A bit random

But I love this ad and this. It was created by Leo Burnett’s Mumbai office. The text works if you read either the whole thing, or just the highlighted bit…

Henley

Congratulations to Jonathan Howell!

 

Con - 19,796

Lib Dem - 9,680

Green - 1,321

BNP - 1,243

Lab - 1,066

UKIP - 843

 

2nd Amendment

I blogged a while ago on a USSC case regarding the personal right to bear arms. The court has ruled 5-4 to strike down DC’s stringent gun-ownership laws, and explicitly affirmed for the first time that there is a personal right to bear arms. The dissenting justices argued that this right was tied to service in a ‘well-regulated militia’, and was thus far more restrictive.

I disapprove. I don’t think you can just ignore the stuff about militias in the 2nd Amendment (which reads: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.). Scalia, in the majority opinion argued that the militia part is not meant as a limit on the pre-existing right to bear arms - but this seems a bizarre reading. I’m not entirely sure how I feel about gun control, and so this isn’t an ideological objection, I merely am arguing that the amendment does not appear to guarantee a personal right to arms.

MPs expenses…

Jamie Whyte suggested in yesterday’s Times that the way to get around MP expenses scandals is to give all MPs a flat lump sum, of say £200k out of which they could pay their own salary and allocate funding on staff, accommodation etc as they see fit.

I think this is an absurd suggestion. While the conservative within me likes the appeal of giving MPs freedom to spend allowances with greater flexibility rather than it being centrally dictated, I feel the results will be flawed.

On the one extreme, you may find selfish individuals awarding themselves larger salaries at the expense of office staff who are needed to allow MPs to fulfil their responsibilities.  While this is probably somewhat unlikely, the idea of MPs being able to set their own salaries in this way is somewhat worrying, as perhaps it may mean MPs feel pressured to take cuts in order to pay for more staff etc.

Also, it seems to be biased against rural MPs. After all London MPs, who do not have to pay for a second home, and transport to and from the constituency would be able to spend much more on salary and staff, than rural MPs who are forced to pay for these items. This seems unfair.

Finally MPs would likely spend the full amount - whereas currently many MPs do not push their expenses to the limits.

Zoo and Nuts

As my friend Peter has already blogged, our college JCR has considered a motion regarding the ‘lads mags’ Zoo and Nuts, questioning whether we should continue to purchase them from collective funds for the common room. Here’s a copy of the motion:

6. Zoo & Nuts

This JCR notes:

- That alongside newspapers, fashion magazines, music magazines and other publications, the JCR buys copies of the “lads’ mags” Zoo and Nuts every week.
- That this is paid for with JCR money, originating in the JCR levy taken off battels.
- That both of these publications feature pornographic images of women and advertisements alongside jokes and features (eg. “Assess my Breasts”) which many women and men find offensive.
- That these magazines can be purchased easily in any newsagent for a small sum or ordered from the Bodleian stacks for free.
- That <my college> is unusual among Oxford JCRs in subscribing to these magazines - most do not even buy tabloid papers.

This JCR believes:

- That sexual exploitation and the objectification of women are bad things.
- That the presence of these magazines is not conducive to a welcoming, tolerant and respectful atmosphere in the JCR.
- That their visible presence in the JCR does not create a particularly good impression of <my college> for prospective students or interviewees visiting the college.
- That the sex industry is not something which the JCR’s money should be supporting, especially when it could be otherwise used for drama, sport, music, charity etc.
- That people should have a choice as to whether their money will be used to buy these publications.

This JCR resolves:

- To immediately stop purchasing Zoo and Nuts for the JCR; and
- To mandate the Welfare Officers (Male & Female) to look into the possibility of buying other magazines, which may be of particular interest to the male population of the JCR, on a regular basis, which are not “lads’ mags”

 

The motion failed, so Nuts and Zoo survive. I missed the meeting, but have been rather conflicted about how I think people should have voted.

It seems clear to me that collective funds should be allocated by a fair decision procedure, and so a simple vote on the issue is an acceptable way to decide. Ben Saunders commented on Peter’s blog about this debate that:

I’m not sure this needs a principled argument (though one may be available), couldn’t it simply be the case that you should spend JCR money as the majority want and the majority may not want lads’ mags?

I don’t dispute that money should be allocated according to the wants of the majority (although there may be issues of persistent minorities etc by solely using a majoritarian principle, but that’s another debate), but surely people should have reasons for voting, and one might hope that these reasons are grounded in principled argument.

As I see it, there are two main branches of argument which could be used to oppose this motion. Firstly, there are those grounded in offence (this is the line which Peter takes). The thought here is that there are those in the JCR who may be (or actually are) offended by the presence of these magazines in a public area (perhaps on the grounds of the partial nudity on the front covers). However, I do not find arguments based on offence particularly compelling, and we do reach sticky situations when attempting to define situations in which offence is deemed ‘legitimate’. Peter’s account does not seem sufficient:

Sometimes, you can just see that a particular offensive action is pointless or not very important (eg. the ‘right’ to give oral sex to a dog whilst on a public bus [thanks to my philosophy tutor for that example] is just plain pointless offence). At other times, you can just see that a particular offence is very important (eg. some people get sincerely offended when they see 2 men holding hands. Yet we can all see that it’s important that gays be able to hold hands).

