The Economist - amongst others on both sides of the political fray - has been busily portraying Cameron as an arch gambler this past week concerning his EU-antics.
I think this is playing into Cameron's hands, and that he's not really gambling all that much at all.
Firstly, there is one small area of gamble around the EU vote when it gets put to the public. I say small as it seems to me very unlikely that people will vote to exit the EU. We know all the main political parties will campaign to stay in. We know the current opinion polls show the vote being close. We know that in the run up to any referendum businesses will overwhelmingly be campaigning and bank-rolling the activities of those campaigning for a yes vote. With this in mind, the electorate would have to be very bloody minded to vote to exit, would it not?
Setting aside that small gamble, there's not much left. It seems people believe Cameron doesn't know the position of his EU counterparts, and they may not give anything away during negotiations, meaning they'd rather the UK just sodded off. But we know Merkel is a proponent of the UK staying in, and that the uncertainty that would be caused to the EU project by the UK exiting would be hugely destabilising in a number of different ways (economic, social and foreign policy at least).
We also know that Merkel and other European leaders were in touch with Cameron before he made his speech. We can therefore take it as read that he, as any mature politician would do, explained the predicament he was in, that he was going to offer a referendum to the people of the UK, and ask how the leaders would react to that...
... and here's the rub; Cameron would have discussed the referendum, and explained that he would be putting it to the people after renegotiation of terms of membership, and needs some small - phyrric - victory with which to return home, to ensure a vote winner in both general election terms and the referendum for Cameron. Is it not very likely, that Merkel, and others would have said 'ok - we will give you something small, we can guarantee something small during renegotiations (e.g. the working time directive not applying to the UK?), which you can take home, to portray as a victory.... then you'll very likely succeed at referendum as the people's appetite would have been satiated.
Finally, Cameron has unquestionably fixed one issue with his 'gamble'; as the polls over the weekend have shown, he has nabbed a heap of voters from UKIP, who are now completely stuffed come the next election.
So, perhaps it's a gamble for me to say it as the world of politics is inherently unpredictable (of course - if things go horribly horribly wrong in Europe in 5 years time, perhaps exit wouldn't be ridiculous... but that seems low on the likelihood threshold given things are already so bad and yet the polls are still close on in-out).... but I don't think Cameron has gambled that much here... I think he has played a strategic blinder, which Labour and others are queuing, or perhaps bumbling into cack-handedly.
If I were working with Labour I would be hammering out what Cameron's 'red-lines' on Europe are - I promise he has none, because he needs to wait until the negotiations are truly in the bag before he can be utterly certain of what little piffling victory he can come home with which will garner him votes and an EU referendum victory.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Who is the Luther, to Greatly Reform our modern politics?
The past - the original reformation
On the eve of All Saints Day, October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted the 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg.
This was a pivotal moment which many historians point to as representing a significant step-change in attitudes towards the Catholic Church. The 95 theses set out why the Catholic Church had got it wrong, and needed to change.
The Church had become vast, wealthy beyond belief, and made up of an elite which was incredibly distant from the normal people who made up the congregation. It was 'the establishment', and did not seek to represent the people to god, to seek their 'forgiveness' for sins, to atone for their mistakes and to channel their prayers to the almighty... what it really stood for, in the eyes of the people, was itself. It stood for ensuring its own continuation, for more lining of the coffers, for guaranteeing the clergymen's lifestyles - supported by the people's money.
In order for such an organisation to preserve itself in this way, it needed to be able to resist forces of change.
Change can be forced by the people much more easily when they understand the system which rules over them and can thereby scrutinize and examine. Keeping Latin, then, was one way of preventing understanding and ensuring the elitist institution could continue - unless you were well educated and wealthy, how could you learn Latin or enter the clergy?
These and more were the arguments put forward that resulted in the Protestant change.
The new establishment
It goes without saying that the similarities between the Catholic Church in 1517 bears clear similarities to any long-running state establishment/system.
In the past week we have seen some insightful comment pieces by Iain Dale, the prominent Conservative blogger, and Prem Goyal OBE, a contributor to Progress Online, on the UK political culture.
Iain has 'fallen out of love with politics'. He talks about how changed the people around him who have become MPs are. Amusingly, Iain says how they 'don't respond to texts anymore' (heavens above!). He talked about how he thought he might now be seeing politicians in the way the rest of the public do. Yes Iain - very likely you are.
Prem's article tackles the challenges of reforming the Labour Party, about how inaccessible it's internal procedures have become, and how it was 'ironic' that 'politics in the UK is such an insular pursuit', given it is all about the people.
It is interesting to see these two activists pose the same questions and points from across the political divide, anyone really interested in politics knows they speak of a serious issue at the heart of British political democracy.
Voter turnout has been declining significantly since the 50s and 60s. Particularly damning is the behaviour of young voters, the following from Mark Wadsworth is insightful;
"The UK population pyramid (from here) there are 19.4 million people aged 18 to 40, of whom about half (9.7 million) didn't vote in the 2010 General Election, in other words, there were nearly as many 18 to 40 year old non-voters as there were Conservative voters ."
So we know many many people no longer vote. Probably you, like me, also know people with abundant conspiracy theories about the activities of the Government, who don't vote because they think the Government is a law unto itself which is remote from the people, and is upto all sorts of bizarre and machiavellian activities, such as hiding the discovery of alien life. Trust too then, is at a low ebb.
The two - low turnout and low trust - are chicken and egg problems... if you think about it.
Those that do vote have - and I include myself in this - little confidence that things will improve, from one government to the next. Viewing the 2008 Obama election from afar, I, and I know there are many like me, were filled with enormous hope and optimism (sadly much of which was idealistic and misplaced), a kind of hope and optimism which seems to be missing from UK political events.... at least since 1997, which was more a sense of relief than anything else, in hindsight.
Dale believes the above problems are because the press paint politicians badly. I don't buy into this. I know many politicians, and the reason they get painted badly is.... believe it or not... because they behave badly. I don't mean they brake more rules than most. I mean because they are craven and evidently self-serving - the antithesis of what is needed in the job. They have lost sight of the main reason they are there, to represent the people.
Goyal feels that changing the machinery of the Labour organisational system will help Labour engage. He is partly right, but when talking about 'transparency' he embraces a small solution which cannot possibly hope to resolve the wider challenge.
The future - a recipe for reform
In many ways, the current system, and the people who make it up, mirror the problems of the Catholic Church when faced with the reformation.
Politicians use arcane language - the modern equivalent of Latin - and devise and utilise systems which are utterly inaccessible and nonsensical to the public.
Debt and deficit are habeas corpus and non sequiter to most people; they don't know what either mean and certainly most couldn't accurately describe the difference. Try asking anyone what quantitative easing is; some will tell you 'printing money' - which is the result of the political system being unable to explain the process adequately.
Labour, sadly, is a huge part of the problem. We cannot hope for the Tories to change - Conservatives are by nature an elitist establishment organisation; this will never alter.
Labour though, MUST reconnect with the people it claims to represent, because frankly, what is the point in its existence otherwise?
Labour once stood for something which was designed to upset the establishment. It has now been subsumed - like the Borg subsumes its enemies in Star Trek. The culture of hierarchy has got hold of Labour. Power has corrupted absolutely, as is its want.
Labour is not elite insofar as it requires money to become a major player. It is elite in that the members are political nerds from an exceedingly young age.... turning to political activism at the age of 16-20, at a point where they simply haven’t experienced enough of the real world, of the trials and tribulations of life in order to be able to represent the wider population – most of whom HAVE experienced these things. Becoming politically active at this age makes them set apart from the rest, and makes their world of political debate segregated. They are a profession; like lawyers, surgeons, architects, chemists.... whose work is incomprehensible to all but a few. This cannot be in the world of politics, where the job isn't to simply lead but is to represent.
Apart from the nerdist frenzy at the heart of Labour, feet dragging on the really meaty things people know would change the establishment has alienated people. Lords reform, electoral reform, political appointments, family members of staff, all should be demanded by Labour to demonstrate their anti-establishment credentials.
Transparency, yes this is important Prem goyal – but not the ultimate method of ensuring increased engagement. Lobbyists should be on a statutory register sure. Recall that any amount of transparency at the time of the Reformation would not have ensured accessibility of the clergy, as was achived under. What is needed is that same ‘accessibility’ revolution.
A hugely saddening fact is that the very people who might be able to reform the political system are those most likely to avoid interacting with it. Those politicians who are currently part of the Party, who wish to see change, must seek to change their party's recruiting and leadership approaches... to ensure that they are sending a signal that says; 'don't just vote for us; join us'.
But whilst change within is necessary, there must also be change without; many people look at the system with dismay, and turn their backs on it. This makes me wonder, what do they hope to achieve?
Given we're faced with a system on the scale of the Catholicism in the 15th and 16th centuries, we are then faced with an equally substantial response, which reflects the enormity of the reformation's effort.
So, taking the lessons from the above into account, what might a modern 95 theses for Labour politics look like? I can't come up with 95, but here's three to get us started...
Actively seeking normal people to become part of the Party and stand for election, not people with long part backgrounds or hardcore political nerds.
