Rod Liddle: A twat in a new way

Rod Liddle has had his racist blog post for the Spectator censured by the PCC.

He wrote a poisonous blog post, which drew much ire from left and right, stating as fact that:

“the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community.”

Rod Liddle is now officially wrong. It long ago became clear that he was factually wrong, but it is nice to see him slapped on the wrists.

What is particularly interesting from my point of view is the craven defence offered by The Spectator to the PCC.

The magazine provided some evidence to substantiate the figures: a BBC report, which quoted an Inspector in the Trident Unit of the Metropolitan police as saying that ‘for three out of every four shootings…in London, the victim and the perpetrator are from the black community’; a Daily Mail article, which reported that ‘124 out of 225 under-18s legally proceeded against for knife offences in the past three months are from the black community’; and a Sunday Times report which stated that ‘71% of people accused of mobile phone theft were black…’

Here we have a vague quotation of a quotation of an unsubstantiated claim with regard to shootings in the capital. The Spectator have either not got in contact with the Inspector in the Trident Unit in question or did so and couldn’t get him to repeat his claim.

The Daily Mail article claiming that 55% of those “legally proceeded against” for knife offences in the past three months are from the black community is spurious for a number of reasons.

First of all, this refers to court proceedings not convictions something which is clearly different  to what Liddle discussed. Secondly it refers to a three month period. Let me cut up data any way I like and I will prove all sorts of things.

Last of all we have a story from The Sunday Times on arrests, not convictions. It refers to arrests not “crimes… carried out” by young black me and is therefore categorically not evidence in support of Rod Liddle’s statement, yet it was still submitted by The Spectator.

Perhaps it needs to be made clear, but a disproportionate number of arrests could indicate a disproportionate presence of prejudice on behalf of the arresters, not a disproportionate tendency to criminality. Or perhaps it indicates a little of both, but come what may, it is still certainly not evidence in support of Rod Liddle.

The Spectator is often accused of giving conservatives a bad name and I have to agree. The arguments offered are not only weak in that none of them support what Rod Liddle actually said but each appears to only be obfuscate the matter at hand.

To defend one of its writers The Spectator will confuse one of the most basic principles of a free society; that you are innocent until proven guilty.

For those more moved by empirical matters you should be appalled by their patent abuse of data to imply that a three month record on knife crime proceedings can be indicative of the crimes committed by any section of a society.

Perhaps the ever excellent, erudite and (the only) genuinely interesting writer at The Spectator Alex Massie should reconsider Paul and Dave‘s offer and up sticks and leave the dreadful rag.

Filed under: Society

To he that hath shall be given…

…and to he that hath a network for the successful production, import, processing, dissemination and sale of illegal drugs shall be given another previously legal drug to sell with all the violence and danger associated with that.

Like Jamie I am hardly pleased to see another drug made illegal when there are other options available. Such as that suggested by Professor Nutt, the creation of a holding category of Class D drugs where sale is restricted and research can be carried out.

What is the justification for making this drug illegal? It has killed people; although not the 25 “reported” to have died from it.

I know our press (and their lies on drugs) and if 25 people had actually died from taking the drug, there would be no modestly in proclaiming it loud and clear, not saying it has been “implicated.”

On top of the potential (although not proven danger) The Guardian reports on the alleged ignorance of those who take it:

“It is being taken by young people who have never taken drugs before in their lives because they think it is legal and it is safe. It is neither legal nor safe.”

But there is no evidence is provided (such as a survey or case study) that people think like this because none has been done.

Forgive me for asking, but where are these people? I certainly have met few so naive and those who are will not be protected by shifting this drug into the black economy.

There is certainly an a priori case that people do not associate legal drugs with dangers but that cannot be the case with mephedrone now. If anything the hysterics provoked by this drug will make people too scared of this drug.

As said on Blood and Treasure : Alan Johnson, friend of criminals, enemy of science.

Filed under: Society

Learning Economics with Paul Krugman

IT arrived today, and I set about reading it on my way home from work on the train. I quite like public transport because of this reason – plenty of book time.

Krugman’s book is obviously a beginners Economics textbook, but as a beginner I suppose it suits me fairly well and despite what Giles says I think it will set me up well for my Masters.

Like most economic textbooks it normally retails for some astronomical number slightly above my daily wage, but luckily I was able to get hold of a copy for £22 or so second hand and I thought this was a good price for an Economics textbook.

