The coalition and political biodiversity

I miss Matthew Parris.

I always used to read his Times columns but since that paper disappeared behind the paywall last year I have (so far) not succumbed to the temptation to sign up. But listening to him this week on Radio 4's Any Questions gave me a reminder of what I am missing.

I was particularly impressed with something he said about the coalition government with respect to control orders. He explained that he is a card carrying Conservative member and always will be but that on this and related subjects he does not trust his party's own instincts and the fact that Nick Clegg is coming at this from the direction of having been sceptical about them and will come to a judgement based on the facts presented to him is a good thing. He even said that he would trust Clegg's judgement on this basis and go along with whatever he decided. He went on to suggest that this is an excellent example of where the fact that the government is a coalition is a benefit to the country and that its decision making processes are the better for it.

I think Matthew is right. I would not go so far as to say that I personally would defer my own judgement to Clegg on this particular issue, I have my own view, but I certainly think the fact that politicians from two different parties are involved in the decision making process is ultimately a good thing.

I think for me it is a bit like biodiversity. In nature if there are not enough of a range of genes available within the pool of a particular species then eventually it atrophies and ultimately dies. I think that is what can happen with single party government and it certainly happened with the recent Labour administration. But with more than one party in government, the body politic has an infusion of different and in some cases disparate ideas from which the governing programme emerges.

Following this, I may even be tempted to do a month trial of the Times to get a more regular infusion of Mr Parris' disparate ideas!

Another reason why The Times' paywall experiment will fail

I have blogged at length about the future of newspapers and The Times in particular. Now that particular paper in its online form is behind a paywall.

The pricing structure is £1 per day or £2 per week which as I have said before is too expensive. However they are doing an introductory offer of £1 for the first month. Even though I think this whole enterprise is doomed to failure, for £1 for 30 days I thought I would have a pop to experience what life is like on the other side of the wall!

However when I started going through the process I found that in order for me to pay them the following information is mandatory:

E-mail address

Title

First Name

Last Name

Date of Birth

Country

Full address including postcode

And then some check boxes you have to navigate to ensure you don't get a load of marketing bumpf sent through.

I also went to have a look at the information they require to pay for 1 days' access. It is exactly the same. In the end, even at the very reduced price of £1 for a month I didn't bother.

Imagine if you popped down to the newsagents to pick up the Times and before they would let you purchase it you had to fill in a form with all of that personal data listed above. You'd tell them to go and shove it. If they are serious about trying to make this work, they need to come up with an easier way to take payments from people. The fact that they have not done so makes me think they are not serious.

This is yet another reason why The Times' paywall experiment is doomed to failure.