CentreRight

Labour are bringing back their pledge card, that most potent of electoral weapons from their giddy 1997 campaign. But what will feature on Prime Minister Brown's New Plastificated Pledge Sheet? We get a sneak preview:

• Pledge 1: Lord Mandelson Will Run The Government, For Ever ... no matter how often he is forced to resign for mortgage fraud or whatever. Only little people worry about such matters. What are you, a little person?

One of the things I most value about my innate Tory disposition is the liberation which it delivers from being forced into holding ridiculous views. Let me explain.

Keith and I were talking about Choudary's planned protest march in Wootton Bassett. Keith said - Is it Royal Wootton Bassett? And I said - I'm not sure, I don't think so, and he said - It should be. And of course he's right. You know he's right. We don't need to work out why it should be right for that town to be so honoured, or to make outlandish claims for our internal reasoning. We see the quiet dignity of the townspeople, honouring our fallen; we sense the solace provided to the grieving families, and we know that they are good people performing a good act. Without reference to anything. And I would like to see the country honour them for their service.

And similarly. Similarly. Even to make an analogy between my thoughts about the town and Choudary makes me feel angry with myself. Anyway. Similarly: I know that Choudary is a disgrace to every civilised norm I hold dear, and should not set the vile bodies of his supporters to march through that town.

One of the tenets of Christianity which I revere (while being incapable of joining in, as it were) is the very Christmas concept of the Word becoming flesh through the Incarnation. The idea that God became Jesus Christ in flesh is, of course, the central belief of Christians; but it might also tell us something about other words (for all our words must come from God, if we believe in Him). If God gave us language, there would be a sort of moral duty on the people who use words (that is, us).

Words anyway fascinate me. What are they? Hieroglyphs 'containing' a meaning, separate to the physical 'thing' of the word itself? Historically-squished phoneticisms, carrying the sounds used originally to denote that 'thing'? Well. I'm neither religious nor a linguist (definitely what I would urge my 16 year old self to study were I ever to write one of those letters) but on Christmas Eve I think there's something worth considering about words that might unite both Christians and their non-believing friends.

It is the idea that words are real things, with power, in the Universe (one of my central dogmas). Whether you derive your moral sense from the Divine, or whether (like me) you fumble together a way to live based on an urge to love, you are responsible for the selection of the words which you speak, or write; and you are responsible too for the impact they have on your audience. Not everyone will agree with my subordinate clause, there, because (and I understand this) if we are to have freedom of speech we must have freedom to cause offence. I don't suggest banning words. I simply suggest that words cannot be deployed without any recognition that they have the power to wound. If you do wound, you carry the responsiblity for the act.

I'd much rather write about Christmas (or even the EM Forster novel, come to think of it) than climate change, but something has been troubling me and I thought I'd share my concerns.

I'm worried that 'debate' about climate change has become pointless. Rapid polarisation has turned discussion about the quality of evidence, and the impact of that evidence on one's views about potential AGW, into a football match. Leftwing bloggers write sneering twitter comments about rightwing bloggers' inability to 'get' 'the science'; rightwing bloggers respond with what might be thought of as the written equivalent of 'I'm not listening, nah nah nah, it's cold this week so there can't be any warming at all'. Intelligent people attempt to move the discussion onto terms of economic consequences of specific actions; but I fear they are going to be disappointed.

I'm interested in why this has happened, and what it might tell us about the role of science in politics; science in general, and in particular what I think of as 'inference' but which is usually called 'the evidence'. In fact I could take my pick of issues on which to base this article. From David Nutt and the role of pharmacology in determining drugs policy, to Liam Donaldson and the role of epidemiology in determining alcohol advice to families, it's been a depressing year for people who cling to the irrational hope that there could be a role for rationalism in politics. I doubt this will surprise you, but I blame everyone involved, a bit.