I say I’m a beginner, but I’m aware of all the basics assumptions and the larger themes of Economics.  To be honest, I have allowed a lot of the minutiae of Economics to pass me by, because shifts in the demand curve are not as exciting as looking at gales of creative destruction, and my time is precious.

Krugman opens his book with a chapter on the common ground economists share, things which Giles, Tim, Krugman and Sumner all agree on, despite their differences elsewhere.

There are four principles underlying how individuals make decisions and five principles on how these decisions interact.

The four principles dictating how individuals make decisions are below.

1. Resources are scarce.
2. The real cost of something is what you give up to get it.
3. “How much” is a decision at the margin.
4. People usually exploit opportunities to make themselves better off.

My more astute reader (yes, sadly singular) will have realised that I’ve covered all four of these in my preamble.

1. Resources are scarce, and that is why Krugman’s book can be sold for $141.
2. The “real cost” referred to is the opportunity cost of doing something. By taking public transport instead of driving I am not just saving the money by not running a car but I am also gaining the time to read, something I enjoy but which is incompatible with driving. Something similar is discussed very briefly here.
3. The decision at the margin involves decisions which are not either or but “how much.” My decision to buy Krugman’s books was made at the margin, $141 was too rich for my blood but £22 was just right.
4. I took advantage of an opportunity to buy a book cheaply because I think I will not only enjoy learning from it but that I will improve my prospects come October.

There are also five principles for understanding the interaction of individuals’ actions.

1. There are gains from Trade.
2. Markets move towards Equilibrium.
3. Resources should be used as efficiently as possible to achieve society’s goals.
4. Markets usually lead to efficiency.
5. When markets don’t achieve efficiency, government intervention can improve society’s welfare.

These should be fairly uncontroversial, although from where (and when) I’m sitting that “usually” in point 4 is doing a lot of work.

It should be fairly clear that there are gains from trade, because trade allow specialisation and that people who trade voluntarily are doing so because they see something they want more than something they have.

Specialisation is best and most famously illustrated by Adam Smith and pin manufacture.

One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. But though they were very poor, and therefore but indifferently accommodated with the necessary machinery, they could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. Each person, therefore, making a tenth part of forty-eight thousand pins, might be considered as making four thousand eight hundred pins in a day. But if they had all wrought separately and independently, and without any of them having been educated to this peculiar business, they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day…

[However: For a discussion on how trade can lead to underdevelopment please see this post here on Joseph von Thunen which was written a little while ago while arguing with Thomas Byrne.]

The other four points also discuss the operation of a market economy.

The equilibria discussed above is illustrated by Krugman with a supermarket checkout. Many lanes are congested but no lane is more congested than any other; it is in equilibrium. To ease the crowding a new till is opened which is subsequently flooded with people attempting to avoid queueing. Once people have shifted about any subsequent lane swapping becomes unnecessary and a new equilibria is reached.

Resources should be used as efficiently as possible to achieve society’s goals. That is resources should be used to maximise the opportunities to make people better off without making anyone else worse off. This stands in contrast to more egalitarian uses of resources which may be less efficient but may be “fairer.” (A definition of “fair” is something I will not attempt – I’ll leave that to Paul.)

Markets usually lead to efficiency is another of the main arguments in favour of Capitalism over other arguments. As Tim Worstall reiterates (and reiterates and reiterates and…), despite the inequality capitalism brings, it also makes us rich because it allocates resources efficiently.

Markets fail. They usually do so when actions have i) side effects, for example carbon emissions, ii) when once party prevents mutually beneficial trade occurring in an attempt to capture  a greater share of resources for themselves and iii) when the good, for example roads, are not suited for efficient management by the market.

Although nothing controversial that is a lot of food for thought.

It is easy to declare that homo economus or rational man does not exist and dismiss the above, because its true man is not as rational as assumed. But very often those that do dismiss don’t have a better model to offer. Homo mostly economus seems like a fairly good starting point for analysis and a great place to start a text book.

I will be reading further and sharing what I learn on this blog through the next few months (its a big book) and I hope you can all contribute thoughts, supplement and critiques as and when you feel like it.

Filed under: Economics

It must be true, I read it in The Daily Mail

Dan & Dan treat us all with this fantastic song.

Filed under: The Media

Mephedrone: Watching a Moral Panic unfold

A Moral Panic, according to Stanley Cohen, occurs when “[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests.” The fear of the unknown or new writ large across a society, sparking attacks on paediatricians and the avoidance of those who go hooded.

