Author: David Landon Cole

Dave Hill’s ten reasons to vote for Ken Livingstone

Posted on by David Landon Cole

You can read them in full, with the logic behind them, on Liberal Conspiracy.

One: Livingstone Has Better Policies

Two: Livingstone Has Made The Best Joke

Three: Brian Paddick & His Partner

Four: Livingstone Is A Better Politician

Five: London Needs To Be Bossed From The CentreSix: Livingstone Is A Better Leader

Seven: The Evening Standard Will Be Gutted If Livingstone Wins

Eight: The Tories Don’t Really Deserve To Win

Nine: Livingstone Knows More Of London And Londoners

Ten: We Can’t Be Sure What A Mayor Johnson Would Do

Kevin Maguire of the Daily Mirror also has a cut-out-and-keep guide for whatever happens tomorrow.

There is another good reason to vote, whoever you cast your vote for: a higher turnout makes it harder for the BNP to have people elected to the assembly.

xD.

Humhprey Lyttelon, 1921 – 2008

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Humphrey Lyttelton blowing his hornI caught the last few seconds of Newsnight Review to see a picture of Humphrey Lyttleton and my heart sank. It turned out that he died this evening at seven o’ clock. Humph and ISIHAC hold a special attraction for me.

I first discovered Humphrey Lyttelton where I would probably hear him most often; in my father’s car. He was chairing I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue, one of the silliest and funniest radio programmes ever to be broadcast. It turned an obscure station on the Northern line – Mornington Crescent – into a monument to the character of the English, made familiar figures out of the lovely Samantha and the rippling Sven and, on more than one occasion, caused Dad to pull onto the hard shoulder because the risk of him causing an accident because he and I were laughing at Humph on the radio.

When I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue was commissioned, radio comedy was in a sorry state. Consisting almost entirely of panel games, it was bland and it was formulaic. The show was to be an unscripted version of I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again; if jazz was the antidote to scripted music, who better to lead the antidote to panel games than a famous jazz trumpter – ‘Humph’.

I suspect that for many people, Humphrey Lyttelton was first and foremost the chair of ISIHAC. He was, of course, a fantastic musicia; indeed, he was described by Louis Armstrong as ‘that cat in England who swings his ass off’. His dedication to music, I think, is without question. In September 1943, he landed at Salerno with a pistol in one hand and his trumpet in the other. I won’t say any more than that it is well worth listening to any one of his records. Incidentally, his own record label was Calligraph, named after one of his passions, calligraphy. He was the president of the Society for Italic Handwriting and was at one point a cartoonist of some note.

Humph was sent to a steel mill in Port Talbot as a young man to see if he had the makings of a captain of industry. The outcome was rather the opposite, as he became a lifelong socialist, albeit, as he described himself, ‘a romantic socialist.

Lyttelton was, despite his protestations to the contrary, modern to the last. His website, humphreylyttleton.com, carries a message that ends with Humph in introspective mode.

“As we journey through life, discarding baggage along the way, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.”

I think it is fair to say that Lyttelton was silly – gloriously, wonderfully silly – throughout his life.

Humphrey Richard Adeane Lyttelton, cartoonist, calligrapher, columnist, jazz trumpeter and host of I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue. Born Eton, 23 May 1921, died London, 25 April 2008.

xD.

Through a press release, darkly

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Chris Dillow is less than impressed with Jack Straw and Alistair Campbell as he and most people regard them as having negative credibility. I feel that Chris – and given his intellectual firepower, I’m rather worried about saying this – is rather missing the point. He’s not the audience – it just happens that he’s hearing the message. I’ll come back to that later; first, the argument.

Let us assume that Mr Straw’s intentions are genuine and that he doesn’t want the maximum period of detention without trial to be extended to forty-two days.

As it stands, Gordon Brown has two options – to keep going with the policy, or to scrap it. Each option has its pros and cons (which doubtlessly vary depending on your point of view). There will be a few particular things that Mr Brown is considering, not least of which will be his standing in the polls. The predictions for the urns are not good and, to cap it all, Charles Clarke is once again doing the rounds trying to drum opposition to the PM for any reason at all.

If Jack Straw were to vote against the policy, or indicate that he was definitely going to vote against the policy, he would have to leave the Cabinet. That reduces his ability to influence Cabinet colleagues, including the PM, makes him look like an ingrate and (from Jack Straw’s point of view) doesn’t help pay the mortgage. Crucially, it also makes it harder for the PM to scotch the policy by delaying it as the PM would have to show that he was ‘strong’ in the face of internal opposition, particularly as Charles Clarke would probably start touting Straw as a stalking horse for the party leadership.

