One of the sweet joys of gym membership is that it instantly fills life with a multitude of joyous alternatives to going for a work-out. Just as when a teenager enters exam season, there is never a moment when there is nothing to do – but every activity other than revision becomes an exercise in bliss.
Having left the house with the intention of getting some exercise, I found myself sitting in the local Waterstone’s reading the Hugo Young papers.
The late and truly great liberal journalist would write meticulous notes following every off the record conversation with PMs, cabinet ministers, civil servants and aides.
His collected papers have been published and what is astonishing about his conversations with the great beasts of New Labour in the days before 9-11 is these men and women were gripped by the question of when Britain would enter the Euro.
This may partly reflect Young’s own passion for the European project, but the prospect of redefining Britain’s relationship with its immediate neighbours seemed to excite the bright minds who engineered the 1997 landslide.
Privately, the vision of Britain at the heart of an EU which is an international force for the values of justice, tolerance and cooperation may still burn in the hearts of frontbenchers, but they must feel like chapel elders who have watched the congregation dwindle to the point where there is no money to repair the organ.
Think back to 1999, when still-shiny Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown, Tory giants Kenneth Clarke and Michael Heseltine populist Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy came together to launch Britain in Europe.
These men seemed to relish the battle for ideas they anticipated. They knew they would have to convert the British public to the idea that the EU was not a diabolical threat – but Mr Blair had made Middle Britain fall in love with Labour, so why couldn’t he perform an act of grand enchantment again?
The terrorist attacks of September 11 distracted attention from the work of European integration. There was the need to confront an extremist movement which was pursuing its own nefarious project with ruthless energy and twisted imagination.
Did Mr Blair find that the Gladstonian spirit of liberal interventionism was more alive in the United States than the EU? It took American leadership and NATO hardware to intervene in Kosovo, and the transatlantic partnership was renewed in the occupation of Afghanistan.
By the time the UK and US were entering Iraq, the idea that Britain was about to join France and Germany in the bosom of Europe was laughable. Today, with the Eurozone in crisis, entry seems less appetising that a deep-fried brussels sprout.
Regardless of whether the federal project was flawed to begin with, what is to be mourned is the passing of a politics of hope.
A sense of purpose seems to have vanished from mainstream politics but we need leaders who want to do more than fire-fight and manage: We need them to build.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
...Christian unity is first of all unity with Christ...
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.187
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.187
Monday, February 22, 2010
Barth on Monday
Easter is the breaking in of a new time and world in the existence of the man Jesus... In this altered existence of His the first community saw not only a supernatural continuation of His previous life, but an entirely new life, that of the exalted Jesus Christ, and simultaneously the beginning of a new world...
If you have heard the Easter message, you can no longer run around with a tragic face and lead the humourless existence of a man who has no hope.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.113
If you have heard the Easter message, you can no longer run around with a tragic face and lead the humourless existence of a man who has no hope.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.113
Thursday, February 18, 2010
The Case for Rock Star Presidents
The cocktail in which showbusiness and politics are stirred together was first served many years before a British Prime Minister had drinks with Noel Gallagher or a Hollywood actor ran for the presidency.
When MPs enter the House of Commons they touch the foot of a bronze Winston Churchill for good luck. He is remembered as the greatest of parliamentary leaders, but he had a personality which burned brighter on the world stage than an early Mick Jagger.
Churchill could make extraordinary speeches, yet the flash of a V-sign for the cameras and his broad-bellied appetite for life inspired a nation to defy the precision-geared Nazi war machine.
Churchill’s rollicking, untidy, booze-fuelled, soundbite-shooting, America-enchanting public persona has more in common with British bands that routinely “invade” American shores than with the focus-group formed, managerial politicians at the forefront of UK politics today.
Politicians with the energy and impetuosity of Keith Richards or Johnny Rotten would struggle to survive in a modern party machine, but at least the public might know their names. Should we be concerned a third of students failed to identify Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour Party and a similar proportion did not know David Cameron helms the party of Churchill? Nick Clegg must be mildly irate that more than half did not know he headed the Liberal Democrats.
These three men are working hard for relatively little cash to sell their party to the electorate, but can they personally embody a vision for change with the gusto of a Desmond Tutu or even a Richard Branson? The electorate eventually kicked Churchill out of office but they forgave him for his less unenlightened policies because they remembered how the unquenchable fire of his spirit illuminated and warmed a country which could have frozen in terror.
