Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, with parliamentary colleagues, at an event in support of the Human Fertility and Embryology Bill, which will protect and extend the right of scientists to perform crucial stem-cell research.
“Did you inhale?” A cliché of modern politics. Ever since Bill Clinton’s bizarre admission of not-quite-drug-use, that question has become a staple of sniggering journalists everywhere. Meanwhile, “Yes I have and yes I did” has become the boilerplate response for those politicians eager to demonstrate their flawed, human side.
Such admissions are possible because currently, the morality of such individual choices barely gets discussed. “It’s a choice I made when I was young” is the limit of the debate. The transgression is framed as a purely internal, moral choice of the individual. In a liberal, tolerant society, this is not matter for public discussion. (If it were, then another example of tweaking your reality, drinking alcohol, would be dragged into the debate too, and no one wants that). Instead, cannabis use becomes a simple public health issue. The recent furore, in March, was concerned with whether cannabis use can induce psychological problems, and therefore whether class B or C is an appropriate designation.
But there is another argument against cannabis use: It is part of a highly unpleasant and criminal supply chain. For every eighth of hash or bag of weed you buy and smoke, there is a chance that you are lining the pockets of some gangster. Sure, your local dealer is probably a gentle sort, but there is no guarantee that somewhere along the line there is not a more dangerous character who is trafficking in other things too. Heroin. People. It is noteworthy that when a politician is asked about his or her past drug-use, the question is the anodyne “did you inhale?” when it should be “did you know where it came from?” Few of them would know the answer, and “I knowingly contributed to the problem of organized crime and the exploitation of the vulnerable” is a very different mea culpa compared to the usual “I did things when I was young which I now regret.”
(more…)
For those that are interested, I’m thoroughly enjoying my think-tankery, although its one of the reasons (along with the theft) why I’ve not been as regular with my movements here.
One project we’ve been working on is the publication of a book on 14-19 education. We hosted a debate in March with Policy Exchange, which I wrote up for OurKingdom:
The first is the degree to which sixteen year-olds should be treated as adults. Both Sheerman and Rossiter were in no doubt they are still children, and should not be thrown out into the world without sufficient guidance or qualifications. Meanwhile, Willets and Smithers were concerned that sixteen year-olds are already constrained adults, and that attempting to control them to such a large degree was bound to be counter-productive.
It seems to me our muddled sense of when one reaches adulthood is to blame for a lot of unnecessary political wranglings. We allow people to smoke, marry, and condone sex and procreation, from age 16, yet we do not allow people to drive until 17. The voting age remains 18, as does the age at which you can buy alcohol, and (bizarrely, to my mind) we are perfectly at ease in allowing people to choose a religion at age 10, 12 or 14. Surely the mental calculus by which we deem someone responsible enough to do one activity, applies equally to the other activities?
Clearly, all these activities are related to ideas of freedom, choice, and responsibility. Below the age, and you are deemed incapable of making those choices, or wielding wisely the responsibility entrusted to you. In terms of our relationship to the state, it seems reasonable to say that childhood may be defined as the age when the rest of society does not allow you to make your own decisions. Therefore, it is legitimate to constrain the freedom of a child - a second class citizen - from an adult. Above that age, you’re responsible for your actions. Below it, your legal guardian carries-the-can. It would seem sensible to concile the various ‘coming of age’ ages into one, easy-to-remember figure.
To my mind, sixteen seems to young to do most stuff, but eighteen seems to old to prevent someone from driving or having sex. What say we just agree to split the difference, and have a universal age of adulthood at age 17? As with current arrangements, there will always be people who are constrained by this, and others who cannot handle the responsibility. But no more or less than the current situation.
Either that, or why not formalize teenagerdom as a third legal category of person? They could have a similar set of rights to those attempting to earn citizenship. That might help some of those sullen teenagers get a job, and learn proper English…
I attended the Next on 4 event this morning, where Jon Snow hosted the launch of Channel’s 4 ’strategic blueprint’. They are placing an emphasis on digital technologies in order to capture young audiences, and have launched a £50 million public service digital media fund.