Equally, merely pushing against the forty-two days doesn’t do much either as it doesn’t change the options available or how palatable they are to the ultimate decision-maker.

Jack Straw’s actions – showing loyalty to the big man and to collective decision-making while making it easier and more permissible for more rank-and-file MPs to express their displeasure and, if necessary vote against the bill – poison one of the two options as the risk of a defeat (a bad result for any government) rises and going down that route is more difficult even if the MP wins. However, it shows that there is at least as much support for the other choice and makes it easier for it to be kicked into touch or lured into a committee and quietly strangled.

Alastair Campbell probably gave all of ten minutes’ thought to that letter. BAA will have their PR agency who will have wanted some – any – good news about T5. Campbell knows full well that many people dislike him (although some have a grudging respect). However, the audience might not be the great unwashed, but Ferrovial, the higher-ups of BAA or anyone else. The publication of Mr Campbell’s letter might, for all I know, be the only positive coverage of T5 in the mainstream press1 but it at least, in the press book, says that there has been some positive coverage.

Now, as promised, why this matters.

All the wonderful, new means of communications we have make it a lot easier to have a public conversation but much harder to have a private conversation between lots of people. There is no effective means of Jack Straw talking to “all MPs” or “all power-brokers” or somesuch as the categories are too large and too porous; an email setting out his position (if I’m right above) would very quickly end up in the public domain. The only alternative is to reduce that risk while still getting your message across and, as it happens, an easy way to reach “power brokers”2 is through the newspapers. Just because something is in the papers doesn’t mean it’s meant for the entire readership3 and so it doesn’t mean that the prima facie interpretation holds.

It can also impoverish communication between large groups unless (and I would say until) there is an acceptance that organisations, particularly political parties, have to be able to debate within themselves and that participants in those debates will include senior, serving politicians. As well as things being misunderstood, they will be deliberately taken out of context which causes people to couch and cage their words, making honest debate harder.

xD.

1.Although people from my company have made a total of eight trips through T5 in the past week without any problems.
2.I can’t think of a better phrase, so please imagine those to be rather large quotation marks. Suggestions on a postcard to the comments box, please!
3.Viz, Guardian Sports

Things not to do when you’re sixteen points behind

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Number One – be divisive and pursue old vendettas.

There cannot be many things within the Labour party that would unite Luke Akehurst and Peter Kenyon. Charles Clarke has managed to find one. Strangely enough, ordinary Labour party members don’t think that now is the opportune moment, shortly before local and London elections, to start talking about a coup within the party. Charles Clarke seems to be doing the rounds, days before an election, and talking about getting rid of Brown.

I do not think, even if the upcoming elections went badly, that we should change our leader. Even if, however, I thought that was the case, now would be just about the worst possible time to broach the subject. It can wait a few days.

Luke makes a good point at the post I like to above: “prolonged speculation would be the worst possible scenario”. Indeed, as we saw over the election that wasn’t, prevarication is just damaging. I hope that Charles Clarke – if the story reported in the Independent is correct – is taken to one side and told in no uncertain terms that his day has passed. I wrote some time ago about Clarke’s antics – September of 2006 – and a bizarre hatred he seems to have for Mr Brown. It does no-one, least of all the party, any favours.

There is something going on around a suggestion from Calder Valley CLP that, when there is a vacancy for leader, the minimum number of nominating MPs should be reduced from 12.5% to 7%. I probably support the measure as it should be pretty bloody difficult to fire a leader and should certainly be out of the reach of a small group of malcontents (and just for once I don’t mean the Campaign Group) but choice shouldn’t be unnecessarily restricted when there is a vacancy. It seems that some of the promoters are from the John McDonnell campaign, although that doesn’t make much difference either way.

xD.

PS Thanks to Alice for spotting the silly error deliberate mistake in the title

The Counter-terrorism Bill and coroners

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Section 42 (4) (b) (ii) of the Counter-Terrorism Bill, as it seeks to extend detention without charge to forty-two days, has attracted some considerable criticism. Unfortunately, it is not the only part of the bill that is, at best, distinctly ill-considered and with considerable scope for abuse. Serious consideration must also be given to clauses 64 and 65, which can be found on page 50 of this PDF of the bill. Clause 64 allows the Home Secretary to issue a certificate requiring an inquest to be held without a jury or discharging a jury mid-inquest. Clause 65 allows the Home Secretary to discharge a coroner and appoint a coroner of their own choosing. The two powers can be exercised simultaneously; that is to say, the Home Secretary would have the power, if they thought the an inquest would embarrass the government, to discharge the jury and the coroner and have the inquest started again without a jury and with a coroner of the Home Secretary’s choosing.