The second, and potentially more risky way (in terms of having people shout at you in the meeting) is to bite a feminist bullet, and argue that regardless of the offence these magazines cause, that they are unacceptable in today’s society as they entrench certain behaviours and attitudes as acceptable. This is the argument I would seek to provide, and lamented the lack of at the Union’s recent ‘Page 3′ debate. The problem here is that girls may stand up and say they are not offended and that actually the ability to use one’s body for profit represents female empowerment - at this point, someone putting forward my view is forced either to back down, or attempt to demonstrate why this is not the case. To continue the argument seems to depend on a strong elucidation of adaptive preferences. This was the problem at the Page 3 debate as no one was ‘courageous’ enough to stand up to a Page 3 Girl and say “even though you say you love your job, and want to do it, this is merely the product of certain immoral entrenched societal attitudes, which you are perpetuating through your actions”. To attempt a line of argument such as this appears hugely arrogant and paternalistic, but seems to be the best we can do.

I should make it clear that I don’t think either Page 3, nor lads mags, nor even hardcore pornography, should be censored or banned in any way. This would be vastly illiberal. Rather, the arguments should be made for why they may be unacceptable.

Edit:

After discussing this with my political theory tutor I’d like to revise my position slightly. When claiming (to the Page 3 girl, or contented housewife) are the product of their environment and social tradition, this is not the same as saying that they have made a mistake in picking that path. It may in fact be very much in the interests of the individual to follow that path (even in extreme cases, such as in some African countries where it is in a woman’s interest to be ‘circumcised’, as otherwise their marriage and thus survival prospects are bleak). We can however, still say that this is a bad state of affairs and that we should be trying to shift away from this.

Alcohol on the tube

I applauded when Boris Johnson, in one of his first acts as mayor, banned drinking on buses and the Tube in London.

Last night, there were protests against this decision. As the Times reports:

Six Tube stations were closed as thousands of people partied on the Circle Line. There were 17 arrests after four Tube drivers, three other members of staff and two police officers were assaulted. Around 50 staff were said to have been verbally abused or spat at.

What I find absurd is that this has been blamed on Boris. Bob Crow, the General Secretary of the RMT has said:

Johnson should apologise personally to all those who were assaulted and abused last night thanks to a half-baked gimmick designed solely as a publicity stunt and without a moment’s thought for the people told to implement it.

We warned that it could put our members at greater risk of assault, but there is no comfort in being proved right when Tube workers have been injured and abused.

This is absurd. As James Forsyth has said here, the responsibility for these actions lies entirely with the perpetrators. 

Congratulations to Edward Timpson MP

Not hugely surprisingly the Conservative candidate won the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, with a majority of 7,860 on a 17.6% swing.

This is very promising news, and should be built on by another certain victory in the near future in Henley.

As long as nothing catastrophic happens in the next two years (which is far from impossible), the Conservatives will form the next government of this country.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull…

…is actually quite good. Well obviously the plot is idiotic. But it’s great fun.

John Hurt and Cate Blanchett are especially good.

C&N: a forgone conclusion? The bookies think so.

Paddypower, the Irish bookmaker, has already paid out its bets on a Tory victory in Crewe and Nantwich, before the polls have even opened!

Apparently William Hill have only taken £45 worth of bets for a Labour victory…

The odds on betfair for a Tory victory are 0.04/1

Hat-tip: political betting

Libertarian Visit to Oxford

Patrick Vessey, leader of the UK Libertarian Party are coming to Oxford tomorrow. I only mention this because…

A while ago I was rung up by a journalist from the Cherwell newspaper in Oxford, asking for my comment on the coming visit of the head of policy of the Libertarian Party to Oxford. The article can be found here.

So I went on the Libertarian website, had a think and said:

‘I’m looking forward to the visit, and I’m sure it will be of interest to some of OUCA’s members. Regardless, I think that a vote for the Libertarian Party is a wasted vote. Those who agree with broadly libertarian principles of lower taxation and less state interference would be best served by a Conservative government. I personally disagree with many of the Libertarian Party’s proposed policies, such as the total abolition of income taxes, the NHS, and state pensions.’

Devil’s Kitchen, the uber-Libertarian blog of Chris Mounsey, the Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party wrote this post, in which he said I was ‘without doubt, a fucking moron.’

I’m sure you’ll agree that, as charming as this post is, it misrepresents, or at least misunderstands my position.

I commented on the blog as follows:

When I said that those with Libertarian principles would be ‘best served’ by a Conservative government, I was restricting my set of considered governmental options to those within the realm of reasonable possibility (ie. Con/Lab or some coalition including the Lib Dems). Obviously libertarians may be best represented by your own party, however, as this is not going to happen (at least in the short/medium term) I did not consider it. Apologies for not making myself clearer on this point.