Crucially, they are cutting their overseas aquisitions budget by £35 million, meaning less US shows. I wonder how this will affect the channel’s ratings over the next few years - surely the popular American dramas and comedies are a key draw?
Chief Executive Andy Duncan also announced that Channel 4 would be facing a £100 million funding gap by 2012 (the year of the digital switch-over), which they would be looking to make-up from public subsidy. The argument is that Channel 4 has recieved, in the form of a free analogue licence, about £150 million in public subsidy per year since it lauched. The channel would now like to see that subsidy continue in other forms. When challenged, Duncan argued that this figure was not some accounting sleight-of-hand, but represented a real edge that allowed them to run the channel in the way they should. Clearly, the money for this will have to come from one of two sources - the government’s central coffers, or the licence fee, but Duncan and his collegaues were relucant to suggest which this might be. In the coming months, we’re likely to see either (a) an ugly scrap between the BBC and Channel 4 over funding, or (b) an ugly scrap between publicly funded organisations on one hand, and commercial broadcasters on the other… over funding. Channel 4 were keen to talk simply about their unique position, but I don’t really see how a conversation can be had without constant reference to the BBC. They need to explain where they expect their new money to come from, and fast.
The conflict stems, of course, from the difficulty in quantifying the benefit of publically funded broadcasting. Often, discussions over public service broadcasting are couched in terms of a polite threat: “Pay the licence fee, or you’ll lose Life in Cold Blood“; “Fund us, or we’ll cancel Cutting Edge and replace it with Celebrity Big Brother’s 100 Greatest Moments“. When put in these terms, or when we consider the unpleasant prospect of the Murdoch-owned media dominating TV news, its easy to see how the arguments for public funding find favour. Though there are occasional controversies (like the Big Brother Race Row, or the BBC’s role in the David Kelly affair), I think the threat of back-to-back Love Island keeps the public and policymakers on-side.
However, a case could also be made that subsidies have the effect of shouldering smaller, regional and TV programme makers out of the market. In this analysis, it is less clear that the public (and our culture as a whole) is being served. Rather than constantly chasing the latest digital technologies, and ensuring every other show has its own blog and podcast, Channel 4 and the BBC simply need to prove that they are fostering the development of such regional talent. If they can do that, then I think they’ll be able to persuade government to give them the funding they ask for.
Cross posted at The Progressive.
According to my Facebook profile, I am variously an anesthetist, and aesthete, and (less frequently) a non-practicing atheist. But whatever guise I choose for myself, I tend to look upon the tribulations of Dr Williams with the detachment of an outsider. I reason that because I’m not a church-goer, the possible ’schism’ over gay clergy should not really concern me.
But now I’m wondering whether that is the correct view. Looking again at the word ‘Anglican’, it occurs to me that this particular Communion of Churches might actually be considered an exporter of British ’soft power’ and influence, much like the British Council. The Church of England is still a formal branch of our state, and Anglican Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Furthermore, it is the British Prime Minister who effectively appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury. So I would say that the Archbishop and his Church are formal (though obviously not democratic) representatives of our country.
If The Church represents us all, is is not reasonable for atheists, agnostics and secularists to poke their nose into its affairs? Traditionalists say that Britain is still essentially a Christian country built on Christian morals. If that is the case, and while Church of England retains its privileged position in our political system, then I would say that us non-believers have the right to interfere in its policies and rulings.
I imagine that such an interference, should it come, would require Dr Williams to take a more liberal approach to homosexuality. He should commit the Church of England to a more tolerant stance (which we suspect he favours anyway).