A few months ago I got fed up feeling like a complete ignoramus about climate research. I'm not a physicist but I am a statistician, and I spent two years on a postdoc grant working in an atmospheric physics unit which modelled the spatio-temporal dispersion of atmospheric pollutants, and so I thought there must be some of the literature which I could read, critically, and come to a slightly more informed opinion. So I started reading about the 'hockey stick', a graph which appeared in the 2001 UN IPCC report, which powerfully showed a sharp increase in temperatures around the time of industrialisation in the northern hemisphere. The most famous version of this graph is due to a 1998 publication by three climate change scientists, Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes ('MPH'). You can read their paper here.

Some time ago I wrote a particularly ill-received piece here, called 'Incoherent Conservatives'. I wanted to raise the issue that coherence, a word with a precise meaning in the logic of induction (which I like) is often used in everyday English with an implicit positive intent (which I dislike; or at least, which I don't find sufficient to nudge me into liking the object of the sentence). You know: His views on the environment are totally coherent with his worldview. Sentences like that are meant, by the writer, to make the reader respond: And this is of itself good.

Most of the time I expect what I post here to disappear into the ether; sometimes I hope that you'll like what I say. I was mildly surprised by the strength of the objections to that post back in April, though I take some comfort from finding that Bertrand Russell agreed with me. It still seems to me that to prioritise a totally coherent programme for government would deliver an outcome both witless and eventually cruel. Start with the axioms of your ideology: and stop there too. Derive policies which cohere with your axioms and ignore the human response to those policies if they fail, because even to acknowledge a failure would require an admission that in our imperfect, pluralist world it is sometimes kinder to lack coherence than it is to stick to the framework you originally selected for decision-making. Anyway don't let's go back there. 

Oh go on then, let's. Liam Donaldson is too big a gift to the party for incoherence to ignore. Here he is again, demanding that parents refrain from letting their children drink a glass of wine at Christmas, or indeed anytime. Dr Donaldson is nothing if not consistent, since at the start of this year he was making the same demand, using the full might of his establishment-medical authority to inveigh against parents who dare to poison their children with a glass of wine at dinner.

I don't want to write about the PBR: first of all, I don't know what I could add to Andrew's masterly economic dissection, or Tim's withering political skewering, of its failures. Secondly, it's too depressing. I've had a rotten enough week at work (in the private sector we're already on zero per cent. pay rises, and headcount freezes or reductions, and doubling of productivity and so on - I know this will come as a surprise to any Labour minister who thinks that a fictional plan to limit public sector pay rises at some point in the fictional future is an "act" (in the fictional sense) of bravado) and I'm sorry, it's only a few weeks till Christmas.

I want to write briefly about the PMQ session which preceded the PBR. Mr Brown delivered a line which I'm guessing looked better when it was scribbled down on a briefing note than it did when delivered to the chamber. According to the Prime Minister, we Tories are all wind and no turbines.

The precise meaning of this gnomic utterance can be left to political theorists [clue: it means nothing]; I'm more interested in what is suggested by its deconstruction. The phrase is a direct allusion to what we west-coast Scots often say of our east-coast compatriots, perhaps in an effort to calm our envy of their delightful flats and that Festival hoo-hah and so on. It is not uncommon to hear expressed in Glasgow the view that Edinburgh is All Fur Coat And Nae Knickers. In other words, and as an example, that it is a town which would rather buy another delicious pot of piping hot Earl Grey tea, served in a nice china service, than pay for central heating, or, indeed, to fix that leaking roof.

Munching some Super High Fibre Dorset cereal this morning (it takes an hour to eat a bowl, thus reducing daily calorific intake, because by the time you've finished one, you're ready to go back to bed for a rest), flicking through the web, I came across this - surely Earth-shattering - story in The Telegraph: Aliens 'Already Exist On Earth', a claim made by Bulgarian scientists. 

Who could they mean? There are some clues in the commentary supplied by Lachezar Filipov, who is the deputy director of the Bulgarian Space Research Institute. He opined: Aliens are currently all around us, and are watching us all the time.

He goes on to warn: Extraterrestrials are critical of the people's amoral behavio[u]r.

