Delicious LiveJournal Links for 3-12-2010

[andrewducker]

• BNP members will not be banned from teaching
  (tags: racism uk freespeech)
• Thalidomide effect mystery solved
  (tags: thalidomide medicine children)
• "Too cool for the room" syndrome
  (tags: people opinion)
• "Mad Men" Barbie Dolls Launch
  (tags: EpicWin MadMen)
• School Cancels Prom Because Lesbians Were Going To Come
  (tags: EpicFail gay rights usa)
• Rights and the left - which aptly describes the reasons I vote Lib-Dem
  (tags: politics liberty rights)

Comments

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

Right and the left - how does the author explain the Human Rights Act, then?

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Presumably the same way I do - as something introduced as a means of keeping to European commitments, and which various Labour politicians (notably Straw) resent and have referred to as "a villains' charter"...

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

There was no need to introduce it to keep to "European commitments" - we were already signatories to the Convention.

I think Jack Straw said he understood why the Act was seen as a villains' charter by some, not that he saw it that way himself.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

All the Human Rights Act actually does is allow cases where someone wants to exercise their rights under the European Convention to do so through the British court system rather than going to Strasbourg, so whether it was *necessary* in order to comply with the convention or not (I was under the impression it was, but can't find the citation now) it didn't actually give anyone any new rights. And Straw talked about wanting to 'rebalance' the act to make people have 'responsibilities' along with those rights - which is a totally different understanding of 'rights' from the understanding in the linked article...

[missedith01.livejournal.com]

The Convention prior to the HRA had the legal status of a treaty, really. Non-compliance by a signatory might lead to expulsion from the Council of Europe and negative publicity, but that's about it.

I am in no way an apologist for this government's failure to support the Act after passing it, don't get me wrong. I think they have undermined the Act in a very discreditable way to pander to certain sections of the press. And the "rights and responsibilities" stuff is nonsensical, I agree. I only offer in their defence that they introduced it and haven't neutered or repealed it and that this (and possibly only this) is inconsistent with the view that Labour's liberalism is "communitarianism" as expressed in the article.

[matgb]

HRA was passed when Labour were genuinely being liberal, back when I was supporting Blair and the Govt.

1997 manifesto was a very liberal plan, including FOI, HRA, electoral reform and similar.

Even 2001 was pretty good. The question is not why the HRA, but why LAbour in offie abandoned liberalism and the 'big tent' Blair was building.

I blame the electoral system.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

> Rights and the left - which aptly describes
> the reasons I vote Lib-Dem

Funny, I'm starting to change my mind from voting Lib-Dem.

> School Cancels Prom Because Lesbians Were Going To Come

Every headline I've seen about this has the wrong focus. The school's intention is not to cancel the prom. It is to move it from an offical school event (which is not allowed to be explicitly homophobic) to a private event which can be officially homophobic: "The school board responded with a statement canceling the prom and suggesting a private group host an independent prom instead."

There's a strong implication in most statements from the school that they would put their support behind an "independant" (by which they mean homophobic) prom.

That's what's really disgusting. The only moral response from other prom attendees is to boycott any private prom, but I don't think that will be widespread unless the lesbian students in question are able to mount an effective campaign.

[andrewducker]

Yes, your post has got me thinking as well.

And yes, the school's response is awful.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I emailed David Howarth (our local Lib Dem MP) after hearing Clegg's remarks basically saying, "Dude, WTF?" I'll write up their response when I get it.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Well, there's a couple of points there. Firstly, unlike the other parties, the Lib Dems don't make policy based on whatever the leader says - what goes into the manifesto is what's voted on by conference. We're a democratic party, and just because the leadership says something is policy doesn't mean it is...

But also, the 'no tax rises' there is not a direct quote - LD policy is *actually* to have no overall increase in taxes, but to increase taxes on the rich and reduce taxes on the poor. The "tax breaks to the people who tend to spend more of their money they receive." is specifically talking about tax breaks to *the poor* - who spend their money rather than save or invest it. If you look at the actual interview, that line is "giving tax breaks to the people who tend to spend more of their money they receive. That is to say, people lower down the income scale."

If you look at what he's actually quoted as saying - rather than the 'reported speech' (i.e. stuff made up by the reporters to fit their own idea of what they think he *should* be saying) - this is someone who's talking about redistribution from the rich to the poor, and about smashing the banks. I dislike the talk about spending cuts, but even there, the majority of the stuff that the Lib Dems are talking about cutting is things like the Trident replacement, rather than NHS services...

I'm not a fan of Nick Clegg - I don't think he's a particularly good leader, and I make no secret of the fact. But one thing I think he *is* good at - and something the Lib Dems need to do - is putting actually liberal (and indeed left) values into words that appeal to Daily Mail readers, without actually compromising those values. Unfortunately, when you take a few lines like that out of context, it can come across as rather rabidly Thatcherite, which neither he nor the party actually are.

I suggest if you want an idea of what Clegg actually thinks and plans, you read The Liberal Moment - http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/the-liberal-moment - which talks about his actual views without being 'interpreted' by some columnist...

