After only two years since it’s inception Liberal Vision has been voted the 4th most popular Liberal Democrat Blog - up two places from last year.
Much thanks to all who voted and read our blog.
A-level results … congratulate the kids … record passes … record A grades … not enough University places … dumbing down … getting easier every year…
yadda…
yadda…
And yadda again.
But this year, thanks to the interweb, you need not even buy a copy of any of Fleet Street’s finest rags; for THIS WEBSITE has compiled all the best shots of busty, ecstatic 18 year olds clutching result papers while screaming and taking up the classic “about to hug” lesbo-erotic pose that excites so many old Torygraph-reading retired Colonels.
Here’s my favourite of all time:
Do you think it’s airbrushed? Should the shots include more boys?
H/T: Alec van Gelder.
Tags: education, girls girls girlsThe 9/11 attacks were coined an “attack on our freedoms” both in the USA and in other parts of the West (like here). This seemed like reasonable rhetoric, at least until the US government came up with the Patriot Act and a variety of plans to drop a load of bombs on people in the Middle East.
The latest sadly ironic post-9/11 assault on freedom involves the reactionary opposition to some community centre in New York which will apparently include a mosque. This has widely been reported as a plan to “build a mosque on ground zero”, yet as this blog post shows, the mosque isn’t even that close to ground zero:
To borrow Big Apple parlance, the mosque is “two blocks” away. Presumably some flats/shops/offices in that area even include people called Mohammed.
Tags: 9/11, Ground Zero, Islam, World Trade CenterOne of the most important books for left liberals in recent years has been the “The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better“. It’s important for number of reasons, however the main one is that it appears to provide an empirical basis to justify policies that redistribute income for no purpose other than redistribution.
In some Liberal Democrat and Labour circles it has been treated with a sense of uncritical reverence usually reserved for religious tracts.
This is not entirely without reason, it is a good read, and the weight of statistical evidence, both comparisons between countries and between US states, across multiple social trends do seem to point to unarguable case that more equal societies are, on the whole, nicer places to live.
Those then claiming to seek “evidence-based politics” should be pleased by the detailed rebuttal issued by Policy Exchange today - Beware of False Prophets.
The 125 page white paper is also a cracking read and debunks the Spirit Level correlation arguments almost entirely, bar in the one instance of infant mortality, often using their own evidence. A table at the end summarises the problems
The rest of the paper goes through each of the claims in detail and provides comparative analysis, showing what happens when extreme cases are removed (for example the US heavily distorts murder rate correlations, Japan life expectancy).
Clusters of nations that do not explain inequality relationships elsewhere, but might reflect the result of cultural history (Remove Scandinavia and most inequality relationships collapse between the rest).
Highlighting selective use of evidence, such as country choice, and which social statistics they regard as important (they ignore all trends where more equal societies have it worse for example suicide rates, HIV, boozing and divorce).
That socialism encourages suicide does not surprise me, who aspires to be an arbitrary average? But I remain respectful of people’s right to choose the miserable philosophy for themselves. The Spirit Level also ignores rapid improvements in life expectancy in countries where inequality has also been rising.
The Spirit Level does not look a correlations that better explain social trends than income inequality. In their US data for example the uncomfortable conclusion of the counter-analysis is that “the proportion of African-Americans in a state is often a much stronger predictor of social outcomes than the level of income inequality”. True or not, it is a stark warning against using isolated social trend correlations to drive prescriptive policies.
On a smaller note within the same theme, when I had the opportunity to put a question to the author of the Spirit Level at a meeting last year, I asked him whether if his or similarly modelled data showed ‘rich’ countries with less freedom had better social outcomes than those with more freedom, he would advocate policies that reduce freedom. His prickly non-response did not suggest the kind of critical open mind that separates genuinely curious researchers from political activists.
An approach evident in his Equality Trust response to the Policy Exchange paper today, which does little more than reiterate previous points, rather than answer the challenges raised.
Prior to this publication I had thought the main problem with the Spirit Level was that it confuses correlation with causation, and suffers the delusion that very different states can simply be planned into better shape by state action if only we knew the right lever to pull. But this powerful rebuttal also makes clear that the correlations used are highly suspect, selective, and in many cases simply wrong.
As the report notes “Despite the enthusiastic reception this book has received from social commentators, its claims are unsupported. The ethical debate over inequality remains unresolved.”
This is not an argument that inequality doesn’t matter, or conversely that it’s a good thing. It is an argument against the distributionalist position that it is the only thing that matters or automatically more important than other social goods.
