Apologies for the light posting over the past few days. I'm travelling this week also so won't be posting again till the weekend. There are a few things that I've been storing up - such as this article, which a correspondent has alerted me to, and that must rank as the silliest analysis by an apparently serious commentator on international affairs since at least last week - that I fear will have to wait till then. The author of the piece, William Pfaff, believes a Calvinist belief in predestination explains the aggression (his term, not mine) of current US foreign policy. The chances that Pfaff has examined the venerable Baptist objection that predestination is incompatible with the Calvinist practice of child baptism seem to me to be slight, but facile analogy (Iraq is the new Vietnam etc.) comes naturally to those who wish to beat up on the President without engaging in the tiresome business of critical inquiry.
Also worth noting, and that I intend to write about later, is Tony Judt's unsparing review in the current New York Review of Books, of Eric Hobsbawm's memoir.
Finally, there's the Conservative Party. My fellow-Leftist blogger Stephen Pollard calls them 'poor stupid bewildered Tories'. I don't agree: I think Tory MPs have effected a political master-stroke in painlessly removing the single greatest impediment to their advance - a leader who was not up to the job - and neutralising the effects of an electoral system in which an elderly party membership sought refuge in candidates who reinforced their own instincts. Moreover, because I believe there is a serious prospect of the Liberal Democrats' becoming the official Opposition, and I consider that outcome would be damaging to the quality of policymaking and political debate in this country, I am by no means downcast at the Conservative Party's taking initial steps in restoring its credibility. In his blog, Harry Hatchet seems to be urging tactical voting in Michael Howard's constituency: perhaps, but I'm as yet unconvinced that the electoral arithmetic would require us consistent liberals to vote for Howard in order to keep the Liberal Democrats out.
Any thoughts on Mr. Judt's previous article in the NYRB (in which he advocated a binational solution in the Middle East), Oliver? Leon Wieseltier was pretty harsh on it in the 10/27 issue of the New Republic- rightly so in my opinion.
Posted by: Richmond | November 03, 2003 at 03:45 AM
In 2001 the Folkestone & Hythe result was Michael Howard 45%, Lib Dem 32%, Labour 20%, so (all else being equal) two thirds of the Labour vote would have to shift tactically to unseat Howard. This isn't completely unprecendented, though the only precendent I can immediately think of is the 1997 Winchester by-election, where five sixths of the Labour vote disappeared, the bulk of it going to Lib Dem Mark Oaten.
Posted by: Phil Rodgers | November 03, 2003 at 01:57 PM
Oliver, on the subject of "unsparing reviews", I hope you have an opportunity to comment on Eric Griffiths' devilish send-up of Terry Eagleton in the 17 Oct TLS. It left blood on the walls.
Posted by: George Peery | November 03, 2003 at 05:03 PM
Yes, I'd very much enjoy hearing how Eagleton got bashed. Unfortunately, I missed that one.
Posted by: CB | November 05, 2003 at 03:51 PM