INTP - The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

I’m basing this argument on the premise that the new constitution for the NUS gets ratified.  If it doesn’t then disaffiliation may well become necessary, and I will be proposing it in my union.  It is also comforting to know that I am a masochist; political involvement is not about personal comfort.

We should first dispense with the notion that the NUS is some EU clone.  It is not.  The NUS has virtually no ability to dictate the policy of individual unions, and acts instead as an umbrella organisation to represent their interests.  It  bears closer resemblance to the LGA than Brussels.  The idea that it is “bloated” is also a myth; in the past few years the organisation has undergone drastic efficiency drives and downsizing to balance its budget, to the point where they sold off their headquarters building.  It has a budget far smaller than some of the unions it represents.

Far from being a mere collection of unwashed, unshaven, oppositionalist placard-wavers keen on demonstrating about whatever it is trendy to be against this month, the NUS performs roles that are vital to many student unions.  It provides training and a forum for sabbatical officers to share ideas that many individual unions simply could not afford.  Through NUSSL and NUS Extra it helps provide services to and discounts to unions and their members.

When those on the Right are organised, we have successes.  It may surprise some to learn that the NUS has had two CF members on their executive in recent memory.  We don’t know if we could get more on because we haven’t tried.  When the Right are on top of their brief and in command of the facts, we are able to make valuable contributions to the debate.  The fact that our ideas are neither the empty rhetoric of the left, nor the stereotype expected of the right, gives us a distinct advantage in discussions.

Though the idea that a CF defeat in the NUS would affect our party’s standing in a general election is absurd, there is the genuine possibility of the NUS becoming the focus of future opposition to a Conservative government on education policy.  The only way to reduce such knee-jerk automatic hostility is to have people inside the Union making the case for such policy.  Even if the NUS retains a left-wing slant, which it will for the forseeable future, better that their ideas encounter stiff opposition than the unanimous approval of an audience unaware of any alternative.

It has always been something of a bogeyman to demonise the NUS as the front group of a band of revolutionary Trotskyites.  Though disproportionately represented, they still remain in a minority.  That minority is shrinking year on year, as witnessed at the last annual conference, where they suffered a major rout from the NEC.  A vast swathe of delegates belong to no faction whatsoever, and are willing to vote on the merits of the argument.  We owe it to them, as well as the students we represent, to make that argument.

The idea that we should spend more time and effort organising and campaigning on campuses is indeed a laudable one, but it does not come at the exclusion of conservatives organising for and within the NUS.  Part of the reason the hard left are disproportionately represented is because on many campuses they run the strongest campaigns.  Were CF members to offer organised, sustained, issue-focused opposition we could reap similar rewards.  The divisive politics of the hard-left are off-putting for many students.  We are in an excellent position to offer a viable alternative.

Fundamentally, the idea of organised national representation for students is a good one.  We cannot simply keep out of the organisation that does that because we disagree with its current policies.  Conservatism, if it means anything, is about working within flawed systems to reform them, rather than seeking to overthrow them in a utopian fantasy or fit of pique.  A new rival to the NUS isn’t going to come along.  Education policy is currently severely flawed; we have to remain in the NUS to explain why, and how we would improve it.  We have to remain in to make sure that left-wing dogma does not go unchallenged.  Above all, we must remain in because to leave would be to silence ourselves.

If anyone reading this has, or is contemplating, violating the injunction on revealing the names of those involved in the case, I urge you not to. The injunction exists because the accused are to be tried on other charges. Widespread publication of their identities would be so prejudicial as to likely result in their acquittal. If you believe that they deserve more than fourteen years in prison, the best thing to do is protect their anonymity.

There is also the danger of letting hindsight form an absolute vision which we seek to impose retrospectively on all decisions made. We must remember that what appears obvious now, may not have done so at the time of the events in question. Those involved were fallible people, inside a system constrained by competing demands and limited resources. People who now seem prescient or absolutely correct, may at the time have appeared to be very wrong. A courtroom is a vastly different environment to that of the social worker and police officer. Our judgements should therefore be tempered by this understanding.

Likewise we have to accept the grim fact that deaths such as these can never be fully eliminated. The perverse imagination and ingenuity of the killer is always one step ahead of that of those who would seek to protect us. Man’s ability to deceive is limitless, and may outpace our ability to discern the truth in a constrained environment. Murders are inevitable, and to entertain the idea that they are not would be to invite injustices elsewhere and build systems based on a hubris that would lead to ignorance. That is not to say that we should not try to improve the system, but we must do so aware of our limitations.

Those who cry that the council in question has blood on its hands, or seek an easy target to blame, though understandable, should acknowledge that Baby P died not because of their actions, but in spite of them. That is not a justification for people to remain in office, or to do nothing, but a reminder that those who might have been able to save the child did what they believed was in its best interests. Blame may lie with nobody but those convicted.

