Home » Archive » 2006 » June
» Comedy column of the year

Comedy column of the year

Excerpt:
Submitted by Rob Knight on 21 June 2006 - 8:13am | Categories:

It is meant to be a joke, isn't it?


Comments

On 21 June 2006 - 9:52am, Tabman wrote:

Then there is that other liberal fetish, meritocracy. Of course it made sense in John Stuart Mill's day to replace hereditary aristocracy, of which there was too much, with a system of careers open to talent, of which there was too little. But surely anybody looking at the subject with an open mind should be able to see that today, 200 years later, there is something quite other to worry about; and the new problem, which is getting worse all the time, is the deeply unattractive and unimpressive nature of an exclusively self-made meritocratic ruling class: a ruling class made up of men and women exceptionally gifted only in the horrible rat-race arts of elbowing their way to the top. Aristocracy may have its faults but ratocracy, which is what in practice a meritocratic system produces, is proving even worse - which is possibly why the public seems so eager to welcome the return of the English gentleman in the shape of David Cameron.

Perry - this is NOT meritocracy. I believe the term is "self-perpetuating oligarchy". All you are bemoaning is that a few poorly-bred nouveaux riches have elbowed their way up the greasy pole and have displaced those to the Manor born. They are behaving in exactly the same way as the aristocracy: having fought to the top, they kick the ladder away for those wanting to come up behind them.

[Perhaps someone registerd on the site could post this comment for me]

________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.


On 21 June 2006 - 10:12am, Paul Walter (not verified) wrote:

It is written by Peregrine Worsthorne, so yes.


On 21 June 2006 - 10:14am, Paul Walter (not verified) wrote:

"The liberal argument for the importance of a free press was that it gave voters the necessary information on which they could vote intelligently. Of all the British newspapers today, only the Guardian even tries to do that."

= Only the Guardian still employs me?


On 21 June 2006 - 8:35pm, AngusJHuck (not verified) wrote:

The question posed is the following: "Is this a joke?"

Apart from the inevitable self-parody in anything Worsthorne writes, the answer is probably "NO". He means it.

There are several things wrong with the analysis, of course.

Class fear, a residual emotional attachment to Christianity as a glue for keeping society's hierarchical structure in place, and a misplaced assumption that the US elites presently rampaging across the planet are "liberal", rather than simply megalomaniacal and plutocratic.

Those will do for starters.

But he is dead right about the media. And Perry should know. He was Editor of the "Sunday Telegraph". Newspapers, generally, are vehicles for indoctrinating, titilating and dulling the senses of the public. How many publish truthful information about the complicity of the US government in 9/11, for instance? And how many pay serious and honest attention to the paranormal and UFOs (apart, occasionally, from the "Daily Mail")?

There are two things we need to understand about Perry.

(1) He is Belgian, so feels the need to "prove" his membership of the UK upper-middle-class.

(2) Like many ex- public school boys, he sees homosexuality as the secret glue binding together the elite. But unlike his peers, Perry has been open and honest about it, forgetting that it is the secrecy which makes upper-middle-class homosexuality such a powerful societal undercurrent.

Perry is wonderfully vague as to what he means by "rights". Does he mean negative rights (ie, the absence of interference by the state), or positive rights (ie, the state giving us things which we wouldn't otherwise have)?

I do think his analysis of Cameron is pretty spot on. If Cameron could be shown to be a cad, like Major Hewitt, things could be different.


On 21 June 2006 - 8:47pm, AngusJHuck (not verified) wrote:

I am still puzzled by Worsthorne's claim that he was buggered by George Melly in the art room at Stowe.

Worsthorne is 83, Melly is 80 - a 3-year age gap.

Junior boys don't usually bugger senior boys, unless Worsthorne was unusually pretty, and Melly absolutely dead butch. Which is possible, I suppose.

But why the art room?


On 22 June 2006 - 8:27am, Rob Knight wrote:

I agree on his judgement of the value of some newspapers; a lot of them print rubbish and insightful or investigative content is too rare. But faulting the liberal values of free speech for this rather suggests that he thinks perhaps we shouldn't have free speech. Probably not what he meant, but that's how it read to me.