Similarly, the international love affair with President Kennedy continues, long after his philandering and politicking have been exposed. Yes, he was a flawed man, but he possessed a magician’s ability to project a vision for a world beyond the Cold War. Eleven handwritten love letters and three telegrams to a Swedish woman are going under the hammer and are expected to sell for $100,000.
Meanwhile, controversy is aflame in the US over a planned mini-series from 24-creator Joel Surnow about the Kennedy clan, with a web campaign claiming it will be a “right-wing character assassination”. In four decades’ time, will similar fascination and battles swirl around the legacies or today’s leaders? The likes of JFK can still arouse passions because they were passionate about their calling.
It is no bad thing if party conferences have the atmosphere of rock concerts and there are balloons beside policy papers. Every generation has a shot at changing the world, and those who have a go will be remembered.
Link
When MPs enter the House of Commons they touch the foot of a bronze Winston Churchill for good luck. He is remembered as the greatest of parliamentary leaders, but he had a personality which burned brighter on the world stage than an early Mick Jagger.
Churchill could make extraordinary speeches, yet the flash of a V-sign for the cameras and his broad-bellied appetite for life inspired a nation to defy the precision-geared Nazi war machine.
Churchill’s rollicking, untidy, booze-fuelled, soundbite-shooting, America-enchanting public persona has more in common with British bands that routinely “invade” American shores than with the focus-group formed, managerial politicians at the forefront of UK politics today.
Politicians with the energy and impetuosity of Keith Richards or Johnny Rotten would struggle to survive in a modern party machine, but at least the public might know their names. Should we be concerned a third of students failed to identify Gordon Brown as leader of the Labour Party and a similar proportion did not know David Cameron helms the party of Churchill? Nick Clegg must be mildly irate that more than half did not know he headed the Liberal Democrats.
These three men are working hard for relatively little cash to sell their party to the electorate, but can they personally embody a vision for change with the gusto of a Desmond Tutu or even a Richard Branson? The electorate eventually kicked Churchill out of office but they forgave him for his less unenlightened policies because they remembered how the unquenchable fire of his spirit illuminated and warmed a country which could have frozen in terror.
Similarly, the international love affair with President Kennedy continues, long after his philandering and politicking have been exposed. Yes, he was a flawed man, but he possessed a magician’s ability to project a vision for a world beyond the Cold War. Eleven handwritten love letters and three telegrams to a Swedish woman are going under the hammer and are expected to sell for $100,000.
Meanwhile, controversy is aflame in the US over a planned mini-series from 24-creator Joel Surnow about the Kennedy clan, with a web campaign claiming it will be a “right-wing character assassination”. In four decades’ time, will similar fascination and battles swirl around the legacies or today’s leaders? The likes of JFK can still arouse passions because they were passionate about their calling.
It is no bad thing if party conferences have the atmosphere of rock concerts and there are balloons beside policy papers. Every generation has a shot at changing the world, and those who have a go will be remembered.
Link
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
...while looking back at the historical Jesus the Christian faith is accordingly looking forward at the same time to the new Adam - to the future that comes to the world and to man from God...
The fact that God's final decision for man has already been made means [that] there is such a thing as finality in history, even if this finality is of such a kind that it does not exclude a future but inaugurates it.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.264
The fact that God's final decision for man has already been made means [that] there is such a thing as finality in history, even if this finality is of such a kind that it does not exclude a future but inaugurates it.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.264
Monday, February 15, 2010
Barth on Monday
But the real mystery of Easter is not that God is glorified in it, but that man is exalted, raised to the right hand of God and permitted to triumph over sin, death and the devil...
Man's reconciliation with God takes place through God's putting Himself in man's place and man's being put in God's place, as a sheer act of grace.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.106
Man's reconciliation with God takes place through God's putting Himself in man's place and man's being put in God's place, as a sheer act of grace.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.106
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb
Who would you least like to encounter in the proverbial dark alley – a youth carrying a knife or a man holding a nuclear bomb?
The two threats may have more in common than we first think.
Experts regularly state that one of the key reasons why young people feel the need to carry a weapon is that they live in fear of attack. They do not want to start a fight – but they want to survive one.
Similarly, if a country races to develop a nuclear weapon it may not have any intention of immolating a neighbour, but it knows an enemy will think twice before attacking it.
The nuclear weapon has replaced a seat in the United Nations as the ultimate expression of sovereignty in the 21st century. There are countries which it is simply too dangerous to invade for fear of the apocalyptic retribution which could follow.
The West did not react with true fury when India developed the bomb. It was inconceivable that India would allow Pakistan to become a nuclear power and unilaterally redefine its relationship with its populous neighbour.