In the past this country has suffered moral panics about all sorts of disparte groups. We witnessed one at the start of this Millennia involving asylum seekers. You must remember stories like the utterly flacious one run by The Sun about asylum seekers eating Swans? (Richard Littlejohn certainly does, except he really thinks its true).

Asylum seekers were no threat to the UK but an election was fought over them and restrictive immigration Act after restrictive Act was passed to “combat” the threat they posed.

Similar moral panics have occurred in the past about Teddy Boys, Jews and Computer Games. I think we can add Mephedrone to the growing and ever more incongruous list.

I have been paying attention to Mephedrone since Gabrielle Price died. She is often referred to in reports as one of the first deaths related to the mephedrone but her death had nothing to do with mephedrone. She died of  its a fantasy designed to spread a panic.

Mephedrone is a drug similar to MDMA, what you get in Ecstasy pills, if your pills are pure that is. It is often sold as “plant fertiliser” in order to sidestep drug control laws. This has led to some morons police spokesmen referring to it as “plant fertiliser” which is “not for human consumption.”

It cannot be reiterated enough that this is as fertilising for your plants as Ecstasy is, and that it very much is produced for human consumption. Again this inaccuracy can only spread panic; our children are taking plant fertiliser, oh the degeneracy of youth!

The intensity of the lying is also interesting. The above two errors I suspect are down to sloppy researching and the ever shrinking space journalists have to do their jobs properly and research things – that and plain stupidity.

The really infuriating stuff has been covered here by Septicisle, and is of a more malevolent and dangerous tone. Out with the tenuous links to the death of a schoolgirl and in with total and easily falsifiable bunkum.

Septicisle points to the nonsense on stilts leader which the Sun splashed across its inside pages.

SCHOOL heads are furious at the Government shambles over killer party drug meow meow.

Teachers seize stashes but have to return them because there is no law against the lethal substance.

This is nonsense as Septicisle effectively demonstrates in his excellent post. But it is trademark moral panic material with the all important inclusion of a SCHOOL, full of CHILDREN.

One way I have been keeping tabs on mephedrone is to set up a Google Alert. This scans Google News and forward any related stories direct to your inbox – something no mainstream journalist has been doing it seems. One thing I’ve noticed in the last few days is that all my e-mails are jam packed with stories. [1] So I made this below graph. Ladies and gentlemen, we are entering moral panic territory.

Qualitatively, we have nonsense stories about mephedrone being cut with Crystal Meths, repeated lies about a dead school girl and a total misunderstanding of the topic at hand.

This is not to mention the repeated and unfounded lie that teachers could not confiscate mephedrone, when they always could, always would, always should and always will.

Quantitatively, I have charted an unprecedented rise in the number of stories reported and picked up by my slightly inadequate but consistent search.

Moral panics are rarely ignored in the age of “something must be done” politics; this drug is going to be made illegal. The first scientific trial is only just underway but in the most important sense its findings will be solely academic.

Likewise, a Mixmag survey has reported mixed but interesting findings on the side effects of taking the drug; but it will have little bearing on how this drug is treated.

There’s been little or no research done on mephedrone. We asked users if they’d experienced any side effects after using it

67% had experienced excessive sweating

51% headaches

27% nausea

43% palpitations

15% cold or blue fingers

Still, only two deaths have been officially caused by Mephedrone, one in Sweden and one in Hove. Yet countless others have been linked with it preliminary only to disappear into the ether once any facts emerge.

We are beyond the point of fact and are well into moral panic territory.

Perfectly reasonably view such as those of David Nutt will not be heard. He suggests that it would be safer to hand out MDMA or mephedrone in clubs with guidance on safe usage but he is instead portrayed as a loon.

However, both MDMA and mephedrone appear significantly safer than alcohol. Consider this. each year alcohol causes about 8,000 deaths. In the roughly 18 months mephedrone has been popular it has caused one death whereas alcohol has caused 12,000.

[1] I had the maximum stories set to 10 so that is why the last weeks dates cluster around this upper band. This limit has now been raised to 50 and I  have immediately received at least another 10 stories. A follow up graph is inevitable once I have more data.

Filed under: Society, The Media

Krugman: Economics

Despite my funding situation being somewhat dire with regards to my LSE Masters at the moment, [1] I saw this on sale for £25 and thought what the hell. Its an investment.

I’m a quick learner but effectively a beginner and it sounds like this book is perfect for me from what I’ve read.

Anyone read it? Any good?