So there you have it. Not quite a modern Lutheran rival, but a fairly reasonable set of proposals that would imbue people with more confidence in the Labour political system. And you know what - they wouldn't cost the world either.
What do you think? Any ideas of your own? How do we change Labour, or change politics, in a way which works for modern society?
On the eve of All Saints Day, October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted the 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg.
This was a pivotal moment which many historians point to as representing a significant step-change in attitudes towards the Catholic Church. The 95 theses set out why the Catholic Church had got it wrong, and needed to change.
The Church had become vast, wealthy beyond belief, and made up of an elite which was incredibly distant from the normal people who made up the congregation. It was 'the establishment', and did not seek to represent the people to god, to seek their 'forgiveness' for sins, to atone for their mistakes and to channel their prayers to the almighty... what it really stood for, in the eyes of the people, was itself. It stood for ensuring its own continuation, for more lining of the coffers, for guaranteeing the clergymen's lifestyles - supported by the people's money.
In order for such an organisation to preserve itself in this way, it needed to be able to resist forces of change.
Change can be forced by the people much more easily when they understand the system which rules over them and can thereby scrutinize and examine. Keeping Latin, then, was one way of preventing understanding and ensuring the elitist institution could continue - unless you were well educated and wealthy, how could you learn Latin or enter the clergy?
These and more were the arguments put forward that resulted in the Protestant change.
The new establishment
It goes without saying that the similarities between the Catholic Church in 1517 bears clear similarities to any long-running state establishment/system.
In the past week we have seen some insightful comment pieces by Iain Dale, the prominent Conservative blogger, and Prem Goyal OBE, a contributor to Progress Online, on the UK political culture.
Iain has 'fallen out of love with politics'. He talks about how changed the people around him who have become MPs are. Amusingly, Iain says how they 'don't respond to texts anymore' (heavens above!). He talked about how he thought he might now be seeing politicians in the way the rest of the public do. Yes Iain - very likely you are.
Prem's article tackles the challenges of reforming the Labour Party, about how inaccessible it's internal procedures have become, and how it was 'ironic' that 'politics in the UK is such an insular pursuit', given it is all about the people.
It is interesting to see these two activists pose the same questions and points from across the political divide, anyone really interested in politics knows they speak of a serious issue at the heart of British political democracy.
Voter turnout has been declining significantly since the 50s and 60s. Particularly damning is the behaviour of young voters, the following from Mark Wadsworth is insightful;
"The UK population pyramid (from here) there are 19.4 million people aged 18 to 40, of whom about half (9.7 million) didn't vote in the 2010 General Election, in other words, there were nearly as many 18 to 40 year old non-voters as there were Conservative voters ."
So we know many many people no longer vote. Probably you, like me, also know people with abundant conspiracy theories about the activities of the Government, who don't vote because they think the Government is a law unto itself which is remote from the people, and is upto all sorts of bizarre and machiavellian activities, such as hiding the discovery of alien life. Trust too then, is at a low ebb.
The two - low turnout and low trust - are chicken and egg problems... if you think about it.
Those that do vote have - and I include myself in this - little confidence that things will improve, from one government to the next. Viewing the 2008 Obama election from afar, I, and I know there are many like me, were filled with enormous hope and optimism (sadly much of which was idealistic and misplaced), a kind of hope and optimism which seems to be missing from UK political events.... at least since 1997, which was more a sense of relief than anything else, in hindsight.
Dale believes the above problems are because the press paint politicians badly. I don't buy into this. I know many politicians, and the reason they get painted badly is.... believe it or not... because they behave badly. I don't mean they brake more rules than most. I mean because they are craven and evidently self-serving - the antithesis of what is needed in the job. They have lost sight of the main reason they are there, to represent the people.
Goyal feels that changing the machinery of the Labour organisational system will help Labour engage. He is partly right, but when talking about 'transparency' he embraces a small solution which cannot possibly hope to resolve the wider challenge.
The future - a recipe for reform
In many ways, the current system, and the people who make it up, mirror the problems of the Catholic Church when faced with the reformation.
Politicians use arcane language - the modern equivalent of Latin - and devise and utilise systems which are utterly inaccessible and nonsensical to the public.
Debt and deficit are habeas corpus and non sequiter to most people; they don't know what either mean and certainly most couldn't accurately describe the difference. Try asking anyone what quantitative easing is; some will tell you 'printing money' - which is the result of the political system being unable to explain the process adequately.
Labour, sadly, is a huge part of the problem. We cannot hope for the Tories to change - Conservatives are by nature an elitist establishment organisation; this will never alter.
Labour though, MUST reconnect with the people it claims to represent, because frankly, what is the point in its existence otherwise?
Labour once stood for something which was designed to upset the establishment. It has now been subsumed - like the Borg subsumes its enemies in Star Trek. The culture of hierarchy has got hold of Labour. Power has corrupted absolutely, as is its want.
Labour is not elite insofar as it requires money to become a major player. It is elite in that the members are political nerds from an exceedingly young age.... turning to political activism at the age of 16-20, at a point where they simply haven’t experienced enough of the real world, of the trials and tribulations of life in order to be able to represent the wider population – most of whom HAVE experienced these things. Becoming politically active at this age makes them set apart from the rest, and makes their world of political debate segregated. They are a profession; like lawyers, surgeons, architects, chemists.... whose work is incomprehensible to all but a few. This cannot be in the world of politics, where the job isn't to simply lead but is to represent.
Apart from the nerdist frenzy at the heart of Labour, feet dragging on the really meaty things people know would change the establishment has alienated people. Lords reform, electoral reform, political appointments, family members of staff, all should be demanded by Labour to demonstrate their anti-establishment credentials.
Transparency, yes this is important Prem goyal – but not the ultimate method of ensuring increased engagement. Lobbyists should be on a statutory register sure. Recall that any amount of transparency at the time of the Reformation would not have ensured accessibility of the clergy, as was achived under. What is needed is that same ‘accessibility’ revolution.
A hugely saddening fact is that the very people who might be able to reform the political system are those most likely to avoid interacting with it. Those politicians who are currently part of the Party, who wish to see change, must seek to change their party's recruiting and leadership approaches... to ensure that they are sending a signal that says; 'don't just vote for us; join us'.
But whilst change within is necessary, there must also be change without; many people look at the system with dismay, and turn their backs on it. This makes me wonder, what do they hope to achieve?
Given we're faced with a system on the scale of the Catholicism in the 15th and 16th centuries, we are then faced with an equally substantial response, which reflects the enormity of the reformation's effort.
So, taking the lessons from the above into account, what might a modern 95 theses for Labour politics look like? I can't come up with 95, but here's three to get us started...
Actively seeking normal people to become part of the Party and stand for election, not people with long part backgrounds or hardcore political nerds.
- Being honest – admitting mistakes and fallibility (this is the Boris bulletproof technique; people wonder why he is so successful. I think it's because he simply comes across as a lot more honest and straightforward. Even when risking opinions that seem unpopular he delivers his opinion without ducking and dodging in the way the electorate hates. People like this because it demonstrates their top requirement of politicians; sincerity. Miliband could take this very strongly with the unions – he keeps allowing the right wing papers to humiliate the Party over it’s donations of unions and their members. This should be laughed off as ludicrous every time it is mentioned. The Labour Party was BORNE out of the union movement, unions are made up of millions of the people of Britain and the idea that their money is somehow ‘dirty’ is disgraceful and deserves shouting down not meekly cowering about. When this is mentioned people should say “Union money is money of the working people that made this Party revolutionise the way decent working people were treated in this country, and we’re proud that our money comes from a source as good as that).
- Embracing constitutional reform; not half heartedly, but properly... no more u-turning once in Government, like we've seen on Lords reform and better voting systems.
- Language is a key factor. Keep it simple... Plain English needs to be taken to the next level in political literature and in political announcements. Don't allow political terminology to creep into decision-making meetings.
- Embracing the transparency agenda - not ducking it because sometimes it illuminates unhealthy use of public funds.
So there you have it. Not quite a modern Lutheran rival, but a fairly reasonable set of proposals that would imbue people with more confidence in the Labour political system. And you know what - they wouldn't cost the world either.
What do you think? Any ideas of your own? How do we change Labour, or change politics, in a way which works for modern society?
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Dan Hodges is right - and Labour need to hear him
Many on the left are likely to read the occasional article by (Glenda Jackson's son) Dan Hodges and squirm - not least because he mainly writes for the Telegraph, more so because he is hyper-critical of Labour's policy positioning and public affairs management.
This betrays a significant weakness of those on the left, namely their tendency to seek to control, at virtually all costs.
In the case of Dan Hodges, his move to the Telegraph from the New Statesman lead to him variously being described as a 'traitor', a 'right-winger', 'Tory' etc etc. Many seemed to feel that he should only write what he does about Labour in a Labour-supporting media organisation, if at all (their preference probably being that he not write).
Both the reaction of readers angry about Hodges' move, and the initial internal anger that lead to him leaving the New Statesman are good examples of a bad habit of controlling what is said about the Party by its supporters in public.
