I suppose this is what they call a blog. Except that blogs
are supposed to be updated more often than this is.
Tonight's
performance
of Messiah went well. Tomorrow's
(St Peter's Church, Oundle, 7pm; be there or be somewhere else)
should be good too, provided we can find a tenor soloist -- the
originally-billed one is ill and tonight's substitute can't do it
tomorrow.
Handel composed more than one version of some of the arias,
and some of the ones we're doing are quite different from the ones
usually sung. This is good, because it gives one a renewed appreciation
of the usual versions. (Well ... the unorthodox versions aren't
that bad, really, but the orthodox ones are better.)
Life
in Moving Fluids, by Steven Vogel. The second edition of a book whose first
edition pretty much created the field of biological fluid dynamics -- at least,
so the publisher implies on the back cover, and for all I know it's true.
Anyway, it's good.
The
Algorithm Design Manual, by Steven Skiena. My first impression: "What
a nice book". That hasn't changed on closer reading; it's a very nice book.
But I had a few nits to pick.
Browsing in a bookshop on a recent trip abroad,
I ran across something claiming to be
The Complete Book
of Fun Maths. It's only 173 pages long.
How depressing!
I always thought there was more than that.
Killing
Monsters, by Gerard Jones. He argues convincingly that
parental paranoia about media violence is misplaced and that
children need violent entertainment and fantasy; this
would be more entirely convincing if his evidence were less
anecdotal and if he didn't have an obvious vested interest.
My MP wrote an
article
for the Times about the Legislative
and Regulatory Reform Bill. It sounds pretty horrifying:
The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory
Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers
power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations
are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater
than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But
any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All
ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks
and voila, the law is changed.
But then the article goes on:
For ministers the advantages are obvious: no more
tedious debates in which they have to answer awkward questions.
Instead of a full day's debate on the principle of the proposal,
detailed line-by-line examination in committee, a second chance at
a specific amendment in the Commons and a final debate and vote,
ministers will have to face at most a short debate in a committee
and a one-and-a-half hour debate on the floor. Frequently the
Government will face less than that. No amendments will be
allowed. The legislative process will be reduced to a game or
take-it-or-leave-it.
(Added emphasis is mine in both cases.) The curious thing
here is that the first paragraph seems to say that the Bill,
if it became law, would allow ministers to create new legislation
without ever needing to vote on it, whereas the second seems
to say that there would be voting but it would be done more
quickly and with fewer options. The difference between these
possibilities is enormous; the first would indeed merit the
nickname "Abolition of Parliament Bill" that's apparently
been attached to this thing, whereas (in my opinion) the second
obviously wouldn't.
Well, let's take a look at the Bill itself. (Full text is
linked to above.) According to clause 13, there are three
procedures called (in order of increasing stringency) "negative",
"affirmative" and "super-affirmative". The minister gets to
choose one; it is used unless either House of Parliament resolves
within 21 days to require a more stringent one, or a committee
charged with looking at the order asks for it.
The "negative resolution procedure" means that the change
goes through unless either House of Parliament resolves within
40 days not to let it. The "affirmative resolution procedure"
means that the change goes through if each House of Parliament
resolves within 40 days to let it. The "super-affirmative
resolution procedure" is much like the ARP except that it allows
for longer consideration and for revision of the order if
Parliament asks for it.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this pretty badly, this means
that David Howarth's first paragraph quoted above is (while not
actually untrue) deeply misleading; Parliament does still have
the authority to stop legislative changes made in this way.
For anyone who's thinking "Beware
of the Leopard" at this point, I should mention that clause 12
requires that Parliament be informed.
The Bill may still be terrible; perhaps it will make it
easier for the government to introduce nasty oppressive legislation;
it may be stupid for entirely different reasons too; but it isn't
quite the thing of infinite evil
it's
been
portrayed
as.
Carfree Cities, by J H Crawford. Probably next up: "Killing Monsters", by Gerald Jones.