You say that ’since the EU controls a significant amount of our legislation, a goodly amount of things that the Tories are promising are simply not possible.’ So you do seem to agree with me that practicality matters in politics. This is the primary point I was making, and aside from any ideological or policy issue.

I do disagree with some of your policy proposals and political philosophy, but that is a separate debate, and one which I hope to have in person in a few weeks time.

DK’s response was somewhat more measured than his initial attack:

I’m afraid that you have come in on this after nearly three years of bitter argument between myself and other people who think this way: we must vote Conservative because that is the only way possible.

However, the point is that the Tories are not Libertarian. They may be nearer in terms of economic freedom (but I would argue that even that is doubtful).

The true state of affairs is that Libertarians are not served by any of the main three parties: which is, why, of course, the LPUK was set up.

…

 I also realise, by the way, that it was a short article and thus required brief soundbites; I am just tired of people arguing that such and such is not possible.

For what it is worth, however, I think that the next GE will be almost entirely fought between Labour and Tories and that the support for small parties, which has been growing steadily over the last ten years, will be pretty much wiped out.

Anyway, the event is tomorrow. Unfortunately I can’t make it. If you’re interested its at 8pm in the Sutro Room of Trinity College. The speakers will be Patrick Vessey, the party leader; Tim Carpenter, the Head of Policy; Andrew Withers, the party chairman; and Chris Mounsey (DK).

Rather amusing

The Labour campaign in C&N has been trying to paint the Tory candidate as a toff rather unsuccessfully.

Guido has this. lol

The abortion debate

This is not an argument we have often enough. In the US abortion is one of the central points of political disagreement and debate. While this is not always manifested in positive ways, the issue is at the forefront of the public consciousness. In the UK, this is simply not the case - it has been years since the issue was last raised, and the limit reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990.

I’m in favour of a woman’s right to choose. Abortions should be safe, and they should be rare.

Now I’m not sure whether 24 weeks, or 22 weeks, or 20 weeks (as has been argued yesterday) is the right one. Indeed, I’m not even sure if the question of viability is necessarily the criterion on which we judge the point at which to limit abortion.

As Andrew Lilico argues:

Every creature has an environment for which it is well-suited and others for which it is less suited.  If I took you and put you at the bottom of the Pacific ocean, or buried you under soil, or put you in a volcanic steam vent you would not live for long.  The fact that you are “unviable” outside the environment for which your body is designed is no reason at all to doubt that you are currently alive.

Nonetheless, if we are to argue, as I would like, that abortions should be legal, then it is necessary to draw the line somewhere, and perhaps viability is the best way of doing it (or at least it is the easiest criterion to judge, without wading into very sticky moral issues). In which case, we should just listen to the experts and try to judge the point of viability. The earliest recorded (surviving) premature birth was at 22 weeks - surely this suggests that viability is possible before the 24 week limit that MPs voted to keep.

I would have supported lowering the limit to either 20 or 22 weeks. I also support suggestions such as those by Nadine Dorries to mandate a ‘cooling off period’ before someone can have an abortion. This would not serve as a barrier to abortion, and would not try to convince a woman either way - it would merely offer an opportunity for further reflection on what I imagine to be a traumatic and possibly regrettable decision.

Thoughts on IVF and family

The one major policy area where I disagree with the central party most stongly is on the issue of family. In tax policy we have heard talk of ‘rewarding family through the tax system’, and in the recent discussion of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, the issue of family has arisen again.

The issue at heart was whether lesbian couples should be allowed to use IVF in cases where there was not a ‘father figure’ available. While I imagine that it is important for children to have a male role model, I find it absurd that this should be a legal restriction on a loving couple’s ability to have a child.

Thankfully this Conservative supported amendment was defeated in the Commons by majorities of 75 and 68.

The Times reports here:

MPs who backed the fatherhood amendments said the traditional family would be undermined. Iain Duncan Smith, who proposed enshrining the importance of a father and mother, said that the new law would amount to telling couples that “fathers are not important, or are less important than mothers”.

The former Tory leader said there was overwhelming evidence that children without fathers were more likely to have problems at school and with drink and drugs. He also questioned whether the existing law led to genuine discrimination, as many IVF clinics already treated lesbians and single women.

His criticisms were backed by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’ Connor, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, in an interview with The Times. “I think it strange that the Government should want to take away not just the need for a father but the right for a father,” he said.

These arguments are simply not convincing. While there may be a correlation between children without fathers and greater propensities to drink, drugs etc, this is by no means a causal connection. I am almost certain however that there would be an empirical causal link between having two loving parents (irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation) and having good life chances.

Mayoral Debate

Last night I attended the Sky News/Intelligence Squared Mayoral Debate at Cadogan Hall. There’s a bit of coverage here.

It was lots of fun, although I don’t feel I learned anything about the candidates which I didn’t already. Doesn’t make a huge difference though as I sent in my postal ballot last week…

Boris seemed to be love-bombing Paddick, and agreeing on almost every issue. Collectively they attacked Ken on several issues, and even though he dodged the question about second prefs, I think Paddick would rather have Boris than Ken

Anyway, if you’re interested in watching the debate its being aired again this evening on Sky News at 9pm.