On the Palace Pier in Brighton, in East Sussex's finest amusement arcade, there is a game, which I have played only once, but which has gripped my ability to form metaphor so completely that I think I must write it down in an effort to exorcise its hold. In the game, you are the holder of a hammer. On a board in front of you are perhaps a dozen holes, out of which, and in random order, protrude animatronic heads fashioned into simulacra of a common garden rodent. Your task in the game is to bash the heads of the "rodents" with the hammer, as soon as possible after they emerge from their lair, in order to prevent them from taking over your "garden". If you pride yourself on a phlegmatic approach to life, it can be a little disconcerting to find yourself, 45 seconds into the game, banging at the board with a frenzy which in most other circumstances would lead to an ambulance journey and a nice dark room.

Well. Life may not always imitate art; but it seems that politics may often imitate pier-end amusement arcade games. Because back in the news, again, is a proposal about which I'm quite sure I've written here at boring length in the past: the Law Society is again campaigning to give property rights to cohabiting couples, as though those couples were married. Worse, our party spokesman, Henry Bellingham, first of all welcomed these proposals, though David Cameron has stepped in and apparently ruled this out. Good.

Following on from Jonathan’s disquisition yesterday on the utility of celebrity endorsements for political parties, a spy at CCHQ has leaked me some of the pre-prepared announcements which will be fed to the press in the run up to the election.

Katie Price, author
What peepaw nee’ to unnerstan’ is tha’ I’m a real person, I’m no’ chus some celebriddy fashion model oo lives ov er looks, tha’ was Jordan, an’ I’m no’ Jordan, I’m Kaydee, an’ peepaw nee’ to see beyond my breas, an’ thas why I’m definitely vo’ing for David Camron, cos I heard he reely lahked me noo breas, do you lahk them, they’re yooj ain’t they? I nee’d sumpin to ge’ over ma split from tha’ bloke, and noo breas were chus the thing, an it reely made me fink, ‘ow is chus lahk picking a new government ain’t it, noo breas for a noo Britain.

Heather Mills McBeatle, former wife
Well I’m so heavily involved in my charity work, it’s everything to me, and it’s all I care about, and I really don’t have time for politics, but when David Cameron - we had a very serious relationship when I was at Cambridge, not many people know, and I don’t like to go on about it, but actually I was a fellow of Old Souls, and I supervised David's research into quantum physics, actually I had to do all his work for him, really I got him his First, he could barely write his name! - anyway when poor David rang me up, first thing I thought was ‘Oh no, I can’t ever have an affair with a Prime Minister, it would like get in all the papers and I’d be all over the radio and TV and I couldn’t have that, it would distract from my charity work, which is everything to me’ but he goes ‘Would you endorse our party for the election?’ and I thought, for old times’ sake, yeah go on why not - everyone loves a party.

-- Oi you two. Cut that out.
-- Paedophile! Paedo! Paedo!

My other half, Keith, is a lucky man, in many ways (see first three words of this sentence for details). More importantly, he's a good man. I'm also lucky (see first four words of first sentence for details), but I'm not so good. There's an Iris Murdoch novel called The Nice and The Good - but in any case most of her books deal with that never-ending conflict between the former and the latter: how hard it is to be good, when by the consequent actions, you may cause hurt to people you care about. My greatest failings, I'm aware, stem from an innate desire that other people are not discomfited by my existence; and this can lead, strangely, to failures of love. The ultimate, of course, in human failure.

-- I'm gonna kill you you little f*cker

If I'm invited to give a talk at a scientific or statistical conference, and I don't have any new results or stuff to talk about (or that I'm able to talk about), I have a standby talk that I dust down and deliver, which is an unpublished monograph, really, and the outline of a book I'm supposed to be writing with two friends, only work keeps getting in the way. The talk is called 'Evidence and Belief', and I use it to set out a paradigm for research in those areas of science where the stuff we don't know still outweighs, massively, the stuff that we do.