There have also been problems raised with the narrative the mainstream media are promoting in this case that warrant further scrutiny. I recommend you read Unity’s piece over at Ministry of Truth on the matter before assuming that the account is set in stone.

Nonetheless there appear to be severe shortcomings. This is, after all, the same council that had Victoria Climbié under its supervision. However, we ought to be under no illusion that the history of parental infanticide started there and continued here with nothing in-between or outside Haringey. These murders are all too familiar; what made this one notable was its location and the level of brutality involved.

The figure of sixty visits should also be regarded with some suspicion. These do not mean sixty in-depth examinations or inspections by social workers.  Once again, I refer you to Unity’s piece:

of the much quoted sixty occasions that the family had contact with health and social care workers in the 8 months from December 2006 up until the child’s death in August 2007, only 18 of those contacts were actually with social workers, a little less than half the number of contacts with health staff (37, including three visits to the family home), and the family (minus the boyfriend one assumes) were also seen five times at home by staff from the Family Welfare Association, which is now called ‘Family Action’ and there were another eight occasions that the child’s mother took her son to see health professionals including the two occasions on which the child’s injuries raised suspicions of abuse.

Any set of reforms will involve trade-offs.  Although some are questioning the effectiveness of a decision-making model that involves all agencies, the alternative has problems of its own.  Bringing all the agencies together can cause a diffusion of responsibility.  But keeping them separate in the decision-making process can prevent one agency from receiving vital information from another.  Anyone who has been involved in dealing with multi-service operations will be aware of the difficulties inherent in such a situation.  A balance needs to be struck between the models, and safeguards made to minimise the risks associated with whichever is favoured.  For every child that might have been saved were it not for a multidisciplinary model, there may be one that was saved precisely because of it.  We should not be so quick to dismiss it.

These systems evolve over time and, while flawed, are of an immense complexity and difficulty that lend themselves to no glib or easy solutions. Radical overhaul can be as bad a solution as the problem it purports to fix. Though there appear to be serious failures in the system, solutions should be sought with a full awareness of their imperfections and pitfalls. Reforms will likely be piecemeal and incomplete. This simply reflects the reality of our inhabiting an imperfect world. It may be neither satisfying nor cathartic, but it is the best that can be done.

Tell us something we don’t know Polly.  My blog costs money to run.  I pay for it with my money.  I am a Tory.  Therefore my blog is paid for by a Tory.  What, you expected my blog to be funded by the Labour party?

In all honesty though, why on earth shouldn’t Tory bloggers be paid?  She has made millions from her writing.  She has no right to complain about others being paid for their writings.

If there is actually a Tory fund to pay bloggers, could they please let me know as I could do with a bit more money what with the recession and so on.

The remark was at an event entitled “Is Britain Broken?” between the Bow Group and the Young Fabians. A certain Fabian speaker on the panel made the remark, referring to BoJo’s reference to the idea of a broken society as “piffle”, something he suitably blustered his way out of at this year’s Party Conference.

Unfortunately this was not a particularly enjoyable debate. It quickly descended into partisan recrimination and “yah boo sucks” party politics. This was a shame as some rather good views and opinions got drowned out in a divisive shouting contest about who could paint the most dystopian picture against who could sound the most optimistic. It left you wondering what the point of these joint political events

This was probably due to the choice of title. It led to an argument really over what you emphasise in politics, with the Labour side going off on extended rants about the Conservative Party.

Still, I got to make a light-hearted jab at Hazel Blears over her comments about blogging, sinister and corrosive nihilist that I so evidently am.

At least the drinks afterwards had some decent discussion.

UPDATE: I’ve just been doing some digging regarding one of the speakers.  Dr. Stella Creasy, Labour PPC for Walthamstow and (obviously) speaking on the Fabian side was the worst culprit in the partisan attack stakes.  Rather than debate the question, she launched into two and a half minutes of Tory-bashing while sneering at anything that anyone else raised that challenged her ideas, as if we were all nuts.  Given her rather impressive academic CV, one cannot but think that this was a wasted opportunity.  We could have had a really interesting debate on the issues at hand, which she obviously has some knowledge of.  It’s not like she couldn’t have even got some side-swipes in while making her point.  But instead she opted to go for nothing but blue-bashing.  What a waste.

The measure can only be funded by increasing already high levels of government borrowing

Borrowing-funded tax cuts with a national debt at roughly 150% of GDP will have to be repaid at another time.  This is not responsible economics; it fails to tackle any of the underlying problems in the British economy instead opting for superficial measures.

