The Cityunslicker, as a well-written blog of sympathetic views, was a daily read for me even before Blogpower came along. I enjoy reading the 'Slicker's posts and appreciate the uncluttered layout of his site. Why, by the way, do so many bloggers go for “busy” page layouts, more suited to wallpaper than a page of text? You would think some of them were blogging the Book of Kells. But I digress.
My only beef was that he had for some reason removed Blogger’s standard link to his blog’s archives. I missed it and not only because it forced me to do this review from memory! I don’t have that much time to read blogs. Normally I only skim the posts presented by my aggregator. On occasion though- when something profound catches my eye - I like to browse at leisure through a blogger's earlier posts.
It’s also interesting sometimes - as I noted in my review of Bel is Thinking - to see how a blogger’s style has developed. The 'Slicker has stimulated both those desires on occasion, but I have not been able to act on them. As a good libertarian, it ticks me off when I can't act on my harmless desires. [Late breaking news: I am gratified to say that his clean new look, launched today, rectifies that problem.]
The political stance of the blog is what I would characterise as “sane.” I don't agree with all he writes, of course, but (for example) he passes the Polly test with flying colours
Along with most of the known world I regard Polly Toynbee as the devil incarnate whose only usefulness is in helping to define what you should not believe.
If, as Oscar Wilde said
To disagree with three-fourths of the British public is one of the first requisites of sanity
then to disagree with Polly is the final one. While no libertarian, and sadly as keen on regulation as the next man when his own interests are at stake, The Cityunslicker is at least always realistic about what State intervention can achieve. Let us be kind. He is still only 31. Enlightenment may yet come!
Until then, like many others, the 'Slicker continues to confuse bad laws with bad lawyers. As a libertarian lawyer, I was irritated to read his generalisation that
Lawyers always think the law is best and that is their solution to any problem; trust the law, not trust the market or trust people
This is the very opposite of my view. I know many lawyers who understand very well that the law is a blunt instrument and that its use is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Only ignorant politicians and their acolytes are taken in by its mystique, confusing what they wish with what is. Those who work with the law every day know that its relationship to justice depends (a) on how much public support it has, and (b) how many resources are deployed to enforce it. Law is not magic. It's humble man-made stuff and is as often defective as his other creations. However, at least the 'Slicker recognised, in the same post, that the failed lawyers are the ones who do the damage!
The Cityunslicker provides a regular good read. I commend his blog to you.
Next testimonial: Pub Philosopher.