Just as community workers say the most effective way of reducing knife crime is to change a culture of fear, so the best way to avert a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is to promote a climate of trust through every diplomatic trick in the book.
But the international community does bridle in fear when the leaders of a nuclear-bound country look worryingly like James Bond villains. We can fully understand why a desperado dictator would be keen to harness the power of enriched uranium for destructive means.
Would the invasion of Iraq have taken place if we actually believed Saddam Hussein was in possession of a nuclear-armed missile which would shoot off towards Tel Aviv or Cyprus as soon as coalition tanks arrived at the gates of his palace?
Such a scenario is unthinkable, and this must be an incentive for a state such as Iran to use every ounce of collective ingenuity to develop a warhead.
Iran views the world through a fiercely post-colonial, nationalist prism. The acquisition of the greatest WMD yet conceived is a logical step in the ongoing process of self-determination; it is part of a battle for respect and security.
The fear of military attack is strong in the country, and so is the dread of cultural erosion and the imposition of Western values. Recognising these fears - without condoning human rights abuses - may be a first step towards calming jittering nerves.
The West, more so than ever post-Iraq, needs to demonstrate it believes in international sovereignty – no matter how disagreeable it may find the values of others. If we show we respect borders the people we fear today may feel a little more secure, and the world may become a mildly safer place.
Originally, a Thursday column
The two threats may have more in common than we first think.
Experts regularly state that one of the key reasons why young people feel the need to carry a weapon is that they live in fear of attack. They do not want to start a fight – but they want to survive one.
Similarly, if a country races to develop a nuclear weapon it may not have any intention of immolating a neighbour, but it knows an enemy will think twice before attacking it.
The nuclear weapon has replaced a seat in the United Nations as the ultimate expression of sovereignty in the 21st century. There are countries which it is simply too dangerous to invade for fear of the apocalyptic retribution which could follow.
The West did not react with true fury when India developed the bomb. It was inconceivable that India would allow Pakistan to become a nuclear power and unilaterally redefine its relationship with its populous neighbour.
Just as community workers say the most effective way of reducing knife crime is to change a culture of fear, so the best way to avert a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is to promote a climate of trust through every diplomatic trick in the book.
But the international community does bridle in fear when the leaders of a nuclear-bound country look worryingly like James Bond villains. We can fully understand why a desperado dictator would be keen to harness the power of enriched uranium for destructive means.
Would the invasion of Iraq have taken place if we actually believed Saddam Hussein was in possession of a nuclear-armed missile which would shoot off towards Tel Aviv or Cyprus as soon as coalition tanks arrived at the gates of his palace?
Such a scenario is unthinkable, and this must be an incentive for a state such as Iran to use every ounce of collective ingenuity to develop a warhead.
Iran views the world through a fiercely post-colonial, nationalist prism. The acquisition of the greatest WMD yet conceived is a logical step in the ongoing process of self-determination; it is part of a battle for respect and security.
The fear of military attack is strong in the country, and so is the dread of cultural erosion and the imposition of Western values. Recognising these fears - without condoning human rights abuses - may be a first step towards calming jittering nerves.
The West, more so than ever post-Iraq, needs to demonstrate it believes in international sovereignty – no matter how disagreeable it may find the values of others. If we show we respect borders the people we fear today may feel a little more secure, and the world may become a mildly safer place.
Originally, a Thursday column
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
Even if we are not capable of breaking out of the narrow bounds of our consciousness, God can nevertheless break into this consciousness.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.167
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.167
Monday, February 08, 2010
Barth on Monday
Once more God acts as the Creator, but not now as a Creator out of nothing; rather, God enters the field and creates within creation a new beginning, a new beginning in history moreover in the history of Israel. In the continuity of human history a point becomes visible at which God Himself hastens to the creature's aid and becomes one with him. God becomes man. In this way this story begins.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.88
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.88
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Don't rush it away
February is the month in which we are supposed to collectively grit our teeth, hunker down beneath the wet, grey skies, and will the arrival of spring.
But is midwinter a time of year which exists only to be wished away?
Now that we have computer screens not only on our desks but on our phones, we can see brightly lit pictures anytime we like. Advertising boards depict a reverse Narnia, where it is always summertime.
But this is not the reality which matches our lives, and is it an existence any of us would truly want?
Byron described his beloved as the “best of dark and bright” – and he was enchanted by a world in which shadows are not chased away and there is room for mystery.