A Party machinery that seeks to stamp out criticism is indicative of a Party machinery unworthy of Government. Criticism should be welcomed if constructive, ignored if not. A desire to remove criticism from the discourse because it comes from a friend, shows the kind of controlling mentality that Hayek so brilliantly described in his seminal 'Road to Serfdom'.
Many things in the Road to Serfdom were wrong. Hayek promoted an extreme where a balance between the control of the state and the powers of the market did not exist, an extreme that would lead to a society devoid of justice where the frail or the vulnerable would undoubtedly be exploited and manipulated by the powerful (to a far worse degree than they now are), where the unrelenting force of the market would not be checked effectively.
Hayek's core message was however a true truth; state power is a huge force we should be wary of, there will never be convergence of views around the 'good', and taken to its furthest reach the state could become both a frighteningly inefficient and vast bureaucratic machine, and a cruelly single-minded beast that squeezed out the views of minorities - perhaps by force where it saw fit.
In the absence of a 'common good', which views are allowed to prevail? Ultimately, complete power placed into the hands of the few individuals that run the state (Cabinet/the PM) means that those few individual's views will have far reaching consequences for the lives of everyone in that state, whether they agree with them or benefit from them or not.
In order to avoid the Hayekian narrative from being applied to Labour, it must resist the urge to control where control is not needed.
Labour must embrace the diverse range of voices and respond to them where they have a point. It must be the most democratic organisation possible, and must advocate for stronger democratic structures in both the electoral system and wider society. It must - in an echo of the coalition's localism agenda - promote decision making at the lowest possible level, nearest to the people affected by the decision. If Labour sides with freedom to a greater extent than the Tories, then the argument that they are seeking to control is partly negated. Needless to say, in the case of taxation it is unavoidable that Labour will seek more control, but it should seek in all other possible areas to avoid regulation beyond what is needed to ensure the safety and security of all, and that required to fight gross inequality.
In the case of the Dan Hodges situation, Labour and its supporters, should accept that as much as what he writes may be uncomfortable, he has every right to say it, wherever and whenever he likes. Whilst writing in a paper that is read by so many Tories may seem like 'treachery' to some, it is one of few ways that his message is effectively heard, or should be... because surely the Party's communications boffins would not ignore what is written by a prominent Labour-supporting commentator in a powerful newspaper primarily read by Conservatives.
Whilst party adherents are wrong to dismiss Dan Hodges on the principles laid out above, they are also wrong because he clearly has something to offer. His recent articles highlighting the precarious nature of Labour's poll lead, the European challenge, and the lack of new policy were all compelling must-reads and Labour must take action to tackle the views he put forward.
Labour should make a clear case on Europe urgently; their current position is unclear and incoherent. They must announce bold policies in a range of areas which set the agenda; not just react to the Tories and say everything they're doing is 'bad', without offering a credible alternative, for they will not be elected on the grounds of opposition, and must pose a positive choice which makes absolutely clear what kind of a different nation they envisage (One Nation is not enough without policy to support it).
If these things are fixed, then the polls may change favourably in the way they need to, but what is certain is that Labour's current lead is not as solid as it seems and they will need to extend it substantially before they can rest... which is sadly something the Party seem to be doing already, at least in terms of policy.
On current form Hodges should be welcomed into the Party machinery and given a role around communications, not ousted from the circle because what he says is too close to the bone.
ps. Dan Hodges once wrote about the controlling tendency himself, in his first blog for the NS after a six-month hiatus following a hasty exit under uncertain circumstances.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Cameron's parenting agenda, genetics, and neuroscience
Tom Chivers’ Telegraph article looking at parental influence on child behaviour/future development is a great
demonstration of the current and future battle lines of left/right political thought.
Chivers argues against David Cameron’s
introduction of access to more free training/educational materials for new
parents. Whilst I don’t think Cameron’s plan will have any great impact, the
act itself is a minute step in the right direction, or at least a nod towards
it. As a Labourite, I have no reason to admire anything Cameron does, but even
a stopped clock tells the time correctly twice a day.
The basis of Chivers argument is thus; humans
are innately good at rearing children, the same as any other animal, because
they have evolved their approach over hundreds of millions of years. He goes on
to explain that children are also extremely good at getting from their parents
what they want/manipulating them (i.e. they’re not just receptacles) and that
this behaviour is determined by genetics, basing his evidence on a book by
Steven Pinker called the Blank Slate (arguing against the ‘tabula rasa’ theory
of mankind).
Chivers’ article is typical of right-wing
belief; humans are the opposite of a blank slate. They are born one way or
another, and what happens during their lifetime/early years doesn’t really have
a great impact on their behaviour as an adult. This is why he berates Cameron’s
interventionist action of putting money into training/educational resources for
parents.
Except of course he is wrong. What happens
during a child’s early years has a very significant impact on later behaviour.
There are mountains of evidence of this, and there is a similarly large amount demonstrating
that training/education for parents is effective – as Ben Goldacre helpfully
pointed out to Chivers, by linking to the relevant Cochrane collection entry; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008225.pub2/abstract
In my view, Chivers’ article offers a brief
glimpse of the future battle over the nature and nurture dialogue which
underlies political philosophy.
Chivers’ line is highly reliant on Pinker’s,
both are therefore wholly grounded in genetics.
Genetics are being lauded by
those on the right who find an allied science which is willing to explore the
realms which might demonstrate what they have always believed; that people are
born good or bad, that governments may come and go and intervene as they wish
but parents will be parents, children will be children, and people are born to
succeed and fail - no amount of money thrown at their circumstances will
change their genetically-determined destiny.
Alongside the geneticists arguing that they
are finding more and more evidence of a genetic backdrop to every personality
trait, there are the neuroscientists laying out their ideas of environmental
impacts on the brain. Since John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory expounded the idea
of emotional bonds impacting on the development of the child, neuroscience has
emerged as a potent force giving a hard-science evidential basis to his theory.
Bowlby essentially showed that emotional bonds broken or formed during the
earliest years of life, had a huge effect on later
emotional development. Emotional intelligence, in case you didn’t know it, has
a massive impact on success, wealth, happiness and suchlike. Attachment theory is therefore an argument for intervention; intervention by those in the family, the community, or the state.... to do something when parenting isn't working well, when emotional bonds are not being formed. Parenting classes are a piece of this puzzle. Maternity and paternity leave are another.
As we approach a time when more is known about
the mind, and the impact (or lack thereof) of the environment on it, than ever
before, politicians owe it to society to ensure that this knowledge is
reflected in policy. The proponents of opposing philosophies are likely to seek
to water down the merits of sciences from whence knowledge emerges that
threatens their worldviews. This is intransigence in the face of evolution of
thought, found in the worst possible sphere – that of life and death decision-making.
Whilst genetics will have a role to play in
our understanding of man, neuroscience has already given us compelling reason to
believe that the effect of upbringing on the developing child is profound. This
is a lesson policy-makers of both political persuasions have so far failed to
heed. The sooner they put children at the centre of all policymaking the
better, but in the meantime expect an interminable dispute about genetic
predetermination of outcome. Indeed, with the moneyed interests heavily on the
right, it is likely that genetic investigations into heritable traits will be buttressed
by big money in the same way that anti-global warming theories are supported by oil
and energy interests, whilst neuroscience research into environmental impacts
may be hindered by an opposite pattern of underinvestment.
Watch this space.
EDIT:
Cathy, a student of philosophy has also written
an interesting blog in response to Chivers’ article.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Blair's analysis of the riots is quite a good read and a worthy contribution to the debate, but there are some significant flaws to his argument worth flagging up.
In one of the better assessments Blair says of the rioters; "The left says they're victims of social deprivation, the right says they need to take personal responsibility for their actions; both just miss the point."
He is right to highlight that the philosophical divide isn't helpful, and solutions cannot come solely from the left or the right.
The right will fail to deal with the underlying causes - how can they do otherwise but fail? They believe in LESS Government intervention, not more, and it is hard to see how 'too much' Government intervention has brought about the riots....
The left's tendency to view all problems solely through the lens of financial inequality, poverty and deprivation also seems likely to hinder their ability to understand the sociological origins of the disorder. In particular, the Engelsian trait of hatred of the family nuclei may prevent proper interpretation of the dysfunctionality of families that Blair rightly highlights in his article.
However, Blair then states "The key is to understand that they aren't symptomatic of society at large." Well, no, insofar as society at large isn't on a precipice leaning towards rioting, but are they signs of an underlying problem with our society? I fear they are, and I believe many people will share that view.
In making the above statement, and that Britain isn't in the grip of a "moral decline", Blair then goes on to cite his very weak evidence to back it up; "I see young graduates struggling to find work today and persevering against all the odds. I see young people engaged as volunteers in the work I do in Africa, and in inter-faith projects. I meet youngsters who are from highly disadvantaged backgrounds where my Sports Foundation works in the north-east and I would say that today's generation is a) more respectable b) more responsible and c) more hard-working than mine was. "
His evidence is shockingly poor - the kind of thing only a politician would use (rather than an academic), typically when making a stump speech. He's relying on what he has personally come into close contact with; a very narrow sample indeed, and not something he should be depending on to give British society a clean bill of health.