[1] Apparently LSE are not going to provide any funding so I am going to get into even more debt and probably become an escort  (watch out for boydujour.wordpress.com!). Dammit, this isn’t as easy as I thought it might be.

Filed under: Politics

Utterance of the week

Septicisle on the “news” that Samantha Cameron is having a baby.

One thing was however cleared up yesterday. Everyone had previously assumed that David Cameron was referring to his wife when he discussed his “secret weapon”. It’s now apparent that he was in fact talking about his cock.

Filed under: Politics

Earth Hour 2010 – I’m literally saving the world. Are You?

Earth Hour this year will be on Saturday 27th March.

At 8.30pm my friends and I as well as various other individuals, businesses and iconic buildings will all switch off their lights for an hour.

Climate Change is still continuing apace and to send a clear message to the world’s governments the World Wildlife Federation has organised this symbolic gesture.

I am not a fan of symbolic gestures. Unless backed by a movement I am unaware of any that has generated any change worth speaking of.

But if you are care then switch your lights off. Make sure you do this with your friends, but don’t ask them to do it “to send a message.”

Earth Hour will only mean something if it turns people on to Environmentalism who were not, or if it galvanises into action those already engaged.

Barack Obama has just passed a monumental if lacking Healthcare Reform in the US and still has a Climate Bill to usher through Congress; likewise a real legislative solution like cap and trade or a carbon tax remain a long way off in the UK.

Earth Hour should be about recruiting people to help get the change we need, not mere gesture politics. Get involved but make sure this is the start not the end of what you do.

Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Politics, Science, Society

For fuck’s sake…

As this lie has just now been featured on Channel 4 News I just thought I’d make it clear.

A Chief Super Intendant no less has opined:

This is a message to everyone who has taken or is thinking of taking Mephedrone; it is not made for human consumption, it is plant fertiliser.

He is a liar or an idiot.

Mephedrone is produced for human consumption as a drug. It is not plant fertiliser and never has been, it is just marketed as that so it can be sold as “not for human consumption.”

Put it on your begonias and it will do nothing.

If you want actual facts, try this.

Filed under: Society

Why prisoners should be voting

Neil has written for Hagley Road to Ladywood and Liberal Conspiracy. He won’t be voting in this year’s elections and here’s why.

6 years ago a British prisoner called John Hirst went to the European Court of Human Rights demanding that our government give him and his fellow inmates the right to vote. The court ruled that our blanket ban violated the Human Rights Act, and ordered the government to make the necessary changes.

[...]

I cannot, in good conscience, exercise my legally-guaranteed right to participate in the democratic process when tens of thousands of Britons are illegally deprived of theirs. For that reason, I will be staying at home come election day. Not out of apathy, nor out of a lack of available alternatives, but as a small protest against a big injustice.

I support his cause, and side with the European Court of Human Rights in their call for the blanket ban to be lifted. But I must respectfully disagree with his actions.

Voting is not some grand moral duty – and for most people it won’t even be the most political thing they do that year – but I feel that not voting for this reason is not the best way to register a protest.

Neil’s eventual elected representative won’t know he didn’t vote unless Neil writes to him or her. Likewise, in his representative’s eyes Neil not voting may not grant him greater legitimacy in his campaign, but less.

That said, I agree with his cause and I thought I’d say why. Chris posted on something relevant on Saturday:

The law does not ban things – at least not directly – but rather changes incentives. And these changes might not have wholly desirable effects.

On average [1] people commit crimes because they think the outcomes of committing the crime are preferably to the outcomes of not committing the crime.

One of the things that contributes to how expensive a crime is would be the likelihood of getting caught and the severity of the punishment if this happened. Losing the vote is not going to have any impact on how likely it is someone is caught. Neither is the potential withdrawal of this right oging to have anything other than a very marginal effect on this because voting is going to be a very small part of their life. Even here, we are assuming that the person committing the crime is aware they will lose the vote.

Voting is almost irrelevant on the outside world. But one of the purposes of prison is to rehabilitate because 1) doing so is cheaper than releasing someone only to lock them up again in a few years, and 2) rehabilitating is better for everyone involved because it will result in less crime. In the boring, mundane and repetitive life of a prisoner voting offers a connection to the outside world and an opportunity to engage constructively which I think will help rehabilitation, so I support it.

What is offered here is a purely pragmatic reason on why I (and you should) support this aspect of penal reform. I also think that making morality a condition for voting, and criminality a proxy for morality is deeply wrong, but that would be for another post.