My thesis is quite simple. Evidence for, and inference about, parameters which describe some sort of population 'thing' of interest (like the clinical effect of an addictive substance on a population of its users) is properly summarised through something we (statisticians) call a likelihood function. Then your prior belief (prior, that is, to seeing the evidence) about that parameter of interest is properly modulated, in the light of the data (the evidence), via application of the Bayes' theorem to that likelihood function. But neither evidence about a parameter, nor belief about it (or related hypotheses) are the same thing at all as a decision to act on the basis of that evidence. Bayesians (the name for people who think like I do) think that risk (of a bad outcome) exists only at the point of the decision to act; not at the time when inference about the parameter of interest is carried out. 

You can tell where this is going.

You might assume, given this faith I have in a demarcation between evidence, belief and action, that I'd support the government's peremptory sacking of Professor David Nutt. He was supposed to produce evidence, and to make inference about the relative dangers inherent in drinking to excess vs popping an E (showing my age there, and, before you ask, no, never). But he was certainly not responsible for making a decision to act. That decision should be made by the relevant minister alone.

But David Nutt wasn't sacked for forcing a private member's bill into parliament and attempting to change the law. He didn't even campaign for the replacement of Alan Johnson as Home Secretary with our own spokesman, Chris Grayling, who thinks, er, exactly the same thing as Alan Johnson, except that he adds that Alan Johnson should have sacked Professor Nutt even more quickly (before he reported his scientific investigations at all, presumably).

I have a very poor ability to adjust to the time-shifts caused by crossing the Atlantic, so on Friday night (about 2am here) as I was shuffling onto the hideous piece of metal that would carry my terrified body back home to London (my fear of flying is the only concession I will make to irrationalism in this article), after a week spent waking up, ravenous, at 3am, I wasn't paying much attention to the CNN broadcast being played full-blast at our heads by the 'helpful' airport authorities (do Americans have a terror of silence in public spaces?). But my colleague in the queue behind me was (paying attention, that is). More bloody denialism, he muttered. Which made me look up at the screen.

What was on the broadcast was an interview with a family who had refused to have their child treated for cancer, because they distrusted the medical opinion of their doctor, and because of 'religious objections'. The broadcaster had found another MD to praise their approach. Just before I got on the plane, I heard their preferred doctor shouting - I've seen patients cured of incurable cancers! Cured!

I checked just now (google really is an amazing engine) and my memory of the snippet I overheard isn't wrong. You can read the full transcript of that edition of (what I now see was) the Larry King show here, if you wish, but I'm not writing this to slag off American television or that poor family (who I see now, having read the full transcript, did in the end (but only after a court order) permit their child's cancer to be treated with conventional medicine).

What really stuck in my mind was the resigned nature of my colleague's muttering. More bloody denialism. It's everywhere, these days, this denialism. It's an offshoot of the pseudo-religions we invent to pass the time. First environmentalism became somewhat cultish, accusing those not willing to sign-up to the theory that The End Of Everything Is Nigh of being, in some sense, heretical. ('The science is settled' - that would be a first, then, in the history of the Universe). Then, I'm afraid, the people who oppose the hypothesis of man-made climate change started their own branch of fundamentalism: it was quite cold this summer, 'therefore' everything the climate-change activists say is wrong.

At first I thought it was Twitterish hysteria, when on my commute home yesterday I read that Brown had announced plans to lock up young mothers in hostels. But it's true. He does want to do this. Mothers of legal age but without a male partner will be put into hostels, under the 'care' of social workers.

This is how it ends. But how did it start?

OK first you have to pretend that you don't actually subscribe to any fixed view about the correct way to raise children. It'll take a few decades for this to notion to bed down and become a norm, so start early.

It'll help you if you create an industry which provides succour and income to the likes of Beatrix Campbell OBE, a woman whose intellectually incoherent columns for the Guardian never mention the role she played in creating the current climate of hysteria about child-care and the family. You can enlist the BBC to pump out a sequence of dramas and soap operas whose plots will pivot on - surprise! - a hidden case of child abuse. The 'work' of this industrious cohort will help embed the idea in the nation's subconscious that there's something frankly suspicious about the family unit.