I say to Blair - get out of your comfort zone, live for a while in an area that really suffers from serious youth violence, from anti-social behaviour, from racist division, and then think again. It wouldn't be hard for Blair to find such a place.
Or how about looking at the statistics around crime.... since 1959 we've seen a FOURTEEN fold increase in violent crime. See here for stats.
Now, whilst Blair can make his assessments of society by his measure of those he has come into contact with, so can I, and so can anyone else, and I have to say, having met many people from all walks of life, the prevalence of maltreatment by parents, abuse and suffering inflicted on people as they are children and adults, is shocking. How many people do you know who were abused by a friend or relative, or a random stranger? how many people have been assaulted? how many have mental illness? I have been assaulted, in a completely unprovoked attack, and it wasn't very nice, I can tell you - nor is mental illness, which I do not suffer from, but know many that do/have.
No, Blair's assessment is, like many politicians, sadly limited by his personal inexperience.
The phrase ad hominem is a bane on political argument because it prevents us from taking worthwhile account of someone's own experience and how it may have impacted on the views they express. Blair is an Oxford graduate, was educated at a prestigious public school, and has generally lived a quite sheltered life. Whilst I don't begrudge him, and I am sure there are many from privileged backgrounds who have provided excellent analysis of areas of life unfamiliar to them, Blair's background offers us some insight into what might be a rose-tinted view of British society; has he come face-to-face for a prolonged period with the kind of people from which disorder can arise? I think you need that before you brush aside concerns about our society.
Blair says "The true face of Britain is not the tiny minority that looted, but the large majority that came out afterwards to help clean up." I don't think the 'true face' of Britain can be simplified in such a way, but it is worth bearing in mind that 3,100 people have been arrested so far for involvement in the riots, which is doubtless just a small proportion of the number that were actually involved. Even with the best police work, it seems unlikely that they will have caught the majority of those who participated.
Moreover, the numbers of people that actually went out to clean up were very small. Lots of people agreed with the sentiment, and signed up to Facebook or Twitter groups indicating their views, but how many actually got out and helped?
Blair starts getting better towards the end of the article, but he makes a sweeping and flawed statement here; "However, I would be careful about drawing together the MPs' expenses row, bankers and phone-hackers in all this. We in politics love the grand philosophical common thread and I agree with Ed Miliband on the theme of responsibility.
I became an MP in 1983. Then, MPs were rarely full time, many didn't hold constituency surgeries and there were no rules of any bite governing expenses or political funding. So the idea that MPs today are a work-shy bunch of fraudsters, while back then they were high-minded public servants, is just rubbish: unfair, untrue and unhelpful.Likewise with the boardroom. I agree totally with the criticisms of excess in pay and bonuses. But is this really the first time we have had people engaged in dubious financial practices or embracing greed, not good conduct? If anything, today's corporations are far more attuned to corporate social responsibility, far better in areas like the environment, far more aware of the need to be gender- and race-balanced in recruiting."
The issue here is perception. Blair may well be right in saying not much has changed behaviour wise from MPs, bankers and journalists, but if people perceive them differently that is all that matters.
If crime goes down, but fear of it goes up, people will change behaviour accordingly - they will stop going out late at night in the area they perceive crime to be high. The same rule of perception applies for other issues.
If people perceive bankers and MPs to be behaving far more inappropriately, irresponsibly, and getting away with blue-murder, then yes, people may interpret that as unfair, indicating that not all are equal in the eyes of the law. The expenses scandal hogged the front-pages of the newspapers for months on end, so has the phone-hacking scandal, and the bankers bonuses story keeps on giving to this day; the world is not immune from these actions, they have repercussions, and people perceive a difference, a fall in the standards and norms which people in high office are obliged to follow, those who are meant to be setting an example.
Although we're sadly lacking substantial dialogue with and understanding of the actions of those that took part in the disorder and looting, I thought this video interview with some of those involved was intriguing, at one point one of the men says "and that's who the Government is looking out for, them people up there, that one pocket. They're not thinking about us", as he points to Canary Wharf.
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16048584 (noted - the interviewer asks a leading question here by pointing to the skyscraper, but he didn't indicate to the man anything about the Government, that was the man's response of his own accord).
Where I agree with Blair is that the root of this requires family interventions.
Irresponsibility and excessive inequality (not just in monetary terms but treatment by the law enforcement agencies too) are important factors.
But they are factors that ignited the flammable. That those involved in the rioting and looting were willing to engage in such behaviour says things about their particular backgrounds, and it is heartening that Blair, Cameron, and Miliband have all recognised this to some extent. All three have said things about the family, parental responsibility, and dysfunction, and these are themes that should have been long at the top list of priorities for any Government, yet have not been.
Blair says that we shouldn't talk Britain down with the broken society/moral decline rhetoric, as it sends a bad message abroad and damages our reputation. This would be a mistake, for we must openly debate the very real problems we have.
Other commentators have pointed out the opportunity these terrible actions have given, an opportunity to heal long held wounds. I share that view, and believe it is more important that we take that opportunity than worry about reputational effects, which in all probability would be transitory, whereas the problems with our society have an element of permanence about them.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Get Cable....
Phewee! Anyone smell that?
That’s the stench of a reeking plot by the Conservative-right to oust their most troublesome coalition comrade. Anyone who doesn’t see through the fog of war over bankers-bonuses and eye this plot for what it is should have their political-senses tested.
I’m talking of course about the Cable ‘gaffage’ which dominates this morning’s headlines, in particular in the Telegraph, which broke the story following its undercover reporters’ work;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215462/Vince-Cable-I-could-bring-down-the-Government.html
The first thing that should spark interest in the motivations of this story is the source. The Telegraph is a fiercely Conservative paper, make no bones about that. So it comes as no surprise that they went for a Lib Dem with their undercover work (but they could have gone for a Labour shadow minister too if so inclined). But why Cable? Why not Clegg? Or Alexander? Or any of the other uncomfortable bedfellows to the left of the coalition?
There’s a few reasons of course. Not everyone sits in the coalition so uncomfortably with their Conservative colleagues. Clegg and others get along fine. Cable is different, he struggles with the arrangement more than most, as has been a matter of public debate on a few occasions already.
The Telegraph and some of its more prominent bloggers – Benedict Brogan foremost amongst them – don’t like to see their pals on the right of the party being pushed around by these lefty upstarts. They’re eager to lend a helping hand when possible. They’re also eager to see David Laws, someone very much on the right of the Lib Dems, back in the coalition, to bring a right-leaning skew to the fore. Of course, there’s no room right now for anyone else, so someone would have to go to make way for David. Vince is their preferred candidate.
Cable has been making things tricky for the right-wing of the coalition lately. Especially on the subject of bankers bonuses.
Of course, Cable, being more outspoken than most, having that air of sainthood about him, and leaning to the left, is more in tune with the public on the topic of bonuses than most ministers. He also has some power through his cabinet portfolio.
Tricky then, that the Chancellor has a lot of friends in the banking industry alongside him in the Conservatives, and a strong desire to restrain bank bashing and bonus slashing. Indeed, it’s something they’ve been ‘discussing’ very hard recently;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cable-and-osborne-clash-over-bank-bonus-reform-2141291.html
Right now is a crucial time for the bankers and their Xmas treats – it’s bonus season, and we’re all going to hear very soon quite how greedy they’ve managed to be in the face of another extremely difficult year for the economy, when lending is still at historic lows. This will even be the case for virtually nationalised banks, which will still be doling out some £high-number-followed-by-lots-of-zeros to their staff.
So, the negotiations between Osborne and Cable on what to do must be fairly intense.
What better way to reduce Cable’s stock somewhat than to have him stung. Reduce the value of the cards he has to play with, and so make the deal a little sweeter to the Tory right.
At this point we should go back to the first question of why the Telegraph targetted Cable? Even if the Tory right wanted to get him, and the Telegraph did too, they wouldn’t know how to effectively do that and the sting operation used would be a waste of time unless they had a pretty damned good idea that Cable had been mouthing off to the press/people in his constituency. Think about it; they could have sent 100 undercover reporters to 100 MPs and come away with nothing juicy. No, before they embarked on this exercise they knew Cable was being loose-lipped.
It’s not a huge leap of the imagination to think that one of Cable’s Conservative colleagues might have spotted he was being a bit more ‘open’ about the coalition than they liked to the press in the corridors of power, and suggested to Benedict Brogan or one of his other colleagues the time was right to get Cable via a surgery-sting.
Voila. Cable’s stock reduced, so bonus-bashing negotiations curtailed, put onto cusp of resigning, and into a position where if he does resign it’s through his own fault – because of this gaffe – rather than him declaring that he had to conscientiously go as a result of bad policymaking by the Conservatives – pushing him to do less to stop the bankers bonusizing themselves silly. Door swiftly opens to David Laws – a much more cosy bedfellow for Osborne and the Tory-right.
Simples. Oh, and Benedict hasn’t mucked about stirring up resignation talk either; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100069155/no-one-in-the-coalition-will-trust-vince-cable-now/
My guess, for what it's worth, is that this sting was arranged by Osborne, or a close MP associate of his.
EDIT - 12.22pm.
Just one last worrying thought.
