Home » Posts tagged 'nick cohen'
Tag Archives: nick cohen
Osborne is a D-rate tactician, not a master strategist – remember Ireland?
On talking about Jagger, “Mick can write!” exclaimed Keith Richards in his autobiography. “It’s unbelievable how prolific he was. Sometimes you’d wonder how to turn the fucking tap off.” This has been written about at great length in the strategy of innovation literature (see for example this seminal article by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker.)
That is in fact meant to be hallmark of people who have extraordinary gifts as innovators. True innovators, considered to be at the heart of the recovery that never was in the UK, are prepared to have a few ‘dead ducks’ in the hope that one or two brilliant ideas will survive. Unfortunately, there is no sign of Osborne turning the f*-ing tap off just yet. And great innovating strategist he is not.
There has recently been much greater scrutiny amongst the Tory commentators of this accepted teaching that George Osborne is a ‘master strategician’. There is no clear sign of what this strategy is, for example in economics, his ‘day job’. One thing that you can say confidently about Osborne, however, is that he is very good at concealing his cock-ups. Thankfully, Duncan Robinson in “The Staggers” of the New Statesman provides a ‘hard copy’ of how Osborne had famously bragged about the wonders of Ireland as an economy, which Robinson accurately summarised on account of: “Ireland boomed instead on a toxic mix of cheap credit, lax banking regulation and by becoming a borderline tax haven.” George Osborne, who is addicted to bragging, claimed, “Ireland stands as a shining example of the art of the possible in long-term economic policymaking.” It’s virtually impossible to find a copy of this article – so if you have a copy of it please do let me know.
Some people on the Right would actually like Osborne to turn the f*ing tap off. He has become a ‘falling star’ in the sky of the Tories, as Fraser Nelson, elegantly put it, with one of the most catastrophically delivered Budgets ever in history (which Fraser describes as “shambolic”). There wasn’t any screw-up too minor or major for this Budget, ranging from pasties, to attacks on philanthropists, raids on pensioners, to name but a few. Osborne succeeded in protecting the high earners, who are not part of the ‘squeezed middle’ however Ed Miliband has finally decided to define this. Osborne should like to be perceived as Corporatilist with a big C – his Big C ethos is best illustrated by Robinson’s view of the Osborne Ultimatum on tax: “We should learn from Ireland’s mistakes. Unfortunately, however, Osborne wants to copy them — at least judging by Osborne’s cuts to universities, the 3.4 per cent reduction in the education budget and his continued obsession with reducing corporation tax — to the point where companies could end up paying less tax than their cleaners.”
George Osborne’s economic policy has failed, in a perverse opposite to ‘not mending the roof when the sun was shining’, rather ‘not spending on a new roof when it was bucketing down with rain’. You don’t need to have read Keynes’ 1948 ‘General Theory’ to understand how Osborne produced a textbook plan for producing a recession. This strategy has failed Britain. ‘Master strategists’ decided how to allocate resources effectively and how to build a competitive advantage; for example, spending time on campaigning against Scottish independence, a position supported by Labour, fails on both counts.
Osborne is instead the Conservatives’ chief thrower of custard pies. He is throwing so many custard pies, he is hoping one does land on Ed Balls, but this is a dubious desperate tactic; as per an article by James Forsyth, in a frenetic ‘J’accuse’, Osborne remarks, “They were clearly involved.” In this way, he comes the closest of the mentality of an innovative strategist. Steve Richards is correct, as is James Macintyre, to observe leadership qualities in Ed Miliband, in being right to capture the agenda of those who wish to implement ‘responsible capitalism’. Miliband’s speech in 2011 at conference I feel will go down in history as seminal. It has laid the foundations for the judge-led inquiry into the media which has been most instructive in exposing the corrupt phone-hacking. The majority of the country, according to a You Gov poll, want a public-inquiry into the banking industry, feeling that a parliamentary-inquiry would effectively sanction a ‘cover up’. Recent polling has also provided that George Osborne is perceived as one of the worst Chancellors in recent history.