[1] I say on average to exclude crimes of passion which are most definitely not rational calculations.

Filed under: Society

The Learning and Skills Council: Fucking Homeopathy?!

As you may know I hope to be going to University in October.

I am in the process of applying for funding and I have been sent information from the Learning and Skills Council on Graduate Career Development loans. From Page 6…

What courses are covered?

You can use the loan for any full-time, part-time or distance learning courses. Examples include:

• Postgraduate courses, e.g. MSC in Environmental Studies
• Specialist courses at private institutions, e.g. in Homeopathy…

Homeopathy legitimated and supported by our Government. What a disgrace.

http://leftoutside.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/best-news-ive-had-in-months/

Filed under: Politics, Society

Why I’m not Boycotting Total Politics’ Top Blogs Poll

Paul and Dave have called for a boycott of The Total Politics Top Blogs Poll.  Iain Dale is interviewing the Nick Griffin and they do not want their names associated with a magazine which associates with him.

The arguments for and against No Platform have been well worn. I personally wouldn’t share a platform with a Fascist but I’m not convinced that no one should. For example, I considered Griffin’s appearance on Question Time a success. I thought he looked like a fool and everyone I spoke to thought he looked like a fool. I don’t move in particularly “right on” circles, people just hated the odious man all the more for having seen him. [1]

This call has ignited much discussion in the blogosphere with Harpy Marx, Paul Sagar, The Provisional BBC and Stephen Newton all joining the boycott. However, I like Dr Phil will not be joining.

A boycott can be a very effective tactic. The threat of one seemed to work when trying to keep Liddle out of the Independent. Unfortunately I think employed against Iain Dale and Total Politics a boycott is bound to fail.

The man would never back down to left wing bloggers, in his latest comments he seems to be positively revelling in it. Paul explains why he shouldn’t be here, but the point remains that I don’t think this boycott would ever be effective. Although I don’t uniformly support a No Platform policy I do condemn Iain’s decision to interview him.

So tactically I disagree with the threat of boycott. On the other hand, I commend their efforts to expand as sense of solidarity in the left wing blogosphere. I think it is necessary and desirable.

Giles argues against solidarity in blogging saying:

I think solidarity in the blogosphere is a mistake. In fact, I would even question whether outfits like LibCon – which I love – actually advance their causes, because you end up reading it thinking “they would say that wouldn’t they”. Do any of you think the existence of the IEA or ASI actually furthers the acceptance of right wing ideas? For every post I read that convinces me of something new, I read 10 that convince me that they are blinkered nutjobs.

When birds of a feather flock together, all you get is the impression of an echo-chamber, of all of you subjecting yourselves to the very rigorous and searching criticisms of, um, yourselves and other likeminded thinkers.

Giles is wrong for a number of reasons. I already think there is a greater degree of solidarity and cohesion on the blogosphere than he recognises, and that this is a good thing.

For example I think there is a clear sense of community created by bloggers entirely justified disdain for the mainstream media.

Criticising the mainstream media – and attacking its ineffectual watchdog/poodle – are key signals that you are “one of us.”

This signalling reduces the opportunity cost of working out who our allies are. There’s a lot of information out there and its rational to be ignorant of most of it, this behaviour  makes it cheaper to work out friend from foe.

[...]

We’re just great apes, the ticks we pick are called The Sun, The Mail and The Express, but in the end we just sit around, plucking out vermin. We do this not only because its essential for everyone’s health and sanity but also because it binds us together.

This solidarity needs to be built on if we are going to hold the press to account.

Likewise with an election this year, blogging solidarity is going to aid the dissection of each party’s manifesto.

I’m not asking for “freedom of discussion, unity of action” because there will always be disagreement between people opinionated enough to be bloggers.

What I think is necessary is a recognition in speech and action that bloggers, especially those on the left, are working together and can be stronger and more effective together.

[1] I have little faith in the intelligence of BNP members and I do think that a combination of No Platforms and people calmly and repeatedly refuting their arguments is too much for them, a pincer movement they can’t counter.

Filed under: Blogging, Politics

Kill Bill: Christopher Chope and Vulture Funds

At the end of last week Christopher Chope shouted “object” in the Houses of Parliament. By doing so he has more or less ensured that the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill will not pass before Parliament is dissolved and an election is called. This was a Bill with cross party support which was intended to be passed before Brown must call an election.

