Monday, 12 March 2007

The Deep Malaise

ConservativeHome is categorically wrong to demand David Mundell's resignation. The prolific Iain Dale is right to say the party in Scotland needs to get it's act together but like most commentators looking in he doesn't quite realise how deeply moribund the party is.

And key to the above point is, it is no one person's fault. Scotland has been marginalised by the party as an area of importance since devolution arrived and the exodus from the party post-'97.

Scotland will never be the most conservative region in the UK, but if it was possible to hold 21 seats in '83 why none now? The party north of the border has stagnated for lack of three key strengths:

1. Party management;
2. Policy initiative; and
3. Pool of talent.

Devolution affects all three and has been the catalyst for the growth of most of the problems.

More to follow...


I have been struck down with a fairly violent bout of food poisoning which has given me the opportunity to redesign the layout a bit and play around with some ideas...

As in the natural world, things which are bright colours (such as pink) are often warnings that they are poisonous and shouldn't be consumed. Why then, didn't I realise this before my first (or second, for that matter) mouthful of Pepto-Bismol???

Thursday, 8 March 2007


Courtesy of Finklestein's Comment Central, another interesting piece from Robbie Millen on what is essentially the widening gap between fundamentalists and the mainstream.

Conservapedia is, frankly, astonishing. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that Wikipedia suffers from certain problems, but to suggest that it is over run by anti-Christian, American hating communists is frankly risible. Conservapedia attacks Wikipedia for clouding facts with liberal propaganda and unsurprisingly, all the US hot potatoes are cited: abortion, homosexuality and evolution theory/the big bang.

By virtue of the sheer number of people who moderate at Wikipedia, articles (on the whole) tend to the factual and avoid any one bias. That's not to say they don't outline various criticisms, etc. but the main article itself is usually factually based.

Not so in Conservapedia... take abortion. Wikipedia's entry is the description of medical procedure (which abortion is) where as Conservapedia's entry is a list of the horrors associated with abortion.

Why squeal about bias, only to replace it with bias of a different flavour*?

At least CreationWiki does what it says in the tin - it is open and honest about it's objectives. Conservapedia seeks to squash inconvenient facts that contradict theological beliefs and present the results as fact. It's not about the religiosity or beliefs, it's the deliberate deception and promotion of ignorance.

Give people the facts and let them make up their own minds. Wikipedia, for all it's faults, is still the better proposition because it shares and expands the store of human knowledge.

*That's flavour with a u. Hilariously they think this is ungodly. The patronising and ignorant mindset could possibly explain the phenomena.