The media has thus far been running a media ‘democratic deficit’, with Nick Cohen correctly observing that the agendas of writing the Corporatilist articles in the Right Wing press being at odds with the majority of readers who comment on them. The irony is that corporates don’t want a toxic culture either, with Prof. Porter, Professor of Strategy at Harvard Business School, who makes Osborne’s understanding of strategy look like O-level standard (keeping ahead of the times with Michael Gove), will be the first to tell you (see his seminal article in the Harvard Business Review). Corporates attract greater investment if they are pursuing ‘responsible capitalism’ policies, and this is now a well established fact in business. Furthermore, no business, in an international arena, will wish to invest their resources in a country, which Nick Cohen elegantly refers to as, “a pirate state which you visit, rob or be robbed but never to conduct honest business”
The problem is that the custard pie thrown at George Osborne will either miss or it won’t stick. It may be a useful short-term tactic, as argued by Steve Richards today, but it lacks credibility. Ed Balls has vigorously denied it, and Bob Diamond in his evidence yesterday did not play the ‘It’s all Labour’s fault‘ joker. An independent inquiry, led by the judiciary not the legislature essential for legal ‘separation of powers’, is the only way of finding out how a toxic culture can go unnoticed by CEOs of powerful corporates, and why banking is so much for the benefit of its shareholders rather than its customers. We need answers to this – in summary, Ed Miliband is right, and George Osborne is so very wrong.
Book review of "You can't read this book: Censorship in an age of freedom" by Nick Cohen
You can’t read this book – censorship in an age of freedom
Available from Amazon – Fourth Estate (19 Jan 2012)
This book is dedicated to Christopher Hitchens, so it is entirely appropriate that there is a quotation from Christopher Hitchens at the front.
There are very many gems in this brilliant book, which has a straightforward argument elegantly executed. Cohen, for example, likens suing Twitter because you don’t like what tweeters post like to suing the sky because you don’t like the weather. It is impossible to get lost in Cohen’s argument. For example, “Censorship’s main role is to restrict the scope for action”, or, later in the book, “Censorship is at its most effective when its victims pretend it does not exist”.
I am deeply attracted to the argument proposed by Cohen. I feel censorship can too easily turn into an abuse of privilege and an abuse of process, in the same way that if you censor elements of one’s past you do not allow people a chance to see how you have responded to events. A strong thread of proportionality runs through Cohen’s argument, which is the fundamental basis of the law (not morals necessarily). For example, should there be a superinjunction protecting Sir Fred Goodwin? Should one censor Salman Rushdie on the grounds of religious bigotry only to subject him to death threats?
It is clear Cohen is well read, but not arrogant with it. The sources of Cohen’s thoughts are clearly signposted, ranging from Pedro Almodóvar to Maulana Abdu’l Ala Maududi. The account of John Milton’s “Areopagatica” being passionate against censorship, and the reference to it by William Wordsworth, is indeed moving. The account of the response to the Satanic Verses, including the response to the fatwa is detailed and alarming; with the narrative depressing for proponents of a ‘free society’. Cohen’s thesis is immaculately delivered with precision, analysing how Robert Hughes and Christopher Hitchens might have been mindful of confusing ethicity with political ideology, in consideration of an abstract concept of ‘the Rushdie Affair’.
Cohen has a knack of saying something deadly serious at one moment, and then saying something utterly hilarious (but albeit pointed). Take, for example,
“The English establishment has a dictionary of insults for men and women who take on the futile task of making it feel guilty – ‘chippy’, ‘bolshie’, ‘uppity’, ‘ungrateful’ – It directly them all at Rushdie.”
Cohen also has a knack of stating the blindingly obvious in a way not to make you feel stupid. In opining about his rule for censors that a little fear goes a long way, he offers:
“Free societies are not free because their citizens are fighting for their freedom. They are free because previous generations have fought for their freedom.”