It’s loan-sharkery.  The present financial crisis was brought about by irresponsible lending.  We should not be promoting more of the same.

This blog started six months ago off the back of a desire to get back into the swing of politics after being drafted into an NUS delegation by a friend in my student’s union.  My gradual involvement in student politics had brought me to become increasingly annoyed at the tribal hostility to any form of conservatism.  The complete disconnection between the expectations and reality of what a conservative was became a point of intrigue.  Intelligent and passionate people were completely unable to understand how an apparently intelligent person such as myself (more fool them) could hold right-wing opinions.  I set this up, after several other abortive attempts at starting specialist blogs, to hone my writing skills and articulate a conservative viewpoint to try and dispel the myth held by some that there is an automatic correlation between conservatism and stupidity.

In that ensuing period of around seven months, this blog has written 46,077 words and had 2,812 views.  It has had 38 comments, a few links and 1,541 spam comments deleted.  My writing has taken me to several events throughout the realm of politics, had me invited to numerous events, and even got me dragged over to the Conservative Party’s annual conference in Birmingham.  I even had an article linked to on ConservativeHome.  If anyone reading this is considering starting a blog, I urge them to do so.

Given that I am going to be noticeable by my absence in the next few weeks, I’d still like to retain some engagement with this blog.

First, if you want to guest write for this blog, please let me know either in the comments section or through the “Contact” tab and I’ll set you up with something to write.

Second, I would like to get some feedback.  This can be on anything surrounding the blog, but I would particularly appreciate comments on the following:

• What do you think of my writing style?  What could be done to improve it?
• What articles have you liked?
• What articles didn’t you like?
• What should I do more of?
• Are there any (general) topics you would like me to cover that I haven’t done previously?
• How do you like the design of the blog?

I would also like to gauge your opinions as to what I might expand into doing.  For a while I have considered the following:

• Live coverage;
• Open threads;
• Book reviews;
• Videos;
• Regular weekly spots along the lines of a cartoon, video or guest post.

Is there any demand for this?

Finally, I am considering having a bash at making some submissions to the Orwell Prize for Political Blogging.  I would really appreciate it if you could suggest what posts I have written that would be worth submitting.  More information about the criteria can be discovered by visiting the link.

See you in a few weeks’ time.  I’ll be checking this blog for comments and might put up a few posts every now and again.

In a speech to the Social Market Foundation Ms Smith said cards would be issued on a voluntary basis to young people from 2010 and for everyone else from 2012.

She added: “But I believe there is a demand, now, for cards - and as I go round the country I regularly have people coming up to me and saying they don’t want to wait that long.

Notwithstanding that forming government policy on the basis of anecdotes is patently absurd, who are these people? Is she really suggesting that students want to spend £90 on a redundant piece of plastic when in some universities their loans don’t even cover accommodation charges? Are young people really going to be that keen to lobby the government for a card that will stop them from lying about their age in pubs? Who on earth, in the current economic climate, wants to shell out the cost of the weekly shopping for a small family to buy a piece of plastic when a driving license is a perfectly useful and cheaper alternative?

Who is going to be asking that the government spend millions of pounds on the scheme, when we don’t even have enough money to pay for cancer treatment drugs?

It would be wrong to accuse one of the holders of the Great Offices of State of lying. It would be unparliamentary, nihilistic and far more corrosive to our political culture than ministerial deceit. We know there is a demand for these cards, but perhaps she ought to be a little more honest about who it is who is making the demands.

We know that these cards are unnecessary. Passports and driving licences are perfectly capable of proving one’s identity in all normal walks of life. In all others, the ability to forge the national ID card will mean that firms and the government will soon revert to the previous system of multiple proofs of ID. So who regularly approaches the Home Secretary and asks for ID cards like a small child, claiming that they can’t wait three years?

If you’ve watched Yes Minister!, the answer ought to be obvious. Whenever the Home Secretary travels round the country she is going to be doing so with an entourage of civil servants and special advisers. The only people who are going to benefit from a national identity database and card are the civil servants themselves, provided with yet another white elephant to make their budgets look more impressive, and yet another grandiose scheme to try and regulate and categorise the infinite complexities of human existence. The endless problems these systems will create will give them fun for many years to come. If Ms. Smith is not lying or being unrepresentative, then the best guess is that it is her civil servants who are nagging her for the database.

If you think this is fantasy, then please visit Dizzy’s blog, where he has caught a civil servant has feeding the government arguments in favour of an equivalent database for children. Ask yourself this: if the government are the ones who came up with the policy, why do they need to ask the civil service what the arguments in favour of it are? Are the ministers really making government policy, or are they just marching to the tune of the mandarins, mindlessly promoting their latest white elephant?

Sir Humphrey would be proud.

Hat-tip: Wardman Wire