This Bill was introduced as a consequence of Liberia being brought before the courts in the UK. Greg Palast reported for Newsnight:

Liberia received debt relief worth $4bn from the international community in 2007 under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, including $2bn from private-sector bondholders. Insiders to negotiations allege that two US financiers, Eric Hermann and Michael Straus, allowed other creditors to accept a low payout from Liberia, then quietly transferred their holdings to two other firms, which then sued in Britain for the debt in full.

The Bill would have protected the 40 countries helped by the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. It was also drafted to include measures to prevent assets being seized which are intended to help Liberia.

Three Tory members were in the house when the Bill was being discussed.As The Guardian makes clear, for some time no one knew which of Christopher Chope, Andrew Robathan or Simon Burns had raised this objection. This point should be reiterated, when challenged in Parliament the member who shouted, who we now know to be Christopher Chope, childishly refused to speak up.

I e-mailed the MPs involved in an attempt to find who had killed the BIll and received a single response. This was from Simon Burns making it abundantly clear that he whole heartedly backed the Bill. I am sure Christopher Chope has had a lot of explaining to do this weekend but he has still failed to even acknowledge my question.

He may have ignored me but he spoke to the Independent saying “If you are concerned about this Bill making progress, you should be asking why the Government hasn’t given it extra time. As far as today’s proceedings are concerned, there’s a big Government spin operation to shift the blame to other people.”

Christopher Chope had concerns about the Bill, his objection was entirely within the rules of parliamentary protocol and he was also entitled to refuse to identify himself when challenged, but that does not mean what he did should not pass without condemnation.

This was a Bill introduced by a Labour MP, Andrew Gwynne, and supported by David Cameron and the Conservative front bench. Douglas Alexander has sent a letter to Cameron demanding an explanation for Christopher Chope’s actions but I suspect that this is an example of an MP going rogue. Mr Chope spoke at inordinate length in previous debates hoping to stall the legislation.

As an “honourable” member objected to this Bill’s consideration a further vote must now be arranged for this to be passed into law. Since we are so close to an election, there does not appear to be time remaining in this parliamentary session to do so. The Bill is dead in the water and Christopher Chope killed it. Sadly, the consequences for him are likely to be minor compared to the damage which may now be visited on countries in the Developing world in this Bill’s absence.

Are the Tories still nasty?

Chope almost certainly is and now has a Facebook group criticising him to prove it. Cameron on the other hand has an opportunity to prove he might not be. He can be a canny operator at times and he should be aware that this is only going to reinforce the dominant narrative of the last 20 years that the Tories are nasty. The only way to counter this is to promise that the Tories would reintroduce this legislation if they win the election. If David Cameron cares about his parties image and really is a compassionate conservative he will promise to reintroduce this Bill and help some of the world’s poorest people.

Filed under: Economics, Foreign Affairs, Politics

Filed under: Society

Did Christopher Chope kill the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill?

UPDATE: It was Christopher Chope, and a write up of events is available here.

Last night I e-mailed the three Conservative members who were in the house when the Debt Relief Bill was stalled.

Dear [MP],

As reported in today’s Guardian, your name is one of three that have been floated as possible saboteurs of the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill.

Given the nature of the Vulture Funds this Bill was meant to restrain, I request a clarification as to whether it was you who shouted “object” in order to kill the Bill.

If you were the one who shouted “object”, I would like to know on what grounds you did so.

If you were not the MP who shouted “object”, I would like you to clarify if you support the MP who did so and why.

I accept this will not be the only correspondence you receive with regard to this matter, but as this matter will effect the lives of millions of the world’s poorest I politely request as swift a response as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Left Outside
leftoutsideblog@googlemail.com
http://leftoutside.wordpress.com

So far I have received one response. Simon Burns states unequivocally:

I categorically did not shout ‘object’ to the Bill because like my frontbench I fully supported the Bill and did not expect anyone to object to the Bill. I do not know why an MP objected to the Bill.

Simon Burns MP

Member of Parliament

burnss@parliament.uk

Today The Independent are running the story that Christopher Chope was the man who shouted “object.” This ensured that there was no way this Bill could pass before the next election.

Last night it emerged that Mr Chope had been the backbencher to raise his objection. He believes that the proposed legislation has not been properly debated in the Commons. The Tory leadership is known to have been angry and embarrassed.

Mr Chope told the Independent “If you are concerned about this Bill making progress, you should be asking why the Government hasn’t given it extra time. As far as today’s proceedings are concerned, there’s a big Government spin operation to shift the blame to other people.”