Cohen makes mincemeat of the big beasts typically troublesome in a discussion of censorship – such as religion, power, and money. Regarding the latter, a recurrent theme, powerfully articulated by Cohen, is that status, salary and position should offer no protection from criticism. It is fitting that Cohen mentions the modern scientific method here, but one wonders if he should have discussed the legal issues which journal peer review can find itself confronting (and the concomitant subject of libel reform in England). The discussion of the failings of the financial services, meanwhile, is compelling, However, it is clear that Cohen feels intrinsically perpexed about what he discovers under the name of ‘liberalism’ at an early stage of the book. In examining the response of liberal societies to the ‘Islamist wave’, Cohen finds that it is characterised in fact by a ‘disastrous mixture of authoritarianism and appeasement’. However, on the other hand, Cohen considers very carefully the words of J.S. Mill in its correct societal context of Victorian Britain, and finds, most convincingly to me, that some of the answer comes from the modern scientific method here. My understanding of this scientific method is that nothing can ever be as such proven (though it might be possible to disprove certain hypotheses through reductio ab absurdum), so if individuals are fallible their ideas certainly can be. This is what makes censorship against religious beliefs and political controversy potentially so dynamite.
This is the sort of book that I wish I was bright enough to write. And I did wonder whether one of the references to journalists was our very own @fleetstreetfox?
The budget
I have a terrific regard for the University of Oxford and the PPE course (Politics, Philosophy and Economics).
As an educationalist, I think it is a very clever combination of three subjects taught to a hugh standard by three separate examination schools. However, as a neuroscientist, I think the subject is ahead of its time. For me, it represents whether the markets operate with free will or deterministically, and whether its expedient for governments to make decisions around such findings, inter alia. And the list of PPE graduates is a wonder to behold: Andreas Whittam-Smith, Guto Harri, Mary Ann Sieghart, Nick Cohen, Nick Robinson; and of course, Stephanie Flanders, Hugh Pym and Ed Balls. I was disappointed, but not particularly surprised, to see George Osborne not on this list.
With the ritualistic nature of the Budget, it is easy to forget that the budget for any business entity represents the pivotal focus of budgeting (as the name would imply) and forecasting. This is interesting in the context of the overall business strategy, and provides an important exercise for seeing the progress of the organisation with its economic goals. In summary, we saw inflation go up to 4.4% yesterday, GDP is going down (although hopefully it is likely we will avoid a ‘double dip’ of two quarters of negative growth seeing us back into recession), unemployment rising particularly youth unemployment, and interest rates probably about to go up. The danger with the cuts strategy, of cutting quite so much fast so fast, was that we would risk slow growth, with people being laid off in the public sector with the private sector not picking up the slack, as the Tory-led government had hoped. This would mean there would be less spending power, more unemployment benefit being paid, less tax revenue, and the deficit actually not being cut as fast as desirable. It is also incredibly depressing for morale. Many of us have felt that even if the deficit is paid off fast the wreckage that would be produced socially would be difficult to recover from. Hence, we at Cambridge, have a somewhat different emphasis. We don’t call it “Politics, Philosophy and Economics”, but “Social and Political Sciences”. You’ll see this perhaps this Saturday…
If the Lib Dems are brave enough to go into coalition with the Tories, they will earn the public's respect
See recent article by Nick Cohen here.
I feel that the article has been written in some sort of code, notwithstanding Nick’s brilliance. Sure, people can be assured that Gordon Brown’s days are numbered now and this can be pinpointed to certain things. However, the personality debates are utterly irrelevant now if Britain fails to take the opportunity now of a progressive centre-left agenda.
It’s like I said earlier, that this is a wedding where Cameron and Clegg are about to tie the knot, the families loathe each other, and Brown hasn’t been invited.
If the marriage goes wrong, the invited audience and family will know exactly who to blame, and the families are worried their other offspring will never get married for at least a generation.