Inquests are unusual in English law in that they are the only inquisitorial proceeding, as opposed to the adversarial form that every other legal proceeding takes.

It is worth remembering that there are two main objections to the provision for forty-two days’ detention provided for in S42 (4) (b) (ii). The first is deontological; the period of time that any entity or person acting under the law (ultimately dependent on Weber’s definition of the state) should detain anyone else should be kept to the absolute minimum as the potential exists that, before trial, the person is innocent and so their detention is unjust. It is the same logic that insists justice should be speedy; detention before charge should be speedy1.

The second is utilitarian. While I’m sure some people will disagree with me1, I do not think that the current government is an evil monster that wants to abolish all our civil liberties. However, I do not think that the current government should hand a carte blanche to every single, future government. The risks and potential harms of the 42 days’ detention, and the deeply unsatisfactory safeguards – that people could be taken off the street if they threatened a future government (say, 41 days before an election) and held incommunicado – far outweight any potential benefit. Liberty make that point very well in this briefing document (PDF).

I feel the same applies to S64 and S65. Firstly, the idea that someone in the executive should be able to wander into a judicial proceeding and change things is opening the process up to abuse. It is different from making provisions for national security – things can be heard in camera – and, in any case, it should not be possible to change things in the middle of the proceeding, but only a priori. Secondly, the risks are significant as they would allow interference, as I have said, and set a worrying precedent for expansion.

If nothing else, connections will be made between a stroppy Oxfordshire coroner, a move to Gloucestershire for repatriating the bodies of people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq, a stroppy Gloucestershire coroner and then this bill; it does look as if the Government is trying to cover its tracks.

xD.

1 – the definition, not the blogger.

Nothing about us without us: the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Disabilism graphic courtesy of SCOPEThere are 650 million people with disabilities in the world; four-fifths of them live in the developing world. While much has been done in the developed world to improve the lot of people with disabilities and to bring us closer to equality, we are not there yet; things are that much worse in the developing world.

One year ago yesterday, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was opened for signing. It has been signed by 126 states, including the UK, but only ratified by seventeen: Bangladesh, Croatia, Cuba, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea, Hungary, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, San Marino, South Africa and Spain.

What does the UNCRPD do?

Essentially, it builds on the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1994) and the World Programme of Action on Disabled Persons (1982), neither of which are binding treaties.

In short, it says ‘nothing about us without us’; participating countries have to change laws and ban discriminatory customs and practices. Partly, these are promoting cultural changes, putting legal principles into place to support those changes, making physical and infrastructure changes and making funds available for those changes. The BBC enumerates some of the key principles:

  • Disabled people to have an equal right to life
  • Equal rights for disabled women and girls
  • Protection for children with disabilities
  • A right to own and inherit property, to control financial affairs and have equal access to financial services
  • Disabled people not to be deprived of their liberty “unlawfully or arbitrarily”
  • Medical or scientific experiments without consent to be banned
  • An end to enforced institutionalisation
  • Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse
  • A right to privacy and access to medical records
  • Countries to remove barriers to accessing the environment, transport, public facilities and communication
  • A right to independent living
  • Essential equipment to be made affordable
  • A right to an adequate standard of living and social protection
  • An end to discrimination relating to marriage, family and personal relationships
  • Equal access to education
  • An end to discrimination in the job market
  • A right to equal participation in public life
  • A right to participate in cultural life
  • Developing countries to be assisted to put the convention into practice

So what?

If another three states ratify, the treaty will start to come into force. None of the above should be controversial; however, there is a concern that the UK government may not want to ratify the treaty because of the right not to live in an institution.

What do we do?

The disability charity, SCOPE, are asking us all to give the government a nudge and make sure that it is ratified without exemption or qualification by the end of the year. There is a petition at the Number Ten website that reads “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in full, without reservation or limitation, by December 2008”. Please take a moment to sign it. More information is available on the SCOPE webpage.

xD.

Nadine Dorries on abortion

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Nadine Dorries has posted another attack on an MP who supports abortion encouraging people to vote solely on that issue; this time, it is Barbara Follett.