I've started to write this post on a number of occasions, but drawn back each time, because I don't want to add to the noise on the blogosphere about a topic I find innately distasteful. Tom Harris MP on his blog suggests that even to mention the subject of the Prime Minister's health is to add to the rumour-mongering, and I have a great deal of sympathy with that view.

However Andrew Marr asked 'the' question of the Prime Minister yesterday (according to Iain Dale, he asked specifically "A lot of people use prescription painkillers and pills to help them get through, are you one of those people?) and Nadine Dorries MP wrote what I thought was a splendid response to him this morning. If you read no further, read Nadine's thoughts. They're more or less the same as mine. I think 'prescription painkillers and pills' was a surrogate for 'antidepressants'.

By yesterday, even those paid to take an interest in proceedings had given up. C4 news uttered not one word about the Liberal Democrat conference last night. This morning, Today in its first hour devoted maybe 15 seconds (in one of those dreary scripted two-way 'conversations') to say that not much good had happened. I suppose the Lib Dems should count themselves lucky that the mischievous Evan Davis didn't jump in to mention the beached whale as a fitting metaphor for the week's activities.

Even that would have been too kind. A whale, beached or otherwise, is a magnificent fact of creation: graceful and terrible and mighty; hardly a fitting metaphor for the Liberal Democrats who, in a week they must wish is quickly forgotten, offered at least a trinity of disasters:

(1) Nick 'Savage Cuts' Clegg put on his ill-fitting guise of the Angry Young Man of British Politics, in a determined effort to sound stentorian. I imagine him lying in bed, in the early hours, gazing at the ceiling, and dreaming, in that between-sleep-and-wakefulness moment, of the conversations to be overheard at the Dog and Duck: That Nick Clegg! 'E tells it 'ow it is! I'm gonna vote for 'im! Perhaps he sees himself as Elizabeth I? Manning-up in order to deliver the message that his party - let alone the electorate - doesn't want to hear? We will savagely scrap our free tuition policy! he - well, not announced, more sort of tangentially 'let it be known' - only to retract the (non)commitment when the massed ranks of something called the Federal Policy Committee responded with that most lethal of Lib Dem weapons, a letter to the Guardian.

You know our favourite CentreRight parlour game: someone asks "What is Conservatism?" and then we enjoy piling in to the ensuing debate (it's about freedom! it's about control! it's about individual liberty! it's about a strong society!). Today I'd like to offer an epistemic basis for a particular definition held by people like myself. In other words, how is it that I believe my theory is a good one? Not the only one, not even demonstrably the best one (though I think that it is): but I want to explore the grounds on which anyone could advance any theory about what a Conservative should be.

I'm going to offer a rationale - some a priori reasoning, made in the absence of data, about why my view of Toryism has validity. But I wouldn't be a scientist if I didn't offer to test that theory against some data, to see what empirical support there is for the views that I hold. Finally, building on these first two stages, I'm going to suggest some general principles for reasoning about how Conservatives should approach the business of both constructing and checking on policy and its outcomes.

First I'd better say as explicitly as possible what I think the core of Conservatism to be. It is good neighbourliness. You might remember the articles I've posted here about my 'swimming pool theory': that the best swimming pools are those where you look after the interests of the swimmers closest to you; and that from such neighbourly behaviour is induced globally optimum behaviour across the entire pool,  quite without the need for external rules, standard operating procedures or lifeguard bellowing. It doesn't take much to extend the analogy from a swimming pool to life in general: if you care about your neighbour, your whole street will be happier. If we let our streets be happier, the city will work better. And so on. I think this is the basis for the localism set out brilliantly, for example, in Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell's The Plan. The point is that good outcomes come from looking after people next to us, not from inorganic machine-rules imposed from above.