Perhaps a bigger issue to the Conservative hierarchy at the moment is Cable's hand in the News Corp proposal to buy out Sky. It is quite possible that that is the subject of the most intense negotiations at the moment - and something I have in the past proposed Cable could resign over if pushed too hard.
Cable is not stupid, and anyone who understands this issue will know that it will permanently change UK politics if Murdoch is allowed to buy out the remaining shares of Sky. Change insofar as it will move everything to the right, as a huge proportion of the population would end up getting news through NewsCorp.
This sting may have been motivated with both reducing Cable's stock in terms of bonus negotiations, and reducing the value of his resignation over something like the NewsCorp proposal.
If Cable waves this through now... especially as the news today is that the EU has done so (leaving everything down to Cable), then it will be a dark day for British politics and all those to the left. The sting may play a part in this decision.
Phewee! Anyone smell that?
That’s the stench of a reeking plot by the Conservative-right to oust their most troublesome coalition comrade. Anyone who doesn’t see through the fog of war over bankers-bonuses and eye this plot for what it is should have their political-senses tested.
I’m talking of course about the Cable ‘gaffage’ which dominates this morning’s headlines, in particular in the Telegraph, which broke the story following its undercover reporters’ work;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8215462/Vince-Cable-I-could-bring-down-the-Government.html
The first thing that should spark interest in the motivations of this story is the source. The Telegraph is a fiercely Conservative paper, make no bones about that. So it comes as no surprise that they went for a Lib Dem with their undercover work (but they could have gone for a Labour shadow minister too if so inclined). But why Cable? Why not Clegg? Or Alexander? Or any of the other uncomfortable bedfellows to the left of the coalition?
There’s a few reasons of course. Not everyone sits in the coalition so uncomfortably with their Conservative colleagues. Clegg and others get along fine. Cable is different, he struggles with the arrangement more than most, as has been a matter of public debate on a few occasions already.
The Telegraph and some of its more prominent bloggers – Benedict Brogan foremost amongst them – don’t like to see their pals on the right of the party being pushed around by these lefty upstarts. They’re eager to lend a helping hand when possible. They’re also eager to see David Laws, someone very much on the right of the Lib Dems, back in the coalition, to bring a right-leaning skew to the fore. Of course, there’s no room right now for anyone else, so someone would have to go to make way for David. Vince is their preferred candidate.
Cable has been making things tricky for the right-wing of the coalition lately. Especially on the subject of bankers bonuses.
Of course, Cable, being more outspoken than most, having that air of sainthood about him, and leaning to the left, is more in tune with the public on the topic of bonuses than most ministers. He also has some power through his cabinet portfolio.
Tricky then, that the Chancellor has a lot of friends in the banking industry alongside him in the Conservatives, and a strong desire to restrain bank bashing and bonus slashing. Indeed, it’s something they’ve been ‘discussing’ very hard recently;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cable-and-osborne-clash-over-bank-bonus-reform-2141291.html
Right now is a crucial time for the bankers and their Xmas treats – it’s bonus season, and we’re all going to hear very soon quite how greedy they’ve managed to be in the face of another extremely difficult year for the economy, when lending is still at historic lows. This will even be the case for virtually nationalised banks, which will still be doling out some £high-number-followed-by-lots-of-zeros to their staff.
So, the negotiations between Osborne and Cable on what to do must be fairly intense.
What better way to reduce Cable’s stock somewhat than to have him stung. Reduce the value of the cards he has to play with, and so make the deal a little sweeter to the Tory right.
At this point we should go back to the first question of why the Telegraph targetted Cable? Even if the Tory right wanted to get him, and the Telegraph did too, they wouldn’t know how to effectively do that and the sting operation used would be a waste of time unless they had a pretty damned good idea that Cable had been mouthing off to the press/people in his constituency. Think about it; they could have sent 100 undercover reporters to 100 MPs and come away with nothing juicy. No, before they embarked on this exercise they knew Cable was being loose-lipped.
It’s not a huge leap of the imagination to think that one of Cable’s Conservative colleagues might have spotted he was being a bit more ‘open’ about the coalition than they liked to the press in the corridors of power, and suggested to Benedict Brogan or one of his other colleagues the time was right to get Cable via a surgery-sting.
Voila. Cable’s stock reduced, so bonus-bashing negotiations curtailed, put onto cusp of resigning, and into a position where if he does resign it’s through his own fault – because of this gaffe – rather than him declaring that he had to conscientiously go as a result of bad policymaking by the Conservatives – pushing him to do less to stop the bankers bonusizing themselves silly. Door swiftly opens to David Laws – a much more cosy bedfellow for Osborne and the Tory-right.
Simples. Oh, and Benedict hasn’t mucked about stirring up resignation talk either; http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100069155/no-one-in-the-coalition-will-trust-vince-cable-now/
My guess, for what it's worth, is that this sting was arranged by Osborne, or a close MP associate of his.
EDIT - 12.22pm.
Just one last worrying thought.
Perhaps a bigger issue to the Conservative hierarchy at the moment is Cable's hand in the News Corp proposal to buy out Sky. It is quite possible that that is the subject of the most intense negotiations at the moment - and something I have in the past proposed Cable could resign over if pushed too hard.
Cable is not stupid, and anyone who understands this issue will know that it will permanently change UK politics if Murdoch is allowed to buy out the remaining shares of Sky. Change insofar as it will move everything to the right, as a huge proportion of the population would end up getting news through NewsCorp.
This sting may have been motivated with both reducing Cable's stock in terms of bonus negotiations, and reducing the value of his resignation over something like the NewsCorp proposal.
If Cable waves this through now... especially as the news today is that the EU has done so (leaving everything down to Cable), then it will be a dark day for British politics and all those to the left. The sting may play a part in this decision.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Will the Government put the BBC’s website behind a paywall?
That’s the question I’ve found myself asking (myself) lately.
In the past month the Government has predictably been ratcheting up the pressure on the BBC. The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt MP, has made a number of public statements which indicate a flavour of things to come.
One of the most interesting was quoted in a Guardian article on the topic; http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/25/bbc-website-jeremy-hunt
In this article Hunt is quoted as saying of the licence fee; "The way we collect it may have to be rethought, because technology is changing, a lot of people are watching TV on their PCs. "We're not going to introduce a PC licence fee and that is something that I do need to have discussions with the BBC to see what their ideas are."
All very innocuous on the face of it. But there’s plenty of room for manoeuvre here for Hunt and there’s a few possibilities of where this will lead.
One has to read between the lines to see at what point Hunt and the Conservatives are going to look to pay back the debts they owe to Murdoch for his media’s favourable coverage in the run up to the elections.
Let’s think for a moment of the possible ways the BBC could start charging for its website content…….. done? That’s right, there aren’t many.
One possibility is to monetarise the website, as hapless bloggers like myself so often try to, by putting adverts up. That’s never going to happen though, because this is, after all, the BBC.
They could fund it using some form of e-licence, but Hunt has ruled that out. The final option? They make it a subscription service. What’s another word for subscription doing the rounds on the internet these days; voila, a paywall.
And who else has recently introduced a paywall to a leading British news website? Rupert Murdoch of course, with the Times. And what has Rupert Murdoch been hoping for ever since he first started looking at the idea of sticking news websites behind paywalls? He’s been hoping for other media organisations to follow suit.
Here’s a nice video of an interview with Murdoch on the issue of paywalls; http://fora.tv/2010/02/05/Rupert_Murdoch_The_Future_of_Newspapers#fullprogram
Right at the start of the section dealing with paywalls the interviewer quotes Murdoch; “Rupert Murdoch in his December testimony to the Federal Trade Commission; ‘We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high quality, reliable news content does not come free’”
Ask yourself this; as one of the most recognisable organisations in the world, with a reputation for providing high quality, reliable news, doesn’t the existence of the free BBC news website stand smack bang in the way of Murdoch, or anyone for that matter, developing a paywall system? How can you convince consumers that high quality, reliable news content doesn’t come free when the biggest provider in the world is still not charging?
The timing here is perfect.
News Corp, and its subsidiaries such as the Times, can more than survive for a while irrespective of the number of paid up members. This is a huge organisation, with a lot of reserves and a lot of capital.
It will take the Government a while to win the argument about sticking the BBC behind a paywall, but with comments like those coming from Hunt, it’s on the horizon.
News Corp and the Times could suffer with low-users in the meantime, but once the BBC website goes subscription only, the paywall would have arrived on the global scene.
That would mark a sad day.
The cost of the information is one issue, driving those on lower incomes out of the high-quality news market and increasing their information poverty. Another, more frightening issue, would be that this would mark a slippery slope towards regulation of a far more regimented online world.
News Corp and many governing bodies around the globe see the freedom of the online world, both in a monetary and liberal sense, as a barrier to their desires; for the business, a desire to monopolise an unruly market, for governments sceptical of what might foment in an entirely free ‘anarchical’ online world, as a threat to law and order.
One only hopes there are enough sane heads in the green seats of Parliament to ensure that the BBC news website stays free. It is a force for good in this world above money, and the more Murdoch, his sons and his pals criticise it, the more it should be lauded.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
Some journalism in one of the more forward-looking papers has become lazy of late. Follow this link;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/01/babies-dont-suffer-working-mothers
As an advocate of the emotional needs of children, it astonishes me that progressive organisations like the Observer/Guardian are perpetrating the myth that children can have a healthy upbringing without the stability of consistent care.
