Big Sticks and Small Carrots

David Cameron’s appearance on Newsnight last night was interesting. I see he’s been working on his super sincere “I’ve got gravitas” face. Impressive…

On marriage, he said something which had me scratching my head.

The evidence shows that marriage is a good institution that encourages people to commit to each other and to stay with each other.

He then acknowledged that some marriages do break up, fair enough, but what evidence is he referring too which demonstrates that marriage encourages people to stay together? He helpfully outlined it:

There is some very interesting evidence that Iain Duncan Smith put in his report which is that if you take an unmarried couple with a child, by the time that child reaches the age of five, half of them have separated. The figure for married couple is one in twelve.

Well, that is certainly evidence. I’ll even give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s true for now. What conclusion can be drawn from this evidence, Mr Cameron?

That to me is a figure we really have to look at and think marriage is a good institution, we should back it, and I think including in the tax system.

In summary, the argument is that because married people with children tend to stay together longer than unmarried couples, the institution of marriage causes these couples to stay together longer.

Hmm…

The detailed reasoning behind this argument is apparently contained in a previous report called Fractured Families. A helpful link to that report is provided in the newer one (pdf, page 13) but, alas, 404 Not Found doesn’t really advance the case a great deal.

Without being able to access the details, it does seem like there might be just a tiny wee hole in this “evidence”.

In the conclusions to the new report we find this comment (page 107):

As the chairwoman of OXPIP [an organisation which helps parents to bond with their children] said to us, ‘Marriage is the natural consequence of two adults being able to commit to each other because their own emotional development is secure and has given them the necessary confidence.’

To put it another way, marriage might well be a result of the relationship between two people who are already more likely to stay together than other couples.

The figures quoted by Cameron certainly don’t prove that marriage “encourages people to commit to each other and to stay with each other”. They might just as easily suggest that people who feel they are ready to get married under the current legislative framework are people who are already more likely to be able to maintain a stable relationship over a prolonged period. If the second suggestion is true, Cameron’s policy proposals are only going to increase the divorce rate by encouraging marriages between people who are not actually ready to make that commitment.

Bizarrely, as if this has somehow registered subconsciously in the minds of the authors, they wrote this as the response to the comment on marriage as a natural consequence of emotional development:

It is for this reason that we have resisted incentivising marriage although our measures strongly encourage it.

Wibble.

There seems to be something in the air this week. On Monday, Tory poster boy Iain stuck it too the big supermarkets for being beastly to traditional Conservative voters. Maybe he believes that putting political expediency before principle is a good way to rebuild public confidence in the integrity of the political system.

Yesterday, the Tories launched “It’s Time to Fight Back” (pdf) proving first of all that they really didn’t think very hard about the title of their document on ways to decrease violence in the UK.

The report contains this:

Parents need the support of wider society. Too often, the positive lessons learnt by children at home are undermined by negative lessons taught by popular culture… [T]he music industry, and in particular the lyrics and videos of rap, hip-hop and R&B… often explicitly popularise gangs, guns, a culture of unconstrained acquisition, and…

Hold on a minute there. Promoting “a culture of unconstrained acquisition” is a negative lesson? For the Tories?

Now you really are ‘avin a giraffe.

The death of Rhys Jones is a tragic event. Sadly, the media’s almost orgasmic delight at having such an emotive story to cover during the silly season is helpful only to those looking to boost sales/viewing figures. Obsolete has written an excellent post on that.

What I’d like to do is focus on just one point from this case. There is undoubtedly a real problem in some areas with violent groups intimidating people into silence when something like this happens. The police are trying very hard to reassure the public that they will be protected if they come forward with evidence.

From the BBC:

Speaking at a press conference near the spot where Rhys was shot, Ch Supt Chris Armitt said: “We understand that people are concerned about giving information to the police, we understand that people are frightened.

“[But] what I want to say to people is, listen, they’ve got to stand up and they’ve got be counted.

“We have ways of protecting members of the public who come forward with information, we can protect their identity.”

That’s perfectly sensible.

And this is from the same report:

Police have confirmed they have spoken to a woman seen pushing a pram near the Fir Tree pub just before the shooting.

That’s utterly barking.

Apparently, these Einstein’s have not worked out that if this women has seen the perpetrators of this crime, there’s a strong possibility that they’d have seen her too and that they might know who she is. If you were that woman, how would you feel next time you had to wheel your pram past the Fir Tree pub? Or the next time you hear a funny noise in the middle of the night?

This police confirmation and the media reporting of the same must be some new form of identity protection involving double bluff and…

No, sarcasm won’t do. This is absolutely ridiculous. How many other witnesses have been put off from coming forward because of this announcement? We’ll never know now.