It is against the notion that by throwing money at redistribution all other things improve. General social trends it would seem are bad at improving your health for you, you may need to make some effort yourself.
To believe the Spirit Level has ended the left/right distribution/aspiration debate in politics, let alone within liberalism, is a delusion.
Given the new Olympic mascots Wenlock and Mandeville must have been many months in development the similarities between them and the symbols of the new government are just eerie.
If you’re not as big a fan of Marmite as I am you may not have noticed the truly inspired advertising campaign they’re currently running. It centres around the phoney “Marmite election” and there are some complete gems on their Youtube Channel. This spoof of the ‘Hate Party PEB’ struck a particular chord with me, however, as it completely sums up the bigotted narrative of authoritarians everywhere. You could substitute Marmite for practically any vice and it’d work. Take a peak:
Love Marmite, love liberty!
Fresh from his latest efforts to ruin everything, Hugo Rafael Chavez has launched a scathing tirade on lots of fun stuff.
The Venezuelan despotic nut-job said in his Weekly Address to the Proletariat:
“[Capitalist countries] promote the need for cigarettes, drugs and alcohol so they can sell them.”
Having displayed this unparalleled ability to unravel the evils of ‘the West’, the Dear Leader concluded:
“That’s capitalism, the road to hell.”
Which is funny, because usually when I peer lovingly at a seemingly-perspiring chilled glass of gin & tonic I think: “Bejesus, this is the road from hell. Deliver me to happiness, my sparkling transparent friend!”
It turns out, strangely enough, that the real source of Mr Chavez’s ire is a piss-take of himself–in the form of a video game. So he explained, to gasps (or giggles) of his people:
“Those games they call ‘PlayStation’ are poison. Some games teach you to kill. They once put my face on a game; ‘you’ve got to find Chávez to kill him.’”
Find Chavez? Kill him?
It’s poison, readers, poison. Vive la revolution.
Tags: alcohol, Chavez, Cigarettes, drugs, Fun stuffLiberal Vision have received an anonymous tribute to Nick Clegg! In the name of the seasons festivities it is hereforth published on behalf of the author (who also sends their apologies to Monty Python…).
Bravely bold Sir Cleggy rode forth from Cowley Street
He was not afraid to defy, O brave Sir Cleggy He was not at all afraid to be say no in nasty ways Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Cleggy He was not in the least bit scared to reverse party policy Or to have his activists wail and his MPs rebel To have his team resign and his popularity sink And his expenses exposed by the Telegraph, brave Sir Cleggy His leadership fail and his seat go red And his column axed and his interviews stopped And his children defect and his wife marry Chris Huhne And his willy... Well that's enough music for now, lads... Brave Sir Cleggy ran away - No! Bravely ran away, away - I didn't! When the FPC said no instead He bravely turned his tail and fled - No! Yes, brave Sir Cleggy turned about And gallantly he chickened out Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat Bravest of the brave, Sir Cleggy
I have just returned from happily linking “s-turns” on the slops of the French Alps. Whilst I was there I had the opportunity to speak to a couple of French girls my own age, who were, to my surprise, as politics mad as I am. After discussing everyone from Obama to Sarkozy and letting them know my disdain for the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, it was time for lunch.
Now, since French women famously “don’t get fat‘ I couldn’t help mentioning that my political party had decided to pass a motion aiming at making advertisers show to what degree they had airbrushed their adverts…
Pourquoi?
Well, don’t adverts make you feel ‘inferior’ or put too much pressure on you to be thin? After looking at me like I was a space cadet for good few moment they simply shrugged, “non”. Admittedly they confessed to reading “Vogue” more often than the french equivalent of “Now” or “Heat”. To them Lagerfeld is a modern day ‘Picasso’, it is art. The adverts are simply not considered in the same nature or afforded the same status that Jo Swinson has incorrectly granted them.
As one of our few female MPs, Swinson should be in my big book of contemporary feminist heroes. Yet I completely abhor the “Real Women” campaign and its correlating motion and I continue to object to it on practical, libertarian and feminist grounds. On a practical level the rest of the political community gave a collective sigh of “ah bless”, it made us look twee and amateur. Speaking to Lynne Featherstone after the motion had been passed she described the motion as being about “honesty” and that’s a great thing. However, the Real Women campaign isn’t about honesty in advertising, it’s about honesty in advertising regarding womens bodies only. If it was truly about honesty in advertising then it should have a motion to itself including all advertising (including the degrading treatment of men by some advertisers) and not including any womens issues.