I finally made the trip to Tintern Abbey a few weeks ago and the melting snow on the hillsides had turned the nearby river into a surging, dark torrent. Everything was wet, and white woodsmoke from chimneys curled up towards low clouds which reached down into the branches of the glistening trees.
The “ruined” abbey was the home of busy monks but since its dissolution in 1536 it has become a monument to stillness. In the last 474 years it has probably inspired more people than it would have done if it had remained a functioning place of worship.
Monks were early cinematographers. They knew the magic which takes place when light strikes a stained glass window and understood how it can kindle the imagination.
But today the great window frames nothing but the sky. Yet this picture of shifting cloud is more haunting than many a picture in the Tate Modern.
It stops you in your tracks with its minor-key magnificence. “What do you make of this experience of life none of us asked for but all of us have been given?” it seems to ask.
The extraordinarily successful Harry Potter and Twilight books are set in places far away from the blanket blue skies of California. In fact, Twilight’s Washington state location has much in common with the wet, forested environment of rural Wales.
The astonishing popularity of such “young adult” fiction suggests that millions of people appreciate venturing into a world where the noise and primary colours of MTV videos are swapped for a territory where dark exists alongside bright.
Such stories are illuminated with flashes of the courage and tenderness which cut through our own reality.
The modern utopian dream is that through a miracle of chance you win a lottery and escape winter forever in a state of independent bliss.
But it is among the mixed palette of colours we find in the everyday that the bold glow of friendship and the phenomenon of family is at its most brilliant and defiant. And this is a real winter wonderland.
Originally, a Thursday column.
But is midwinter a time of year which exists only to be wished away?
Now that we have computer screens not only on our desks but on our phones, we can see brightly lit pictures anytime we like. Advertising boards depict a reverse Narnia, where it is always summertime.
But this is not the reality which matches our lives, and is it an existence any of us would truly want?
Byron described his beloved as the “best of dark and bright” – and he was enchanted by a world in which shadows are not chased away and there is room for mystery.
I finally made the trip to Tintern Abbey a few weeks ago and the melting snow on the hillsides had turned the nearby river into a surging, dark torrent. Everything was wet, and white woodsmoke from chimneys curled up towards low clouds which reached down into the branches of the glistening trees.
The “ruined” abbey was the home of busy monks but since its dissolution in 1536 it has become a monument to stillness. In the last 474 years it has probably inspired more people than it would have done if it had remained a functioning place of worship.
Monks were early cinematographers. They knew the magic which takes place when light strikes a stained glass window and understood how it can kindle the imagination.
But today the great window frames nothing but the sky. Yet this picture of shifting cloud is more haunting than many a picture in the Tate Modern.
It stops you in your tracks with its minor-key magnificence. “What do you make of this experience of life none of us asked for but all of us have been given?” it seems to ask.
The extraordinarily successful Harry Potter and Twilight books are set in places far away from the blanket blue skies of California. In fact, Twilight’s Washington state location has much in common with the wet, forested environment of rural Wales.
The astonishing popularity of such “young adult” fiction suggests that millions of people appreciate venturing into a world where the noise and primary colours of MTV videos are swapped for a territory where dark exists alongside bright.
Such stories are illuminated with flashes of the courage and tenderness which cut through our own reality.
The modern utopian dream is that through a miracle of chance you win a lottery and escape winter forever in a state of independent bliss.
But it is among the mixed palette of colours we find in the everyday that the bold glow of friendship and the phenomenon of family is at its most brilliant and defiant. And this is a real winter wonderland.
Originally, a Thursday column.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
God is as he shows himself; God does not show himself in a way in which he is not.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Barth on Monday
The New Testament has left no doubt as to the fact that there is only one Lord and that this Lord is the Lord of the world, Jesus Christ. This is what the community has to preach to the world...
[The] community of Jesus Christ is not a reality which exists for its own sake; it exists because it has a commission. What it knows it has to tell the world. 'Let your light shine before men.'
By doing this, by being just as it was from the beginning, the unique, living advertisement over against the world, the advertisement of the existence of the Lord, it thus raises no false claim for itself, for its faith and its knowledge. No, Jesus Christ is the Lord.
[The] community of Jesus Christ is not a reality which exists for its own sake; it exists because it has a commission. What it knows it has to tell the world. 'Let your light shine before men.'
By doing this, by being just as it was from the beginning, the unique, living advertisement over against the world, the advertisement of the existence of the Lord, it thus raises no false claim for itself, for its faith and its knowledge. No, Jesus Christ is the Lord.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