Apologies for two bites at the Centre-Right cherry in one day! But the last posting was a personal musing based on a day in the art gallery. This one is full-on political. I want to build on Julia's excellent expression of distaste for the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Labour's proposals for the ISA - which goes live on 12 October - mean that an initial cohort of 11.3 million Britons will be added to the database of 'checked' adults. That's only a start, of course. This insidious, filthy law - actually, would it be possible to design a worse one? - will not protect children - that much is obvious - but it will lead to:

• fewer adults giving up their time to help in their communities;
• an increase in mutual distrust;
• the fostering of the corrosive anti-child culture which causes most men to shy away from so much as talking to a child in public, even if the child is in visible distress;
• an increase in unchecked antisocial behaviour (who's going to risk approaching a gang of teenage troublemakers now?);
• a waste of money on pointless bureaucracy.

The restaurant on the top floor of the National Portrait Gallery is as good a place as any for an epiphany, I should think. A slice of jerusalem artichoke speared by my fork, my eyes unfocused on the Whitehall rooftops, I'm thinking about coherence (because X, my lunch companion, is a distinguished philosopher of science whose central proposition, that the scientific method must be underpinned by a coherent system of induction, changed my life's direction entirely) and the tumble of thoughts arrive in their unordered, instant, torrent: Why do you care about coherence with regard to statistical inference but not political thinking? I wonder if X wants to see the Gay Icons exhibition? Do I really like jerusalem artichoke? - which last point brings me back to coherence; I have the epiphanetic insight and smile, as X asks: 

- Do you want to see the Gay Icons exhibition?

I laugh and - Oh, OK, go on.

Yesterday Twitter erupted, to general Labour delight, with a hashtag trending topic #welovethenhs. Superficially this was a reaction to Dan Hannan's comments on Fox News. (I haven't watched Mr Hannan's interview so I'm not going to refer to it again.) Here was the twittering populace, rising up, to give example after example of the wonderful health provision they had received from the NHS, so stick that up yer social insurance model, Johnny Foreigner. (It's funny, and sorry, this is already an interlude, and I must learn to stick to the topic, but it does strike me: do you remember, in the 80s, whenever the Left wanted us to change tack on any issue, it was Sweden this, Sweden that; but when it comes to the NHS, anyone who so much as examines the operating model in any other country is condemned as some sort of traitor? I think a Labour commenter on the Hannan thread yesterday actually used that word. Anyway it's us with the Sweden this, Sweden that thing now, come to education, and a good thing too).

Now, you know I seek selection for a parliamentary seat, and so I'm already aware that I have to choose my words carefully, because apparently if you deviate by an iota from any agreed script you are gaffe-prone and evidence of a split ('gaffe' is one of those words which is used by no-one except political obsessives; I think regular deployment is a signal to get out a bit more, to where people disagree with each other over a range of matters all the time. I work in scientific research, and I do wonder, sometimes, what would happen at work if we applied Westminster Village rules. A colleague presents a proposed experiment to investigate some therapeutic hypothesis. I don't respond by examining his case, but I jump up and shout: but this is a slightly different theory to any number of other ones published in the peer-reviewed literature! Yet you claim to work with us! This is a gaffe! You are destroying our scientific credibility! Unless we all say exactly the same thing all the time about everything we will be ridiculed as, er, gaffers, and, er...), but as it happens, on this topic, I don't have to choose my words with care, I can deploy them with gay abandon [stop it, Graeme - Ed]: I do love the NHS. I can't imagine Britain without it, and nor would I want to. Lots of us owe it everything.

This will be a difficult post to express correctly, and I don't imagine it will be popular. I want to decry the manner of the disclosure of the identity of the killers of Baby P. Their names and detailed histories were all over the media yesterday. I watch C4 news after work, and even there we were taken through their background in what I found to be a prurient level of detail; much to the delight of Lynne Featherstone MP, even as she struggled to explain quite what benefit for anyone was being delivered by the disclosure.