Whether that care takes the form of the mother or father, grandparents or a paid-carer, is a key issue within this debate, but the article printed in the Observer (and which made it's front page today) doesn't seek to look into these important aspects; it focuses solely on mother-child relations, and encourages the misguided notion that children can now do without the consistent care they need. In an astonishing paragraph summarising the study it read "It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their child's first year, there were also significant advantages – an increase in mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said, the net effect was neutral."
It doesn't take much research to see that the authors of the article have a history of writing on feminist topics. Nothing wrong with that, but it puts the piece in perspective. It wouldn't be surprising if many of the Observer/Guardian's writers were young, ambitious left-leaning feminists, and one can imagine the hotbed of excitement in the office at a study that vindicates the desires of those who would rather not be stay-at-home mothers. It was probably that excitement that lead to the article making the front-page.
At this point readers may be jumping to the wrong conclusion that I'm a chauvinist. I'm very far from that and men who truly are chauvinists disgust me.
I won't go any further in taking apart the article itself, if you read some of the comments it has incited you will get the idea. The article didn't get a good reaction from the online readers.
But the item in today's Observer opens up a wider debate which seems sadly overlooked, especially in considering how relevant it is to these issues.
The debate around childcare is always framed in terms of whether it is better for the mother to stay at home or to work during the early, formative, years of the child. It rarely steps into the realm of the father's role. It also occasionally tends to deteriorate into arguments about whether it is sexist or not to argue that mothers should spend more time with their children, instead of working.
All these arguments fail to breach an accepted paradigm; that feminism and the results of its rise were an intrinsic good.
When I broach the topic of whether feminism is an intrinsic good I tread on hallowed ground and must do so daintily.
Indeed, I feel I recognise the importance of feminism more than many. Feminism and its impact on society have been sadly understated by so many across the globe and this understatement continues to this day.
Feminism's rise, and the resulting sexual revolution, was of course a redefining moment in Western civilization, a huge event with little to compare in history. Feminism’s rise was also of course something which occurred in a relatively small moment of time, tiny, even, when looking back over history.
Coinciding as it did with the zenith of excessive capitalism, it became entangled in the economic philosophy of that doctrine. And so, whilst feminism could have happened some thousands of years ago at the dawn of democracy in Athens, and lead to female emancipation at the time, with perhaps little other changes, instead it came about at a time when money was never more central to human affairs. Thus, it became about money.
Feminists will argue - quite rightly - that in order to be on an equal footing with men they must be able to earn equally. Money empowers, and in a society which revolves around money, it empowers a great deal.
But I find it fundamentally saddening that this is how feminism has developed.
Ultimately, money was the creation of patriarchal societies of old. It was also a creation of humankind's, not an intrinsic thing tied to our humanity since the first homo-sapiens existed. Childrearing, on the other hand is something very much tied to us, as with all great apes. To me, this importance is lost in the feminist/patriarchy debate. In a sense, so too have the children who this concerns become lost…. those children who are no longer afforded the opportunity of consistent parental care in their formative years, which was so normal in the past.
It is therefore bizarre, if not frightening, to think that a creation of man's – money, or currency if you will – has as demonstrated by feminism (as the arguments of today's feminists and those of the past attest), taken greater priority in both the mind of the individual and wider society than childrearing.
Perhaps it is utopian folly to consider, but would the sexual revolution not have been more genuinely revolutionary if the role of the child-rearer (at the time predominantly women), was recognised as the most important role an individual can carry out in their lifetime?
There are evolutionary aspects to consider too. These will become clearer over time, as the neuroscientific evidence begins to stack up as to the effects of parental/consistent-carer absence during a child's formative years, but for now there are still points worth looking at.
It is astonishing to think that a human instinct, child-rearing, has been overtaken by the desire to attain wealth, and the trappings that money allows.
The sexual revolution was too big an event in human history for it not to be an aspect of evolution. But is it a change humankind has made which will increase or decrease our survivability as a species?
Anyone who understands evolutionary theory will understand that it is all about adaptations; adaptations that increase the chances of survival, e.g. the increase in the size of our brains was an evolutionary adaptation that lead to us living longer because we could think faster and better.
Does sexual equality, where both parents are out carrying out the hunter-gatherer function, mean that people are more likely to live? and live longer? In a way it must, because it offers more chances to obtain the money necessary to eat/drink/buy shelter. But emerging neuroscientific evidence shows that brain development in children who are given proper care in their formative years, mostly by their parents and because one of them has stayed at home, tend to show better development patterns around the brain than children who are left at nurseries from a young age. Better cognitive ability, and better emotional stability.
In short, poor care of children in their formative years can lead to more aggressive children - not really surprising if you think about it (no matter how controversial that may seem).
Does a more aggressive child, with poorer cognitive and emotional ability carry better chances of survival and procreation than others? I would contend not.
Of course, it's impossible for me, or for that matter anyone else, to contend whether feminism as an evolutionary adaptation/mutation is going to lead to higher survivability in children or not. Perhaps it is the other side of the coin; as any evolutionary biologist will also tell you, mutations and adaptations can lead to a dead-end of reduced survivability, and the extinction of species.
Whilst I would never be so stupid to argue that feminism will lead to our extinction, it is interesting to think whether in terms of evolution it is a beneficial or negative change for society in the way it has played out, so closely tied to capitalism as it is.
Nothing though can detract from the fact that the parenting instinct has been overrun by an instinct for cash.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/01/babies-dont-suffer-working-mothers
As an advocate of the emotional needs of children, it astonishes me that progressive organisations like the Observer/Guardian are perpetrating the myth that children can have a healthy upbringing without the stability of consistent care.
Whether that care takes the form of the mother or father, grandparents or a paid-carer, is a key issue within this debate, but the article printed in the Observer (and which made it's front page today) doesn't seek to look into these important aspects; it focuses solely on mother-child relations, and encourages the misguided notion that children can now do without the consistent care they need. In an astonishing paragraph summarising the study it read "It found that, while there are downsides to mothers taking work during their child's first year, there were also significant advantages – an increase in mothers' income and wellbeing, and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. Taking everything into account, the researchers said, the net effect was neutral."
It doesn't take much research to see that the authors of the article have a history of writing on feminist topics. Nothing wrong with that, but it puts the piece in perspective. It wouldn't be surprising if many of the Observer/Guardian's writers were young, ambitious left-leaning feminists, and one can imagine the hotbed of excitement in the office at a study that vindicates the desires of those who would rather not be stay-at-home mothers. It was probably that excitement that lead to the article making the front-page.
At this point readers may be jumping to the wrong conclusion that I'm a chauvinist. I'm very far from that and men who truly are chauvinists disgust me.
I won't go any further in taking apart the article itself, if you read some of the comments it has incited you will get the idea. The article didn't get a good reaction from the online readers.
But the item in today's Observer opens up a wider debate which seems sadly overlooked, especially in considering how relevant it is to these issues.
The debate around childcare is always framed in terms of whether it is better for the mother to stay at home or to work during the early, formative, years of the child. It rarely steps into the realm of the father's role. It also occasionally tends to deteriorate into arguments about whether it is sexist or not to argue that mothers should spend more time with their children, instead of working.
All these arguments fail to breach an accepted paradigm; that feminism and the results of its rise were an intrinsic good.
When I broach the topic of whether feminism is an intrinsic good I tread on hallowed ground and must do so daintily.
Indeed, I feel I recognise the importance of feminism more than many. Feminism and its impact on society have been sadly understated by so many across the globe and this understatement continues to this day.
Feminism's rise, and the resulting sexual revolution, was of course a redefining moment in Western civilization, a huge event with little to compare in history. Feminism’s rise was also of course something which occurred in a relatively small moment of time, tiny, even, when looking back over history.
Coinciding as it did with the zenith of excessive capitalism, it became entangled in the economic philosophy of that doctrine. And so, whilst feminism could have happened some thousands of years ago at the dawn of democracy in Athens, and lead to female emancipation at the time, with perhaps little other changes, instead it came about at a time when money was never more central to human affairs. Thus, it became about money.
Feminists will argue - quite rightly - that in order to be on an equal footing with men they must be able to earn equally. Money empowers, and in a society which revolves around money, it empowers a great deal.
But I find it fundamentally saddening that this is how feminism has developed.
Ultimately, money was the creation of patriarchal societies of old. It was also a creation of humankind's, not an intrinsic thing tied to our humanity since the first homo-sapiens existed. Childrearing, on the other hand is something very much tied to us, as with all great apes. To me, this importance is lost in the feminist/patriarchy debate. In a sense, so too have the children who this concerns become lost…. those children who are no longer afforded the opportunity of consistent parental care in their formative years, which was so normal in the past.
It is therefore bizarre, if not frightening, to think that a creation of man's – money, or currency if you will – has as demonstrated by feminism (as the arguments of today's feminists and those of the past attest), taken greater priority in both the mind of the individual and wider society than childrearing.
