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…

Congratulations to Jonathan Howell!

Con - 19,796

Lib Dem - 9,680

Green - 1,321

BNP - 1,243

Lab - 1,066

UKIP - 843

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

John Hurt and Cate Blanchett are especially good.

On page 2 of today’s Financial Times is this story.

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