I learned nothing about how to improve social services that wasn't obvious from the original reporting of the case. We did learn that Baby P's mother had had a dysfunctional upbringing, spent time in a care home as a result of her unimaginably vile home-life, that later she repeatedly became pregnant, was a drug abuser and so on. I don't think that knowing her name made the relevant sociological theory (that this form of background and behaviour can lead to a failure of love with regard to parenting, in this case a failure of such inhumane proportions that it sickens us to read about it) any more or less tenable. And what, anyway, does Lynne Featherstone MP plan to do with this information? Will she introduce a private member's bill to make it illegal for women to have children if they were placed in care themselves, as children? No, of course not. The important verb in the last-but-four sentence is 'can'. Not 'does', but 'can'. Knowing the specifics of one case tells us nothing that isn't already blindingly obvious for the general framework of policy.

Roy Hattersley has an article on CiF with which I don't completely disagree! The shock of this realisation made me read the whole thing through carefully. And thus I found, tucked away and disguised as a bittersweet nostalgic anecdote, a reference to Hattersley's single worst contribution to public life.

His article takes issue with Esther Rantzen's ideology-free approach to the duties of an MP. I'm no great fan of ideology (see constant references to the 'Bigger Picture', ad infinitum ad nauseam) but I do agree with Lord H that some form of vision for the society you would like to live in is essential for a member of parliament; seeking to represent everybody as though the MP is a reporter on a light-hearted consumer protection television programme, which was mercifully extinguished sometime in the late 20th century, is probably not a suitable model. Let's leave that though, because I don't bear Esther Rantzen any ill will. What interested me was Hattersley's recollection from his decades as Sparkbrook's member:

What Hattersley proposed, of course, wasn't a 'compromise'. He wanted to prevent publication of the paperback version of Salman Rushdie's novel. There are many things about this I find shocking, not the least of which was the Labour member for Sparkbrook's inability to state clearly: in this country we do not ban respectable works of fiction. Even at 18 I knew there was something wrong, something which felt craven about this, and that it worried me to inhabit a polity where some senior Labour politicians didn't think it worthwhile repeating this truth loudly.

I turn off from the main square, loaded with bubbling tourists, I'm like a branch cast into a stream, first rushing along with the current, now thrown down an offshoot, away from the crowd. No self-direction. I'm in a dark tunnel, where only a pinpoint of light, and what sounds like a murmuring at the far end, confirm that this is a tunnel, and not dark oblivion. Down the passage and I find another public square, smaller than Piazza Erbe, but, disconcertingly, packed with rows of silent people. They're watching a film of a Shakespeare play, projected onto the far building's wall, and they're watching it, not just with attention, they're watching it, with rapture. Since we're just two steps from Juliet's balcony, I'm glad that it's The Comedy of Errors and not you-know-what. I breathe in some communal peace before tiptoe-ing back to Erbe, and back to the hotel.

*

-- Which part of Britain is the most Victorian? I'm asked at lunch on Wednesday. Hmmm. I start to describe Glasgow, home to my alma mater, but Paolo interrupts me: -- No, not the architecture, the political culture. Well, that threw me. I was tempted to say -- Anytime that Melanchthon is posting an article to CentreRight, but I didn't. I'm now going to disagree as strongly as possible with a fellow CR contributor, without offending etiquette. I hope.

While we're whiling away the minutes until the Norwich result comes out, my attention's been grabbed by a Twitter update from Luke Pollard, a Labour PPC in the south-west. Luke has discovered that the Harry Potter actor is a Lib Dem. Someone acidly remarked (OK it was me) that it makes sense for Harry Potter to be a Lib Dem: barely literate fiction, written for children, more popular than reason demands.

But it makes you think, no? Which of our favourite childhood characters would support which party, and why?

*
"My goodness," sighed Anne, plumping up the cushions in the caravan. "It's so lovely to be back here in this rolling rural idyll, but I do worry that we might not have sufficient access to our parents and their colleagues, in order to furnish us with the informal networks which middle-class children such as ourselves will use to propel themselves forward in the professions in later life!"