Perhaps it is utopian folly to consider, but would the sexual revolution not have been more genuinely revolutionary if the role of the child-rearer (at the time predominantly women), was recognised as the most important role an individual can carry out in their lifetime?
There are evolutionary aspects to consider too. These will become clearer over time, as the neuroscientific evidence begins to stack up as to the effects of parental/consistent-carer absence during a child's formative years, but for now there are still points worth looking at.
It is astonishing to think that a human instinct, child-rearing, has been overtaken by the desire to attain wealth, and the trappings that money allows.
The sexual revolution was too big an event in human history for it not to be an aspect of evolution. But is it a change humankind has made which will increase or decrease our survivability as a species?
Anyone who understands evolutionary theory will understand that it is all about adaptations; adaptations that increase the chances of survival, e.g. the increase in the size of our brains was an evolutionary adaptation that lead to us living longer because we could think faster and better.
Does sexual equality, where both parents are out carrying out the hunter-gatherer function, mean that people are more likely to live? and live longer? In a way it must, because it offers more chances to obtain the money necessary to eat/drink/buy shelter. But emerging neuroscientific evidence shows that brain development in children who are given proper care in their formative years, mostly by their parents and because one of them has stayed at home, tend to show better development patterns around the brain than children who are left at nurseries from a young age. Better cognitive ability, and better emotional stability.
In short, poor care of children in their formative years can lead to more aggressive children - not really surprising if you think about it (no matter how controversial that may seem).
Does a more aggressive child, with poorer cognitive and emotional ability carry better chances of survival and procreation than others? I would contend not.
Of course, it's impossible for me, or for that matter anyone else, to contend whether feminism as an evolutionary adaptation/mutation is going to lead to higher survivability in children or not. Perhaps it is the other side of the coin; as any evolutionary biologist will also tell you, mutations and adaptations can lead to a dead-end of reduced survivability, and the extinction of species.
Whilst I would never be so stupid to argue that feminism will lead to our extinction, it is interesting to think whether in terms of evolution it is a beneficial or negative change for society in the way it has played out, so closely tied to capitalism as it is.
Nothing though can detract from the fact that the parenting instinct has been overrun by an instinct for cash.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Why Mehdi Hasan is wrong.
I read an interesting article by Mehdi Hasan today, who seems to have become the blinkered anti-Government Labour attack-dog of the moment. You can read it here; http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/government-clegg-labour
In the article Hasan felt it necessary to shoot down any possibility of significant political reform being undertaken over the course of this Parliament, or at least the possibility of that reform being on the same scale as that achieved under Labour's previous years in office. This is a very eager bit of forecasting by Hasan, given that this administration has only been in place for around a week. But that's not the point, and he's obviously not the only observer (or indeed politician - Clegg's comparison with the 1832 Reform Act and all subsequent political reforms is also a bit cheeky) to fire out spurious comparisons today. However, Hasan makes a much more galling error (or is he being deliberately misleading?) by arguing that the reforms outlined by Clegg are not going to be noteworthy in comparison with the Labour's constitutional reforms.
Silly Hasan;
Mistake no. 1)
In the first few paragraphs of the article, Hasan summarises the main planks of Clegg's reform plans by lazily nabbing a few bits from the BBC website. Naughty Hasan. He obviously read the rest of Clegg's speech so can't have failed to see it laced with tasty morsels of reform committments, but decided to focus on a few dribs and drabs also lazily summarised by the BBC. Here's the BBC post's bullet points;
* Elected House of Lords (note - Hasan 'conveniently' decides here to misquote the BBC as saying a "partially elected house of Lords" - NO HASAN! Partial is Labour's favourite method... the Con-Dem coalition is planning a fully elected OR partially elected House of Lords using a proper proportional system - A) we don't know if it will end up being wholly elected but we can hope, B) even if partially elected that's much more than Labour ever did, despite their promises. ps. I think teacher would deduct points for editing a pasted element from another source without highlighting the edit, even if you feel it is in the sake of your version of 'accuracy'.)
* Scrapping the ID card scheme and the national identity register
* Libel to be reviewed to protect freedom of speech
* Limits on the rights to peaceful protest to be removed
* Scrapping the ContactPoint database of 11 million under-18s"
Reading Clegg's speech, there's much more to it than that, which I can summarise as follows, but I recommend you read Clegg's speech in full; http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/government-british-clegg
* A referendum on electoral reform
* Elected House of Lords
* Scrapping the ID card scheme and the national identity register
* Libel to be reviewed to protect freedom of speech
* Limits on the rights to peaceful protest to be removed
* Scrapping the ContactPoint database of 11 million under-18s
* Increased regulation of CCTV
* Prevention of unecessary DNA storage
* Enshrining the right to trial by jury
* Preventing the unecessary fingerprinting of children
* A system to consult on the removal of unecessary laws
* A mechanism to prevent the introduction of unecessary laws
* Safeguards to prevent the misuse of anti-terror legislation
* The introduction of fixed term Parliaments
* Moving the power to dissolve Parliament from the Executive to Parliament
* Giving MPs more control over Commons business through the implementaion of the Wright Committee recommendations (yet another of those committees Labour initiated then ignored).
* Giving communities the power of recall of MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
* Regulation of lobbying through the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists.
* Reforming party funding and limiting donations
* Reducing the number of MPs
* Equalizing constituency boundaries (not actually in favour of this reform but hey-ho - it's reform isn't it?!)
* Referendum on further devolution in Wales
* Implementation of the Calman recommendations in Scotland for further powers in Holyrood
* Addressing the West Lothian question
Phew.... now that is an ambitious programme of reforms, whether you agree with those reforms wholesale or not.
Do those reforms "pale into insignificance compared with what was achieved, constitutionally, in the early years of New Labour in power." Well, even if we just stick to the ones which deal with constitutional reforms (i.e. political reforms) I don't think they do.
2. So, having corrected Hasan's mistake no. 1, we can take a look at his mistake no. 2 in earnest.
Hasan reckons the reforms proposed by Clegg don't match up with the Clegg proposals, but is that really true?
Hasan speaks about the following reforms by Labour during the early years.
* Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the introduction of proportionally elected assemblies.
* The Human Rights Act
* The Freedom of Information Act
* Removing most hereditary peers from the House of Lords
So, first devolution to Scotland and Wales? hmmm... pretty big, and important stuff. But Hasan is taking an interesting line on what he feels is more important to the politics of this nation.
The population of the UK is around 60 million give or take. Five sixths of that is in England.
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland account for just under 10 million people.
Scottish and Welsh devolution meant a lot to those 10 million people, and no doubt some of the other 50 million of us not living in Scotland and Wales were a vaguely interested too. But it didn't affect us much, did it? Furthermore, one must remember that the unification of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the opposite thereof, is a constitutionally significant thing, but that's not what happened here - certain very proscribed powers were devolved, and a lot weren't. Those powers still rest at Westminster, or indeed in Europe.
Taking just a couple of the Con-Dem proposals, in the form of a proportionally elected upper house in Parliament, and the introduction (if successful in the referendum) of the Alternative Vote, these would actually over time lead to very significant changes in the way this country - all of it, including Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland - is governed.
Mistake no. 3.
The other things Hasan summarises from the early Labour years in power following 1997, in my view don't compare to the programme of reform Clegg has outlined. For each and every one of Labour's achievements, Clegg's proposals can trump them;
A) Devolution to Scotland and Wales - not as significant as AV which has more impact on more people. Moreover, the coalition plans to devolve yet more powers to Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly.
B) Directly elected mayors. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, is it? (I suggest Hasan pays a visit to Doncaster Town Hall for a lesson in the positive impacts of this policy). The coalition doesn't really have a like-for-like comparable here in terms of local gov reform, although they do have an extensive programme of reform planned for local government. I'd suggest the planned primaries for the safest Parliamentary seats will have a bigger impact on local democracy. How's about fixed term Parliaments and the power of recall for good measure? bigger constitutionally? you'd have to be churlish to argue otherwise.
C) The Human Rights Act? - incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights you mean? well, that wasn't really Blair's big idea was it? he just incorporated something into British law. Whilst introducing the Human Rights Act in one breath the Labour administration introduced internment, removed the right to trial by jury, and has in short done more than any other British government in living memory to impede civil liberties. I don't think Labour's record on are something to laud, Hasan is mad to suggest otherwise.
Henry Porter and many others have spoken with relief at the massive programme of reform on this subject planned by the coalition; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/may/10/conservative-liberal-democrat-coalition-civil-liberties. Again, trumps what Labour did with the Human Rights Act, moreover remedies the huge injustices done to our rights under that Party's administration.
D) The Freedom of Information Act. People shouldn't downplay the significance of the FoI act, but regulating lobbyists and reforming party funding, along with addressing the West Lothian question and reducing the number of MPs are together a bigger change to our democratic system.
E) Removal of the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. A big change indeed, but what long-lasting change to our democracy did it make by having a primarily appointed upper House as opposed to a primarily hereditary House of Lords? I didn't feel the empowerment personally. The plans for an elected upper chamber using PR are far more significant than this.