The question now becomes will Chope be punished by his constituents this spring and will the Tory leadership match their rhetoric with action and reintroduce this legislation if they win?

Are the Tories still nasty?

Mr Chope almost certainly is, Dave on the other hand has an opportunity to prove he might not be.

Dave can be a canny operator and he should be aware that this is only going to reinforce the dominant narrative of the last 20 years. The Tories are bastards.

The only way to counter this is not act embarrassed but to promise that the Tories would reintroduce this legislation if they win the election. It would be a boon to the developing world and would improve the party’s image.

Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Politics

Where’s Jessica Fletcher? Who Killed the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill

UPDATE: It was Christopher Chope, and a write up of events is available here.

Pressure is growing on David Cameron to identify the mystery Tory MP who deliberately scuppered a landmark anti-poverty bill that could have stopped “vulture” bankers profiteering from the developing world’s debt burdens.

[...]

The frustration has been compounded by the secrecy surrounding the events in the Commons last night. During the reading, three Tory MPs were seen to huddle together on the benches before one shouted the word “object!”, which under parliamentary procedure effectively stopped the bill passing.

Three Conservatives were in the chamber – Christopher Chope, Andrew Robathan and Simon Burns – but none has admitted intervening. The Tory treasury spokesman, David Gauke, who was on the committee that debated the bill, insisted the Conservatives had wanted to see it go through and that the MPs, two of whom are Tory whips, did not have the support of the frontbench. He said he did not know which one had made the objection. “We have our suspicions,” he added. “It is a pity. Our view was let’s go with the bill but that was not to be. Everyone recognises that this was a rushed process.”

[...]

Vulture funds buy up the debts of poor countries, often at a fraction of their face value, and pursue them through the international courts, in many instances despite agreements by other creditors to give the country debt relief.

So who was it?

• Christopher Chope chopec@parliament.uk
• Andrew Robathan robathana@parliament.uk
• Simon Burns burnss@parliament.uk

Lets find out shall we?

I presume you can all copy and paste (Bloggers: Feel free to cross post or write something to similar effect at your own place, please).

Dear [MP],

As reported in today’s Guardian, your name is one of three that have been floated as possible saboteurs of the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill.

Given the nature of the Vulture Funds this Bill was meant to restrain, I request a clarification as to whether it was you who shouted “object” in order to kill the Bill.

If you were the one who shouted “object”, I would like to know on what grounds you did so.

If you were not the MP who shouted “object”, I would like you to clarify if you support the MP who did so and why.

I accept this will not be the only correspondence you receive with regard to this matter, but as this matter will effect the lives of millions of the world’s poorest I politely request as swift a response as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Left Outside
leftoutsideblog@googlemail.com
http://leftoutside.wordpress.com

+++++++++++++UPDATE++++++++++++++++

ANSWER ONE, from Simon Burns MP:

I categorically did not shout ‘object’ to the Bill because like my frontbench I fully supported the Bill and did not expect anyone to object to the Bill. I do not know why an MP objected to the Bill.

Simon Burns MP

Member of Parliament

burnss@parliament.uk

That sound fairly unequivocal; just two more MPs to wait for. Mr Burns did not say if he knew who did object but it seems he did not support the action.

Filed under: Politics

Soviet Penal Policy

I’ve been to the closing down sale of a second-hand bookshop today and one of the books I bought is titled “Soviet Penal Policy”. [1] It is by Ivo Lapenna and was published in 1968.

A preliminary reading of it leads me to think that the Soviet conception of crime is a little odd. And by odd I mean massively repressive and dangerous.

Quoted in this book is a passage from Kudryavtsev’s Dictionary of Legal Terms describing the Soviet view of crime:

Unlike the formal, politically empty, definitions of the concept of crime supplied by the bourgeois criminal codes (“a crime is an act forbidden under threat of punishment”), the definition of crime contained in Soviet criminal legislation is material, i.e. it reveals the class-political nature of those socially dangerous actions or omissions which are recognised as criminal and punishable by crimes.

This definition of crime meant that without transgressing any law your actions could be deemed to be “socially dangerous” and you could be punished accordingly. A “socially dangerous” action was one which conflicted with the advancement of the dictatorship of the proletariat (the Soviet State). Scary and it seems largely arbitrary stuff.

