The arrogance of power

Catching up with a week of feeds after a hectic few days, my eye was caught by John Naughton’s post in Memex 1.1 Inside the bunker, linking to the FT’s piece about life in Number 10 (and perfectly juxtaposed with Naughton’s subsequent post, Hitler: the remix. When will someone do the same for Gordon: I would, if I had the IT skill: the Lisbon Treaty, Henley, Wendy Alexander etc.).

Now, this morning, Willem Buiter’s post in his FT Maverecon blog, Manners matter – especially for powerful individuals and institutions. This is Buiter’s conclusion on the Treasury, so long the home and fiefdom of Gordon Brown,

Politicians and others in positions of power should be judged not only on the quality of the decisions they take and the choices they make, but also on the manners they display in their public and administrative roles. The arrogance of power manifests itself in unnecessary brutality and cruelty – sometimes born of ignorance or indifference, sometimes deliberate – toward those whom it considers ‘disposable’. As the most powerful government department, the Treasury displays contempt for and nastiness towards those whom it considers to be obstacles to the effective pursuit of its goals, more frequently and with greater intensity than other institutions.

Even when the goals of the Treasury are aligned with the public interest, there is no presumption that these ends will justify the means used to achieve them. This is true even when these means are necessary; it is true a fortiori if the means are unnecessary ‘bad manners’ add-ons.

In practice, even the goals of the Treasury can be in conflict with the committed pursuit of the public interest. They may represent no more than the opportunistic pursuit of party-political or other sectional interests. To use gratuitous nastiness in the pursuit of the wrong objectives would be the nadir of public policy. Regrettably we see this too often.

Hosta Heaven

Last weekend we were garden visiting at Cleave House, Sticklepath, first Ann and Roger Bowden’s garden, where they hold a National Collection of Hostas, and then Bowdens Hostas, now run by their daughter and son-in-law. A very satisfactory morning, and three new plants for our garden.

Once home, and in the garden, the germ of an idea: there is a narrow gravelled area between the garden shed, home to Caroline’s collection of streptocarpus, and the bank that I have singularly failed to make into a rockery. I now grow alpines in the greenhouse. Why not a frame and netting to allow the dappled shade that hostas love, as well as saving the acer that hates the sun, but has to endure it at least some of the day?

One more task for the week off in August.

How much do we mind? Not a lot, it seems,

Not long after posting More on 42 days last week, I read The Economist’s take on the erosion of civil liberties in Britain, Mary Poppins and Magna Carta

Liberals have long lamented that, despite much stirring rhetoric about the mother of parliaments and Magna Carta, modern Britons have little real interest in their hard-won liberties. On June 17th, as Gordon Brown gave a speech on the subject, that pessimism seemed confirmed when one rapt listener fell asleep in the middle of the prime minister’s oration.

Much worse, however, was Gordon Brown’s argument “that new state powers were guarantors of liberty, not threats to it.” This was the position taken by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam and most recently Mugabe. Gordon must be pleased he is such good company.

“Search engine results can get facts wrong” (STBO)

I am not sure whether to be appalled or amused by one of last week’s front page stories in the Gazette, Net-surfing lawyers warned of compliance risk (not yet archived by the Gazette). Apparently, according to a leading QC solicitor, Andrew Hopper,

Solicitors risk breaching conduct rules and could face insurance claims if they use non-specialist online sources for legal research.

You don’t say! Are there any lawyers who are not aware that user-generated content is not always reliable. The story is a non-story (and perhaps more the result of yet another vanity publishing update than anything better).

Meanwhile, the article goes on, Emma Harris, Law Society librarian, told the Gazette: ‘Today’s trainees, despite the best efforts of law school librarians, don’t know the world outside the internet. . . ” Has no one told her that for better or worse (and in my view very much the former), the internet is not only how information is now delivered, whether it is the daily update, or the RSS feed, but the internet has also greatly expanded our access to information. What we should be doing is ensuring that lawyers understand how best to use the internet.

And STBO? ~ “Stating the bleeding obvious”

“I’m sorry, would you say that again?”

A further thought on the impact of the BlackBerry, this time (and thanks again to a link in one of Nicholas Carr’s posts in Rough Type) from Christine Rosen’s article in The New Atlantis, The Myth of Multitasking

In the business world, where concerns about time-management are perennial, warnings about workplace distractions spawned by a multitasking culture are on the rise. In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study, funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, that found, “Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.” The psychologist who led the study called this new “infomania” a serious threat to workplace productivity. One of the Harvard Business Review’s “Breakthrough Ideas” for 2007 was Linda Stone’s notion of “continuous partial attention,” which might be understood as a subspecies of multitasking: using mobile computing power and the Internet, we are “constantly scanning for opportunities and staying on top of contacts, events, and activities in an effort to miss nothing.”

How often have you been in a meeting, and suddenly realised that someone you thought was in the meeting was in fact temporarily “absent”, as he/she looks at her inbox (and not always with the BlackBerry under the table; sometimes it is quite open. What message does that send to everyone else in the room, aside from those doing the same thing?).