In order to receive funding they have to support Labour party values, and be pro-abortion

This means that any potential candidate of faith, ie, Jewish, Christian, Sikh, Muslim or Hindu would not qualify, which makes the list discriminatory

Correct me if I’m wrong, but that says that every person of religious faith opposes abortion. Quite apart from the insult to every religion other than the five mentioned (id est is never the same as exempli gratia; they mean ‘that is to say’ and ‘for the sake of example’ respectively), it ignores the reality of the situation. It is quite remarkable that Ms Dorries has listed only five of the top ten religions in terms of adherents. There are (according to the Christian Science Monitor) 324 million Buddhists (about the population of the EU), along with 6.1 million members of the Baha’i faith, 5.3 million followers of Confucius, 4.9 million who identify with Jainism and 2.8 million people who go for Shinto.

Let’s look at the five religions that Ms Dorries mentions.

1. Judaism

It doesn’t take long to realise that to say that being pro-abortion is incompatible with Judaism is rather foolish. The Mishnah (Oholot 7:8) says

If a woman is in hard travail, one cuts up the offspring in her womb and brings it forth member by member, because her life comes before the life of her foetus. But if the greater part has proceeded forth, one may not set aside one person for the sake of saving another

There is debate about whether the second sentence prohibits abortion after half-term or until the baby is half-delivered; there is no debate about whether abortion can be permitted under Jewish law. More specifically, the Rabinincal Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards< endorses the position of Rabbis Bokser and Abelson:

[A]n abortion is justifiable if a continuation of pregnancy might cause the mother severe physical or psychological harm, or where the fetus [sic] is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective

The Union for Reform Judaism says that

any decision should be left up to the woman within whose body the fetus is growing

I have highlighted Judaism because it is the first on the list and it very neatly shows that within all religion and, indeed, all belief systems there is variation.

2. Christianity

Thomas Aquinas and Popes Innocent III and Gregory XIV said that until the mother could feel the baby kick and move, the baby had no soul and could be aborted; after the quickening, it could not. Current Roman Catholic teaching is mostly opposed to abortion. The Southern Baptist Convention only came out against abortion in the early eighties.

The Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ and United Methodist Church all have statements in favour of abortion.

3. Sikhism

Sikhism doesn’t directly deal with abortion – at least, the Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t – and the practice of abortion in parts of India, particularly if the foetus is female, suggest that there is no block there, either

4. Islam

The traditional Islamic view is that abortion is permitted up until 120 days, I believe; alternative views are 40 days or ‘quickening’. Depending on which date you choose, that is when the soul is given to the baby. Islam allows for abortion

5. Hinduism

I don’t know much about Hinduism, and therefore will merely provide this quote from Hinduism Today:

The Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University does not take a formal unchanging political or religious stance on the issue of abortion. They advise that each case requires unique consideration. The final decision will be based on a long series of choices made by the woman on her lifestyle, morals and values. Usually, the choices that created the unwanted pregnancy in the first place have been irrational or emotional ones, not the mature commitment motherhood needs. The Brahma Kumaris counsel those facing an abortion decision, both man and woman, to understand that by abortion they do not escape responsibility for their actions. When both the parents have fully understood the seriousness of the choice, the University would support the right to make their own decision.

I am quite sure that Ms Dorries is aware of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. If not, it pretty much ‘does what it says on the tin’. Here’s their membership list:

Rabbinical Assembly; United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; Women’s League for Conservative Judaism; The Episcopal Church; American Ethical Union National Service Conference; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO); Women’s Ministries; Washington Office; Reconstructionist Judaism; Jewish Reconstructionist Federation; Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Central Conference of American Rabbis; North American Federation of Temple Youth; Union for Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism, The Federation of Temple Sisterhoods; Women’s Rabbinic Network of Central Conference of American Rabbis; Justice and Witness Ministries; General Board of Church and Society; General Board of Global Ministries, Women’s Division; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian Universalist Women’s Federation; Young Religious Unitarian Universalists; Continental Unitarian Universalist Young Adult Network; American Jewish Committee; American Jewish Congress; Anti-Defamation League; Catholics for a Free Choice; Christian Lesbians Out (CLOUT); Church of the Brethren Women’s Caucus; Disciples for Choice; Episcopal Urban Caucus; Episcopal Women’s Caucus; Hadassah, WZOA; Jewish Women International; Lutheran Women’s Caucus; Methodist Federation for Social Action; NA’AMAT USA; National Council of Jewish Women; Women’s American ORT; YWCA of the USA

I think that shows, pretty effectively, that religious faith does not necessarily entail opposition to abortion. However, even if there was only one religious person in the entire world who honestly believed that abortion was acceptable, Ms Dorries would not be able to say that their faith was lesser or wrong. To do so would be, in her own words, discriminatory.