Many years ago my mother saw two men syphoning petrol from the row of cars in the street in front of our house. My father was away on business so she phoned a neighbour (a prison warder) and asked him to contact the police; being a young mother alone with three children in the house, she didn’t want to phone directly and have the police come to our door in sight of the men. The police came, caught the culprits in the act, locked them in the back of the car, went to the neighbour’s door, took a brief statement and them came to ours to do the same. They did this in full view of the two men in the back of the car. Although no further harm came to the family as a result of this idiocy, it did have an effect on my mother and on her attitude towards the police. She felt that they had needlessly endangered herself and, more importantly, her children.

In recent conversation with her, I’ve argued that things have improved considerably in the intervening years. Today, as we sat together watching a BBC bulletin containing the information above, I had to concede that they might not have improved that much.

Yesterday, Bush drew parallels between the Iraq and Vietnam wars. I presume that a few spoilt brats in the National Guard, those with influential fathers perhaps, have managed to avoid being sent to Iraq too so he does have a point.

Bush played up the consequences of US withdrawal from Vietnam but failed to mention the consequences of US participation.

Let’s just take one of those consequences. The US military dropped approximately 20 million gallons of Agent Orange and other “herbicides” over Vietnam during the course of the war. Here are some photos of the effects of Agent Orange on the Vietnamese population. More than 30 years after the war, parts of Vietnam are still highly contaminated and people are still suffering as a result.

The American government has set up a programme to help US veterans who’ve been affected by exposure to Agent Orange. Under the heading “Agent Orange and Birth Defects”, the government website highlights the fact that “The Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1997 granted benefits for children of Vietnam veterans who were suffering from spina bifida”. Despite that, the US government has resisted paying compensation to Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange.

In 2005, when Vietnamese victims tried to take the manufacturers of the chemical to court, the case was dismissed. The judge ruled that they had not proved that Agent Orange caused birth defects and illness. This despite the fact that in 1984, several chemical companies paid $180m (£93m) to settle a lawsuit with US war veterans, who said that their health had been affected by exposure to the substance.

Perhaps there’s some scientific reason why American veterans are more susceptible to the ill effects of Agent Orange than the Vietnamese people who had the stuff dropped on themselves, their animals, their farmland and their water. Any scientists out there want to tell me what it is?

There are some signs that the US government may be slowly moving on this, due, no doubt, to the softening of relationships between the two countries rather than any humanitarian concern for the victims. Give it another 10 or 20 years and some sort of reparation might be on the cards for those who’re still alive.

And perhaps, in another 30 years time, people will again draw parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

I’ve just been having a wee poke around with the Wikiscanner. For those who’ve not seen it, it allows you to track anonymous Wikipedia edits through IP addresses.

See if you can see what all of these edits from the last 28 days have in common. Deep breath…

1. Conrad Black
2. John N. Gray
3. Gustave Courbet
4. Ingmar Bergman
5. Cobalt Bomb
6. Travels in the Scriptorium
7. The Lay of the Land
8. Martin Amis
9. The Mission Song
10. John le Carre
11. J. G. Ballard

Have you guessed what it is yet? OK, I’ll tell you. Every one of the above edits was to add a link to articles from either The Times or the TLS.

And can you guess who the IP 143.252.80.100 is registered too? Go on, have a guess…

Here’s a little riddle.

I believe that Rupert Murdoch, an Australian with US citizenship, has far too much influence over politics in this country and that he uses his media outlets to push his political agenda at every opportunity.

It is accepted by all but the most confused individuals that the output of News Corp is habitually politically biased. It is also undeniable that British politicians feel they must court him in order to ensure that he doesn’t set his attack dogs on them and that he has had considerable influence over the policies of New Labour. Lance Price famously described him as the 24th member of Blair’s cabinet and he has access to the Prime Minister the likes of which ordinary members of the public could only dream of.

This is not good.

Whenever I try to draw attention to this, there will always be someone who broadly shares Murdoch’s political views ready to tell me I’m a patronising git. “That’s so typical of a condescending bruschetta munching Guardianista. You assume that the great unwashed are stupid mindless drones being helplessly brainwashed by this bias. People are smarter that that, you know. You leftists just can’t come to terms with the fact that people can think for themselves…”

That sort of thing.

Here’s the riddle.

Murdoch’s newspapers, and others who would benefit from the removal of a reasonably neutral news service, constantly harp on about the damaging affects of the alleged bias of the BBC.

So, can the media shape public opinion or not?

And can I have my cake and eat it a the same time?

(I’ve left all the rest of the stuff about alleged BBC bias out because I really just want to focus on this one question. You probably won’t be surprised to learn that I do already know that the license fee is compulsory for anyone who receives or records television programmes in this country.)

Says Dick in 1994.

Via.

What else is there to say?