On 22 June 2006 - 10:24am, Valerie wrote:

As a criticism of some of Labour's concepts of liberty, his last point is probably correct. However, there is no reason to claim that 'this limitlessly ambitious new war' has to involve 'a vast extension of governmental power'.


On 22 June 2006 - 10:33am, dave heasman (not verified) wrote:

"Perry - this is NOT meritocracy. I believe the term is "self-perpetuating oligarchy". "

And that's exactly what Michael Young in his "Rise of the Meritocracy" said would happen. He coined the word, and wrote the book, as a warning. Nearly 50 years ago.

[Why do I have to type my name, address & website every damn time I make a comment? I shall conflate what should be 2 separate comments as a consequence]

"And how many pay serious and honest attention to the paranormal and UFOs (apart, occasionally, from the "Daily Mail")?"

Well, there's always "Bad Science" in the Guardian...


On 22 June 2006 - 10:45am, Rob Knight wrote:

Dave - you can register (there should be a menu item on the left-hand side for it) and this will save your details so that you don't have to re-enter them each time.


On 22 June 2006 - 10:51am, Tabman wrote:

Dave Heasman: "And that's exactly what Michael Young in his "Rise of the Meritocracy" said would happen. He coined the word, and wrote the book, as a warning. Nearly 50 years ago."

Thanks for the heads up on Michael Young, of whom I wasn't aware previously.

Whilst I understand the argument and warning that Young makes, I think he puts too narrow a definition on meritocracy in defining it solely as pertaining to educational acheivement. And even were you to use this as your yardstick, the definition presumably only extends to "traditional" educational subjects, whereas it could quite conceivably cover any ability and the nurturing and shaping of that talent.

Every individual has some value or talent, and it should be the role of Liberalism to enable that talent to be identified and to flourish. I'm not sure what system Young favours - presumably a return to herditary deference - but I'm pretty confident that under such a system individual talent would be unfulfilled.

There is a tendency for humans to view positives as the result of their achievement and negatives as due to circumstance [hat tip to Graham]. Hence, any "meritocratic" achievement can be unpicked ans shwon to be the product of circumstance.

At best Liberals shoudl be alive to this and ensure that individuals are given as much support as possible to identify and scheive their potential. Human socisety is diverse, and it is not the role of the state to try and fit people into some sort of uniform pattern, but the state should be an enabler for people to flourish.
________________________________________________
"Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures."
H. Jackson Brown, Jr.


On 22 June 2006 - 11:12am, Rob Knight wrote:

Young certainly wasn't in favour of hereditary deference - he was, from what I know of him, a socialist but a free-thinker who recognised the flaws of socialism. He's the kind of thinker I tend to like; he has his views but he's not closed to the possibility that there are negative side-effects to them.

I've always regarded Young's critique of meritocracy as being a critique of the idea that we can weigh and measure every individual's talent and place them in their 'rightful' place in society. Where I suspect I differ with Young is on the solution; I think liberalism, with appropriate redistribution to ensure access to the best possible education for all, is the best way of maintaining a unified society.


On 22 June 2006 - 6:19pm, AngusJHuck (not verified) wrote:

Has Dave Heasman made a direct study of the evidence?

If he has, he's a liar. If he hasn't, he's a wind-bag.


On 22 June 2006 - 6:57pm, Radisson Maine (not verified) wrote:

That's a bit strong Angus - he might be merely mistaken. He might be right for all I know. If you don't explain why he's incorrect then you are unlikely to be taken seriously, especially when using terms like "liar" and "wind-bag".


On 22 June 2006 - 7:52pm, AngusJHuck (not verified) wrote:

Radisson Maine, why do you hide behind the name of a bankrupt property company rather than use your real name, like I do? Does it have something to do with cowardice? Is there some symbolic significance, perhaps, in your choice of nom de plume?

In answer to the Australian insolvent, Heasman might well be mistaken. But is his error the result of negligence or recklessness? One should avoid mouthing off about subjects in regard to which one is woefully ill-informed. That is recklessness, in my book, hence the epithet "wind-bag".