Moving on, Ms Dorries says of Ms Follett that

72% of her constituents want the upper limit reduced to 20 weeks

That’s interesting. On her previous post, Ms Dorries said that “as many as 72 per cent, wish to see the upper limit at which abortion takes place, reduced from 24 to 20 weeks”. Unless a survey was carried out that focused on the voters of Stevenage, it seems hard to say that 72% of Barbara Follett’s constituents want the upper limit reduced without making a statement that is statistically invalid.

Ms Dorries then asks

Will she represent their views at the next vote, or her own?

As I said on my previous post, an MP’s job is not to act as a proxy for the aggregate views of their constituents. As Edmund Burke said, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.

One last thing:

“Barbara Follett is the founder of Emily’s list”

No, she isn’t. Emily’s List was founded by Ellen Malcolm in 1984 in the United States of America. Barbara Follett founded Emily’s List UK in 1993. A small issue, but worth flagging. Congratulations to Barbara Follett.

As I have said before, I respect Ms Dorries’ position, although I do not share it. I have been branded a religious fundamentalist in the past for saying, in my SU meeting, that there were legitimate objections to abortion. I still believe that. However, I find Ms Dorries’ way of presenting the argument to be based on flawed logic, assertion and obfuscation.

xD.

Update 2045: Unity at the Ministry of Truth has noticed Nadine’s post as well – I recommend it!

Edmund Burke on Nadine Dorries

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Beds and doyenne of the anti-abortion movement in Parliament, has been pressing for further restrictions on abortion for some time. I have no doubt that she sincerely holds those beliefs. However, it does seem that the strength with which she holds those beliefs is clouding her judgement. As various bloggers, including Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads, Ben Goldacre of Bad Science and the Guardian, Book Drunk, Devil’s Kitchen and Unity from the Ministry of Truth, have pointed out, Ms Dorries has played fast and loose with facts and statistics and seems – as I am a charitable sort – to be demonstrating confirmation bias over this issue.

On her website1, Ms Dorries says something that is not just wrong-headed, but dangerous:

As a result of a number of polls, we know that the majority of the public, as many as 72 per cent, wish to see the upper limit at which abortion takes place, reduced from 24 to 20 weeks. Many MPs, however, choose to use Parliament as a place to pander to their own preference, or ideology, rather than to represent the will of the people.

What Ms Dorries is saying there is that MPs should be proxies for referenda on every issue. Quite apart from the weaseling of ‘belief’ into ‘preference’ and ‘philosophy’ into’ ideology, this notion of ‘the will of the people’ or ‘the general will’ is a dangerous one indeed. It should be easy enough to see how Ms Dorries’ stance could be parlayed into ‘preference’ or ‘ideology’, quite apart from the problems in identifying this ‘will of the people’; certainly, it is not Ms Dorries alone who may choose the will of the people. She would do well to remember Edmund Burke’s words in his Speech to the Electors of Bristol:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

MPs are elected to legislate and to scrutinise based not on the whim of the people, but based on easier access to more information, the time and will to process and use that information honestly, and to come to a reasoned decision. Equally, an MP should not encourage dog-whistle politics. No matter how important you might consider abortion to be, regardless of your position in the debate, you cannot say that it is more important than every other issue combined. That is, however, what Ms Dorries is encouraging people to do:

Each day, I am going to highlight MPs who may need to think very seriously when voting on the issue of reducing the upper limit to 20 weeks, because if they don’t, they may see their majorities wiped out at the next election.

Although the issue is serious, the manner of expression – this above and to the exclusion of all else – cheapens political discourse and will lead to ill-considered judgements if Ms Dorries’ is successful in her aim. It favours fanatic who obsesses over a single issue rather than someone who would take the broader view; it encourages people to vote with their hearts and not their heads. It is, in short, an abrogation of an elected representative’s duty to make an appeal to base instinct rather than reasoned judgement

The full text of Burke’s speech is available courtesy of the University of Chicago. It is short, at a little over six hundred words, but is well worth reading.

xD.

1 – it is not a blog. A blog allows comments; Dorries’ website, even the bit that’s updated regularly, does not allow comments. Interestingly, Burke says something about that too, after a fashion: “it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents”.