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I've had this same argument elsewhere and it doesn't fly. I know very well what the Lib Dem policies are, thanks, there's no need to explain them to me. What concerns me is right-wing rhetoric coming out of the party leader's mouth.

You frame that as "putting liberal values into words that appeal to Daily Mail readers" and seem to think that's a good thing. And I see where you're coming from - Daily Mail readers being persuaded that left-wing values are worthwhile is indeed a good thing.

But I don't think it achieves that. I think that the Daily Mail readers hear, "Yes, cuts are good. We like cuts. Yey Thatcher!". They're all going to vote for the Conservatives anyway, so all Clegg is doing is shoring up the Conservative talking points, and maybe succeed in getting into Cameron's pants come a hung parliment.

I don't want to hear a party playing to the Daily Mail vote. I want to hear a party which openly, unapologetically, prioritises left-wing politics. Then I want to vote for them with the meaning of my vote being clear: "More of this, please".

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

"I know very well what the Lib Dem policies are, thanks, there's no need to explain them to me."

I apologise if I appeared patronising. The *vast* majority of the time when I get into discussions about the Lib Dems, the other person has no idea about the most basic aspects of the party's policies.

As for the rest of what you say, I agree totally, and think it a shame that the party leadership doesn't see things that way. I've argued that we should be fighting the Tories the hardest in this election for a couple of years now...

My own solution to this dilemma is to be a member of the party, and to campaign for it, but to also argue within the party for my own views, and to support organisations like the Social Liberal Forum - http://socialliberal.net/ . That way, while my vote might not 'send a message' to the other parties, I *am* sending a message to the Lib Dems about what they need to do to keep mine...

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

has no idea about the most basic aspects of the party's policies.

Including some party members who happen to have the ability to amend legislation. At least, I hope it turns out that an amendment to the Digital Economy (Prevention) Bill drafted by the BPI turns out to be entirely counter to LibDem policy.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

It is, and a *LOT* of party members are furious about that - a motion's going forward at conference, backed by about 30 PPCs, deploring that, and the whole party's up in arms against them...

[matgb]

They're all going to vote for the Conservatives anyway,

No, no they're not. More Daily Mail readers vote Lib Dem than any other newspaper.

IIRC, more Daily Mail readers vote Labour than readers of any paper other than the Mirror.

(note, that's total numbers, not %ages)

Note Clegg didn't, even with a direct quote, 'praise' Thatcher, he said that with hindsight he understood why she took on the vested interest of the unions. He also didn't say she did it in the right way, merely that it had to be done.

I want to hear a party which openly, unapologetically, prioritises left-wing politics

Which, from what I've seen of the interview, is pretty close to what he's done. Raising capital gains tax to hit the wealthiest hardest has to be seen as a left wing policy. Using that to reduce the tax burden of the poorest is a pretty good redistibutive plan.

The Speccy is read nationally. He's used language that appeals to Speccy readers, many of whom will now consider voting for him, and his avowedly left wing policy agenda.

Which, in many key marginals where he's fighting Labour and the Tories can't win (like Burnley, for example), will possibly help.

I've long thought the best way to win some reforms, like say electoral reform, is to persuade Conservatives; that was certainly the case in the 19th Century on a number of issues.

I'm on the left of the Lib Dems, but I've no [problem with Cleeg trying to build a broad church of support for the policies I favour.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

There's a strong implication in most statements from the school that they would put their support behind an "independant" (by which they mean homophobic) prom.

The amusing part being that it looks like the one person's who's come forward saying he'd run the prom is a hotel owner in New Orleans who's offering for the exact opposite reason.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

I would dearly love it if that happened. :D

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

It also wouldn't surprise me if part of the reason they canceled it is because they know it will generate hostility toward the couple. We open-minded outsiders look at the situation and of course we think the school administrators are at fault here (because, you know, they are), but this kind of small-town, conservative community isn't likely to see it the same way. I'd bet there are plenty of people there who are all het up about how "those lesbians" ruined the prom. And if there's enough backlash against the couple over this, that serves as a fine warning to anyone else who might dare to suggest they be treated equally.

The sad part is, I suspect they'll get their independent prom and people will still be upset about the situation. The school administrators get to have their homophobic cake and eat it too.

I hope I'm being overly pessimistic, but I suppose we'll see.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

I am not a fan of the BNP in any way, shape or form.

Despite this, I cannot see how one could reasonably (& legally) reconcile preventing members from entering the teaching profession while the BNP remains a legal organisation.

I think to do so would award undeserved media interest & potentially add fuel to their campaign.

[andrewducker]

I totally agree - the decision was definitely the right one.

[meihua.livejournal.com]

Just wandered by to drop this follow-up to the lesbian prom story - just as predicted, parents held a secret homophobic prom. And in a nasty little twist, they let Constance go along to the (almost-empty) main prom without letting her know. Almost empty? Yes. A few students with learning disabilities, who also hadn't found out about the secret gay-hating prom, were there as well. Fucking disgusting.

[andrewducker]

Thanks for that. Absolutely revolting behaviour. Will be in tomorrows linkfest.