So, I say NO HASAN! go back to school! Criticise the proposed reforms by all means, but do not underestimate the programme of reform outlined, for it is huge, as he you well know. Comments about the Conservatives opposition to Labour's past measures is completely irrelevant. The article was about comparing the achievements of Labour with the proposals. Sticking to that, the proposals go much further than what Labour achieved. Let's hope they can put most of the good ones into action. And try to resist churlishness, which appears to be the symptom of some of the New Statesman's commentators.
Hasan's pop at Clegg et al for the 55% rule is disgraceful. He accuses Clegg of being disingenuous. Will Hasan deny that this is a NEW power being given to Parliament? not a change to an existing one? Beware articles attacking the 55% rule, they are being written by people with an agenda who hope the readers are less familiar with Parliamentary practice than they arer.
Oh, and one final thing. In view of Hasan's closing comments about costs, even if the coalition adds many hundreds of Lords to the upper chamber, each Lord costs around £100,000 a year to fund, whereas an MP costs around £600,000. So if you reduce the number of MPs, you'd have to then introduce six times as many people to the Lords to negate the cost-saving.
Clegg, disingenuous? Hasan ought to look at that kettle and check the colour.
I read an interesting article by Mehdi Hasan today, who seems to have become the blinkered anti-Government Labour attack-dog of the moment. You can read it here; http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/05/government-clegg-labour
In the article Hasan felt it necessary to shoot down any possibility of significant political reform being undertaken over the course of this Parliament, or at least the possibility of that reform being on the same scale as that achieved under Labour's previous years in office. This is a very eager bit of forecasting by Hasan, given that this administration has only been in place for around a week. But that's not the point, and he's obviously not the only observer (or indeed politician - Clegg's comparison with the 1832 Reform Act and all subsequent political reforms is also a bit cheeky) to fire out spurious comparisons today. However, Hasan makes a much more galling error (or is he being deliberately misleading?) by arguing that the reforms outlined by Clegg are not going to be noteworthy in comparison with the Labour's constitutional reforms.
Silly Hasan;
Mistake no. 1)
In the first few paragraphs of the article, Hasan summarises the main planks of Clegg's reform plans by lazily nabbing a few bits from the BBC website. Naughty Hasan. He obviously read the rest of Clegg's speech so can't have failed to see it laced with tasty morsels of reform committments, but decided to focus on a few dribs and drabs also lazily summarised by the BBC. Here's the BBC post's bullet points;
* Elected House of Lords (note - Hasan 'conveniently' decides here to misquote the BBC as saying a "partially elected house of Lords" - NO HASAN! Partial is Labour's favourite method... the Con-Dem coalition is planning a fully elected OR partially elected House of Lords using a proper proportional system - A) we don't know if it will end up being wholly elected but we can hope, B) even if partially elected that's much more than Labour ever did, despite their promises. ps. I think teacher would deduct points for editing a pasted element from another source without highlighting the edit, even if you feel it is in the sake of your version of 'accuracy'.)
* Scrapping the ID card scheme and the national identity register
* Libel to be reviewed to protect freedom of speech
* Limits on the rights to peaceful protest to be removed
* Scrapping the ContactPoint database of 11 million under-18s"
Reading Clegg's speech, there's much more to it than that, which I can summarise as follows, but I recommend you read Clegg's speech in full; http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/05/government-british-clegg
* A referendum on electoral reform
* Elected House of Lords
* Scrapping the ID card scheme and the national identity register
* Libel to be reviewed to protect freedom of speech
* Limits on the rights to peaceful protest to be removed
* Scrapping the ContactPoint database of 11 million under-18s
* Increased regulation of CCTV
* Prevention of unecessary DNA storage
* Enshrining the right to trial by jury
* Preventing the unecessary fingerprinting of children
* A system to consult on the removal of unecessary laws
* A mechanism to prevent the introduction of unecessary laws
* Safeguards to prevent the misuse of anti-terror legislation
* The introduction of fixed term Parliaments
* Moving the power to dissolve Parliament from the Executive to Parliament
* Giving MPs more control over Commons business through the implementaion of the Wright Committee recommendations (yet another of those committees Labour initiated then ignored).
* Giving communities the power of recall of MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
* Regulation of lobbying through the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists.
* Reforming party funding and limiting donations
* Reducing the number of MPs
* Equalizing constituency boundaries (not actually in favour of this reform but hey-ho - it's reform isn't it?!)
* Referendum on further devolution in Wales
* Implementation of the Calman recommendations in Scotland for further powers in Holyrood
* Addressing the West Lothian question
Phew.... now that is an ambitious programme of reforms, whether you agree with those reforms wholesale or not.
Do those reforms "pale into insignificance compared with what was achieved, constitutionally, in the early years of New Labour in power." Well, even if we just stick to the ones which deal with constitutional reforms (i.e. political reforms) I don't think they do.
2. So, having corrected Hasan's mistake no. 1, we can take a look at his mistake no. 2 in earnest.
Hasan reckons the reforms proposed by Clegg don't match up with the Clegg proposals, but is that really true?
Hasan speaks about the following reforms by Labour during the early years.
* Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the introduction of proportionally elected assemblies.
* The Human Rights Act
* The Freedom of Information Act
* Removing most hereditary peers from the House of Lords
So, first devolution to Scotland and Wales? hmmm... pretty big, and important stuff. But Hasan is taking an interesting line on what he feels is more important to the politics of this nation.
The population of the UK is around 60 million give or take. Five sixths of that is in England.
Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland account for just under 10 million people.
Scottish and Welsh devolution meant a lot to those 10 million people, and no doubt some of the other 50 million of us not living in Scotland and Wales were a vaguely interested too. But it didn't affect us much, did it? Furthermore, one must remember that the unification of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the opposite thereof, is a constitutionally significant thing, but that's not what happened here - certain very proscribed powers were devolved, and a lot weren't. Those powers still rest at Westminster, or indeed in Europe.
Taking just a couple of the Con-Dem proposals, in the form of a proportionally elected upper house in Parliament, and the introduction (if successful in the referendum) of the Alternative Vote, these would actually over time lead to very significant changes in the way this country - all of it, including Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland - is governed.
Mistake no. 3.
The other things Hasan summarises from the early Labour years in power following 1997, in my view don't compare to the programme of reform Clegg has outlined. For each and every one of Labour's achievements, Clegg's proposals can trump them;
A) Devolution to Scotland and Wales - not as significant as AV which has more impact on more people. Moreover, the coalition plans to devolve yet more powers to Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly.
B) Directly elected mayors. Hardly groundbreaking stuff, is it? (I suggest Hasan pays a visit to Doncaster Town Hall for a lesson in the positive impacts of this policy). The coalition doesn't really have a like-for-like comparable here in terms of local gov reform, although they do have an extensive programme of reform planned for local government. I'd suggest the planned primaries for the safest Parliamentary seats will have a bigger impact on local democracy. How's about fixed term Parliaments and the power of recall for good measure? bigger constitutionally? you'd have to be churlish to argue otherwise.
C) The Human Rights Act? - incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights you mean? well, that wasn't really Blair's big idea was it? he just incorporated something into British law. Whilst introducing the Human Rights Act in one breath the Labour administration introduced internment, removed the right to trial by jury, and has in short done more than any other British government in living memory to impede civil liberties. I don't think Labour's record on are something to laud, Hasan is mad to suggest otherwise.
Henry Porter and many others have spoken with relief at the massive programme of reform on this subject planned by the coalition; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/may/10/conservative-liberal-democrat-coalition-civil-liberties. Again, trumps what Labour did with the Human Rights Act, moreover remedies the huge injustices done to our rights under that Party's administration.
D) The Freedom of Information Act. People shouldn't downplay the significance of the FoI act, but regulating lobbyists and reforming party funding, along with addressing the West Lothian question and reducing the number of MPs are together a bigger change to our democratic system.
E) Removal of the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. A big change indeed, but what long-lasting change to our democracy did it make by having a primarily appointed upper House as opposed to a primarily hereditary House of Lords? I didn't feel the empowerment personally. The plans for an elected upper chamber using PR are far more significant than this.
So, I say NO HASAN! go back to school! Criticise the proposed reforms by all means, but do not underestimate the programme of reform outlined, for it is huge, as he you well know. Comments about the Conservatives opposition to Labour's past measures is completely irrelevant. The article was about comparing the achievements of Labour with the proposals. Sticking to that, the proposals go much further than what Labour achieved. Let's hope they can put most of the good ones into action. And try to resist churlishness, which appears to be the symptom of some of the New Statesman's commentators.
Hasan's pop at Clegg et al for the 55% rule is disgraceful. He accuses Clegg of being disingenuous. Will Hasan deny that this is a NEW power being given to Parliament? not a change to an existing one? Beware articles attacking the 55% rule, they are being written by people with an agenda who hope the readers are less familiar with Parliamentary practice than they arer.
Oh, and one final thing. In view of Hasan's closing comments about costs, even if the coalition adds many hundreds of Lords to the upper chamber, each Lord costs around £100,000 a year to fund, whereas an MP costs around £600,000. So if you reduce the number of MPs, you'd have to then introduce six times as many people to the Lords to negate the cost-saving.
Clegg, disingenuous? Hasan ought to look at that kettle and check the colour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)