Some might say that by taking an approach that is too liberal, Dr Williams will only catalyze the ’schism’ in the Anglican community. Indeed, Dr Williams himself seems to hold this view. However, this is actually a very odd way of looking at The Church and at religion in general. In other situations, such as over the use of contraception or who to vote for in elections, we assume that the officers of religion hold enormous power over their flock. We assume that the pronouncements of an Ayatollah here or a Cardinal there, will inform, sway and change the values of their congregations. In a way, it is odd that we do not assume a liberal sermon from the most senior Anglican bishop would have a similar effect.
Yet, what else can inspire a better attitude to homosexuality, other than standing up to the conservatives, demonstrating that their intolerance breeds nothing but hate and harm? Its time for the Archbishop to speak up for the values of love and tolerance which Jesus stands for (regardless of his alleged divinity), and show that those values are embodied by homosexual members of the Anglican Church. He should hope and trust that the schism, when it comes, occurs (as it should) within the congregations of the conservative African Churches, rather than between Churches within the communion. Such an outcome is by no means guaranteed… but hey, that’s what Faith is for. Go for it, Rowan.
At the Social Market Foundation on Wednesday, Liberal Democrat Leadership Candidate Nick Clegg began a speech by outlining the technological context of 21st Century politics. It is a good approximation of my own view. He said:
… the innovations and technological advances that are already shaping and defining the 21st century – Google, Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube – are about something very different: they are about creating the tools that will enable people to deliver services to each other.
One interesting quirk of the new Liberal Conspiracy site (at least, for me) is the comments policy.
We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
In the past few years, I have scrolled through countless online debates about the nature of free-speech versus reasoned debate. I have read innumberable criticisms of Blogistan as a place of visceral name-calling. I think the policy arrived at reads like a conclusion, or at least, a summing up, of all those online debates. To one who is new to online discourse, it might seem surprising. But I am sure that those who have been part of the blog hive mind for a while, would have found themselves nodding, knowingly. Its unapologetic, and pre-emptive tone seems to be very much “of” its time, and the Internet.
I have heard it twice in seven days. Twice, at two very interesting events, run by two very respectable think-tanks: Its those dreaded Daily Mail readers who are to blame.
In both cases, that journal was being used as a convenient short-hand - to signify something right-wing, reactionary, and irrational. The implication is that there are all these subscribers out there who are somehow intractable. A block of voters who can be persuaded of nothing.
(more…)
One thing I have witnessed “first hand” is the anxiety - nay, terror - induced by the shocking MTAS system for appointing junior doctors. Various aspects of the mis-management continue to be discussed in the blogs and in newspapers, including the dumbing-down of the profession and the fact that some people are having to take on lower grade positions.
So, while I can concede that there are dozens of political groups that I could campaign for, I’ve lent my support to the junior doctors at Remedy Scotland by setting up a campaign blog for them. They have quite a focused campaign, with an achievable reform agenda, in a single policy area, so I am hoping that it can be quite incisive. Since so many people in Scotland will be affeced, a fairly disparate group of people will need to be mobilised. I am planning to utilise the full arsenal of Web 2.0 technologies to help spread the message. Expect blog buttons and such things very soon.
Do please visit the site and sign the petition. There is also a protest march planned for mid-July, in Glasgow.
[photopress:remedy_scotland_logo.jpg,full,centered]
In the absence of the stalwarty DoctorVee, I have edited this week’s Scottish Roundup. I actually found trawling through loads of politicians’ blogs quite encouraging. People have a genuine passion for making things better (although of course, they all have a slightly different conception of how that might be achieved). Yes yes, I know “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”… but so is the forked path to progress and prosperity.
I included in the round-up a post from Rhetorically Speaking, about the fact that the Executive have legislated in favour of women being allowed to breastfeed in public. Much has been made recently of Labour’s frenzied approach to law-making, with apparently a new law being made every three hours since they came to power. I wonder how many of these were laws that affirmed a citizen’s rights, as opposed to laws which took rights away?
Just spotted a post from Tim Worstall on the issue. There are some pertinent points in the comments. My favourite is from Little Black Sambo:
This is entirely consistent with the new understanding of law. The purpose of making a law is to “send a message”.