosaic than poetic, it is an ever-present reminder of the limits as well as the strengths of my own vocation.

Labour shadow minister opposes redistribution

John Denham has managed to see the light:

"It's a con, that's the trouble. I mean if it was new money going to the poorest pupils then I'm sure we'd be very pleased about it," he said. "But this is money that's already in the education budget simply being redistributed, robbing Peter to pay Paul." (src)

Well, okay, so maybe he wouldn't quite put it the way I did. But he's cutting off his own wider political position here: if redistribution is bad, then he's in real trouble. Because in the broadest sense, there is never any such thing as 'new money'. Money is always diverted by government from one activity or pocket into another, and is thus always redistributive. If Denham opposes all forms of redistribution, all forms of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul,' then hasn't he just admitted that Labour should stop bothering with politics?

Education policy

A few thoughts for a Saturday morning, after the tuition fees vote and the debates in the country.

1. Read a "contented Lib Dem" (link), a blog I was pointed to by Tom King. The author is clearly thinking hard about government policy in this area and well able to explain and defend it, using both good argument and good evidence. It's very warming to hear a Lib Dem defend policies in terms which make it clear that the author is definitely no soggy social democrat. The blog has been added to the blogroll. (I find it interesting that the party-political blogs I put on the roll are almost always Lib Dem. Psychological analyses of this phenomenon are welcome in the comments.)
2. Why are the media so bothered about the Lib Dems' "three way split"? The Tories had a three-way split, although not a very big one. In government, Labour had numerous three-way splits. Surely — dangerous question though this is — the Lib Dems are not bound together by a collective brain cell?
3. It's a shame Norman Baker decided to vote with the government after all. I found myself hoping David Laws had some sort of an interest in trains.
4. The Lib Dems Chris Huhne would have voted for and Martin Horswood against had they not been in Cancun for the climate change conference. So they basically agreed to stay away since they would only have cancelled each other out anyway. Who says the pairing system (wiki) is dead? Although pairing within a party is certainly a novel approach to take.
5. Although I supported the tuition fees policy fully, I was somewhat heartened that some government backbenchers are willing to rebel this early. Even as a present supporter of the Coalition, I recognise that we need potential rebels, because no government is guaranteed to do the right thing forever.
6. Alan Johnson changed his mind recently, and declared that there was 'a strong argument' in favour of a graduate tax. The only strong argument I can think of is Ed Milibland threatening to sack him if he doesn't do what he's told. Internal party democracy is a wonderful thing.

Where is liberalism today?

Frank Furedi gave a very good interview to the Independent on Tuesday about the state of liberalism in the modern West, with particular reference to the UK. He says,

Back in 1935, George Dangerfield’s The Strange Death of Liberal England attempted to account for the decline of the British Liberal Party. Today it’s not simply a liberal party that’s become marginal, but the fundamental ethos of liberalism itself. (src)

But that's not the best bit. I encourage you to read it all, and especially his answer to the question about the difference between moralism and a moral stance.

The definition of grim irony?

At the Speccy's Coffee House blog, Daniel Korski relays news from the Guardian about anti-cuts campaign UK Uncut, that

In a sign of UK Uncut's expanding popularity, they have secured the backing of the Jubilee Debt Campaign, and of War on Want, two mainstream anti-poverty campaigns with almost 30,000 supporters between them. (src, via)

Korski suggests that as charities, these organisations should not be supporting a political campaign. This is actually a grey area: charities ought not to be partisan, but often their campaigns require calling for some political action.

However, I think there is a clearer reason to be highly disappointed by the Jubilee group's support of deficit denialism. The campaign grew out of a justified desire to see a lower burden on third world countries which were struggling under unsustainable debts. In the UK, we are by no means as badly off as the countries Jubilee sought to help, but nevertheless it is rather distressing that a campaign founded to oppose high debt (and therefore deficit spending) in the third world is opposing attempts to tackle public deficits in the first.