There were those that questioned the above definition. In 1921 the Institute of Law issued a draft of the criminal code endorsing the material conception of crime but insisted that there could be no crime without a law being transgressed. However, this was not included in the 1922 Criminal Code.

The reforms of 1958 seemed to improve matters somewhat – fewer salt mines and more de jure if not de facto legal protections. For example in 1958 the Soviet Union introduced a number of reforms that would be recognisable in any liberal democracy:

No innocent person shall be prosecuted or convicted; prosectution only on the basis of and in accordance with the law; inviolability of the person; inviolability of domicile and secrecy of correspondence; administration of justice only by courts and according to the principle of equality of citizens before the law and courts; independence of judges and their subjection only to the law; publiciity of hearing with the exception of cases involving a state secret or againt minors under sixteen years of age [in 1958 the age of criminal responsibility was raised from fourteen to sixteen -LO], or sexual offences or offences involving the intimate life of the parties in the case; the presumption of innocence and the objective examination of the circumstances of the casel guarantees regarding the rights of the defence.

It seems like the circumstances of the Soviet citizenry did somewhat improve following the introduction of the 1958 reforms. It should be fairly clear that the nadir of horror under Stalin was not reached again but a large number of retrograde steps eroded most of these freedoms described above.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of this book, I am unsure if the Soviet Union is going to come out of this one smelling of roses.

[1] Also purchased were Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Tacitus’s The Histories, Lawrence Stone’s The Family, Sex and MArriage in England 1500-1800, the Oxford Book of Political Anecdotes and an edited volume from J H Bettey of English Historical Documents 1906-1939 (including original material discussing the introduction of Pensions and the causes and consequences of the General Strike) all for £4.50, what a bargain.

Filed under: History

Thursday’s hypocritical attack on the BBC from The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail has long led a campaign against the BBC.

Quite often its urge to badger the BBC has resulted in massive hypocrisy with contradictory articles appears mere days apart.

Today The Daily Mail publish the below story:

Bob Geldof accuses BBC of ‘total collapse of standards’ following Live Aid weapons claim

Bob Geldof has called for heads to roll at the BBC

Bob Geldof branded the BBC World Service a ‘rotten old cherry’ yesterday for claiming that millions of pounds raised by Band Aid and Live Aid were spent on weapons.

In a vitriolic attack, the singer accused the radio station of a ‘total collapse of standards’.

On the 4th of March? You’ve guessed it, they repeat the same accusations for which they lambast the BBC.

Millions donated by British public to help Ethiopian famine victims ‘was used by warlords to buy weapons’

Millions of pounds raised by Live Aid and Band Aid was spent on weapons, it was claimed last night.

Sir Bob Geldof’s efforts, including the chart-topping single, Do They Know It’s Christmas, and the Live Aid concert at Wembley, raised £40million for those starving in Ethiopia.

Other charities raised £23million for the relief effort.

But although millions of lives were saved by the Western aid that poured into the country, it is now claimed that not all of cash went to the most needy.

Of the £63million that flowed into the country in 1985, it is claimed just 5 per cent was spent on famine relief, with the rest going on weapons and attempts to overthrow the government.

No one would accuse The Daily Mail of a ‘total collapse of standard’, it has always been this way.

Filed under: The Media

Best news I’ve had in months

10 March 2010

Dear [snip],

I am pleased to make you this unconditional offer of admission to the MSc in Global History for the 2010/11 session as a part-time student….

Hello LSE, I’m on my way!

Giles, any course notes or advice you have will be welcome.

Filed under: Blogging

Racist Violence

Anton’s latest post has reminded me of an anecdote related to me by one of my university lecturers Tony Kushner.

Anton’s had to deal with one of your common-and-garden racist commenters and something this moron said sparked my memory.

My lecturer is well known in the field of migration and refugee history and he was a “go to” guy for the press, at least until he stopped playing ball anyway.

One day someone from The Sun rang him after a particularly nasty attack against some migrants. So nasty even they couldn’t ignore it.

For some 20 minutes this conversation went on, when typically a 30 second sound bite will be edited to a few words this was unusual.

My lecturer is not a stupid man and having studied migration and refugee he knew exactly what the reporter wanted.

But he gave in and said “Of course, white people also suffer racist attacks too. But the vast majority of violence and hate crime is perpetrated against immigrants and ethnic minorities.” Triple click to see what they missed out too.

Ladies and Gentlemen: Our gloriously shit free press.

We’ve got to help BNP supporters, but we’ve got to fight the lies that feed them too.

Filed under: Migration, The Media