There's something black-dog about today, something heavy in the air, something that will never be good. Today is the seventh day of July.

*

Four years ago today ...  Londoners will pause and remember where we were, what we thought, the panic, the fear, the claustrophobia of the phone shutdown, the numb horror - this cannot be - when the first images came on screen ... the otherworldly quality of the victims emerging from the Underground - but that's Aldgate - the scarred wreck of the bus in the square ... the shameful relief when we finally made contact with our lover, our families, our friends ... shameful, because fifty-two families would not experience that relief.

What do we remember now? The daytime seems lost in a red mist of anger. Mainly I remember the babbling of the evening crowd. When Keith eventually came home from work (...) we went back out at once and got on a bus just to be with other Londoners and to show that we could. We went to Columbia Road, it was a sunny evening, and we found friends, we found a street alive with noise and people and among the shock and the thawing numbness, numbness thawing into anger, into fury, into a mix of relief and anger and disbelief, we found our friends, we touched one another. Everyone's eyes were all over the place, as though the walls of the solid London all about us were no longer to be relied upon. As indeed they weren't; one week later the same Hackney Road bus half-detonated in the aborted second-wave attack.

And pause: we remember the fifty-two and we shudder to think of their families, for whom four years will not have passed so quickly, I think. We remember the people who survived but with wounds they will carry to their end. Is it too much to think, too, of the goodness which was seen that day, in the bravery of the victims who survived? I hope it's not presumptious to cling to that, to take some borrowed strength (as if they don't carry enough) from their resilience, some hope from remembering the actions of those around them.

Today we will see the memorial to the fifty-two in its home in Hyde Park. The correct setting. A beautiful memorial; fifty-two pillars of steel, clustered into the four compass points of the atrocity, each pillar commemorating the human being whose life was taken. Like all that is good in human endeavour, the pillars reach for the stars. Stars so far away, stars which know nothing of our existence, stars from which we are all made, stars we stretch our arms towards.

Words fly up? I never thought it was wrong for our thoughts to remain below. We will visit the memorial this Saturday and give our words to the missing Londoners.

To know, know, know him, is to love, love, love him ... I do love that song. And it often pops into my mind when I'm swimming; Zen-like rhythmic splashing is a mental magnet for songs with a hypnotic beat of repetition. What I think about most in the pool is how hard it is to know other people. I do believe this: all we can change is all we can love, and all we can love is all we can know. Which begs the question - how do you know someone?

In scientific experiment, I would answer the related epistemological question How can I know something based on this observation? through a(n unpopular) adherence to logical positivism. But I don't think that gets me very far in understanding how to know another human being.

There's a glimpse of an answer to the human problem in a swimming pool. I don't know the name of a single fellow swimmer in the London Fields Lido, though most mornings I see more of their bodies than their close friends ever will. The strange contradiction, once you're immersed, and moving up and down the lane, is that despite the near-naked bodies all around you - the flash of a torso you catch as you turn your head to suck in air, the sliver of water falling from an outstretched arm, the flippering feet five seconds in front of your face - despite all this naked humanity, there's very little of the individual to be discerned. It's quite hard even to tell the difference between the men and the women, until you stop for a breather at one end or the other. In the quasi-religious hush which blankets the splashing lanes we are not Graeme, the introspective statistician who posts on CentreRight, or Mary, the green-voting bookseller with worries about her mortgage, or Dave, the carpet-fitter with his daughter enrolled at QMU - we are just early morning swimmers. All other identities shed, along with our clothing, I know nothing of the others save that we share this early morning passion. And I love them for it. Seriously. I feel a warmth of fellow-feeling which goes quite beyond a desire to discuss how to enact a tumble-turn. And after, when we're dressed and outside, fumbling over bike locks or peering at mobile phones, a residual warmth carries over, we nod and smile in that gentle English way, before parting to get on with the rest of the day (and not much else will be as good as that first hour).