The fact of the matter is that the “Real Women” motion was a shill. It included issues as diverse as domestic violence and equal pay; issues that could (and should) have been afforded meaty motions in their own right. Yet theses more pressing issues were given the half-baked treatment in order to cynically use them as ‘window dressing’ for Swinson’s pseudo-censorship. This alone is testament to the tenuousness of the airbrushing segment; it could never have stood alone.
So where next?! We’re stuck with a poor motion that skims the meaty issues and makes a meaningless gesture at advertisers. You should not need to be told that fashion adverts are not true to life any more that you need to be told a Picasso isn’t figuratively accurate. The “Real Women” campaign is patronisingly maternalistic if nothing else. What women need is to get back to feminist basics. Women need to stop objectifying the women in fashion adverts. We turn them into rods and then proceed to flagellate ourselves with them.
The “Real Women” campaign has been an orgy of weeping an wailing: completely emotional and irrational. It provides a salve for our self-inflicted wounds but has also granted us a greater capacity to inflict them and never let them truly heal. How women can truly help themselves is by truly ending this masochistic cycle. We need to see fashion as art. Art is useless; if an object has any function other than to aesthetically please it is no longer art. Therefore there is no reason for us to worry about not looking like a Chanel ad. Obviously that’s easier said than done but it is certainly preferable than turning yourself into a perpetual victim.
Placing limits on the human expression of consenting adults is a violation of their intrinsic human rights. It is also completely unnecessary. If you can’t break the cycle of masochistic madness then be an adult and withdraw your consent. Stop buying the products that are advertised in a way you find objectionable an the magazines that advertise them.
Swinson obviously cares about women a great deal. In this case, however, good intentions have not made good policy and done women a disservice in the process. This orgy of self-depreciation has to stop. To end on the words of my French friend: “Of course aesthetics are important but if I’m not fit I’m not free to do the things I want to do.” It’s time to stop being “Real” and start being down to earth!
DISCLAIMER: THE INDIVIDUAL PICTURED SNOWBOARDING IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE IS NOT ACTUALLY ME…
YES, if Simon Cowell has his way……
In an interview with Newsnight this evening Simon Cowell admitted to giving serious thought to a political X Factor style show. In the interview he talks about picking a topic each show e.g “Should we be in or out of Afganistan and Iraq” ….”Knife crime” … (Capital Punishment???) , talking about it ( a bit vague on detail), a panel of “experts” to comment - and then “the public vote”.
What seems to tickle his fancy is the idea of “the people having their say”…well eventually . Ok what he probably means is telephone voting (a nice little earner for his company and the TV channel broadcasting the show no doubt) but the idea is intriging and will doubtless send waves of fear/excitement reverberating around Westminster. With a Simon Cowell show this would not be “a poll” of 900 people from some pre-selected panel, balanced by blah blah blah - this would be hundreds of thousands, millions possibly, making their views felt. Politicians doorstepped the next-day for their views on their party’s policies in light of the results……oh the chaos….
What sounded optimisitic was his idea that he could run 5 or 6 of these before the next general election (well that might prompt Gordon Brown to pull his finger out at least). But what Simon Cowell wants, Simon Cowell gets (can you really see a cash-strapped ITV turning down ANY Simon Cowell project right now?).
This has a real chance of getting off the ground. If he is serious….Cowell’s reputation would (a) almost certainly ensure that his programme would be snapped up by the lucky channel he talks to because (b) Cowell’s reputation would undoubtedly guarantee substantial viewing figures to at least trialling it. After that it will down to just how good the show actually is - and he is as good as it gets - I cant see it being a turkey myself.
Personally I liked the idea of the “red telephone” - enabling NO10 to call at any time during the show. Kirsty Wark could envisage Brown falling over Mandelson falling over Balls to get to the phone first … I am not so sure… but I can see Mr Hilton and David Cameron (as indeed Tony Blair would have) realising the wonderful opportunites that this might present.
Could Simon Cowell be the man needed to re-enage the public with politics? Will any of us like the answers the public gives us ? Could he actually achieve what Rupert Murdoch has tried so hard to do for soooooo long (financing loss making enterprises such as Sky News along the way) to influence politics in a significant way. The answer to the last question is yes, he could, and make money out of it. I have no doubt.
So brace yourselves, “Simon Cowell - the KING of Entertainment”, might just be set to be the “Simon Cowell - the most influential person in politics”. As Newsnight says…”The X man cometh”….
Tags: Newsnight, politics, Simon Cowell, X Factor
Ranked no. 56 in the UK
Ranked no.6 in the UK
Elsewhere on Lib Dem Blogs...