Does it really surprise anyone that the young ignore the government when it moralises against alcohol? The campaigns tend to be so patronising that they’re enough to inspire consumption as it is.

I drink, regularly. As a byproduct, I know how much alcohol it takes to render myself insensible; when it happens several time, you do tend to notice the pattern.

Anyone who drinks regularly should be the same. They have been drunk, several times, and so know how it happens to them. They don’t need to be told this by a stern poster spouting arbitrary figures at them; and no doubt do feel patronised by that poster telling them what they already know.

Likewise, they’re unlikely to be entirely unaware of the impact of drinking upon health. Anyone who drinks will at least know someone who’s hurled all that they’ve drunk and more into the loo, and will likely have heard graphic stories of at least one stomach pump. To throw up is to be ill, and most people know that’s bad. So we can assume most heavy drinkers are aware of some of the risks.

If a young person gets drunk, and does so frequently, it’s thus likely (logically) to be a more or less conscious decision. They know what they’re doing, yet do it anyway. And yet the government persists in pushing out campaigns that assume the young are ignorant of both the cause (hence stark photographs of bottles ominously marked “10″) and the consequences (hence “hard-hitting” portrayals of vomit stained youth drowing in their own filth) of drunkeness.

They know what they’re doing, and so presumably want to do it (and know this), for whatever reason. The government then shoves out propaganda that effectively claims they’re only doing it because they don’t know what they’re doing.

Who would listen to that?

…please leave the internet alone:

Film-style age ratings could be applied to websites to protect children from harmful and offensive material, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has said.

They won’t work. Cinema age-ratings work only because cinemas sit employees outside the entrance to check whether those going into a film look old enough. Video age-ratings work sometimes because shop-staff can refuse sale to those who look too young, and sometimes because parents can decide whether or not a child should watch it.

Neither of these can be said of the internet. To enforce website age-ratings, you would either need to sit a particularly patient policeman in front of every computer, ready to pull the plug at first sight of “naughtiness” or simply institute a blanket filter of certain material nation-wide; because, of course, the internet can’t judge the age of those using it.

The former of these options is simply undesirable. Who wants a state-employed busybody sitting in their living room - and who’d be willing to pay for one to sit in every living room? The latter, though, is just as bad. A blanket filter would affect not just children, but adults who have every right to decide what they should read.

So, Mr. Burnham, when you say:

“It’s not about banning or stopping people having that freedom of expression. It’s simply about clearer signposting, more information, so people know where they’re working.”

You are, of course, lying. Any possible attempt to enforce your ratings would require intervention into the lives and choices of every dweller or user of the internet. This is, in itself, an assault on the user’s freedom of expression; control over what you read or watch matters as much as control over what you say. The liberty to do both springs from the same idea that rational individuals have a right to their own minds, and this would clearly impact their ability to use those minds.

Moreover, to set yourself up as the supervisor of the internet further sets you up as moral supervisor to the entire nation. You decide what’s suitable for whom, and at what age individuals are to be judged mature; the clear implication being that they can’t decide this for themselves, and need protection in the meantime. An assault on their independence, at the very least.

Burnham, you’re not my mother. I already have one of those. She’s considerably less controlling than you have apparent aspirations to be, and I love her a great deal more for it. Perhaps you ought to learn from this…

(Hat-tip, as I just hadn’t read the news very well today: Jennie)

Oh, and this worried me slightly:

More than a quarter of science teachers in state schools believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons, according to a national poll of primary and secondary teachers.

The Ipsos/Mori poll of 923 primary and secondary teachers found that 29% of science specialists agreed with the statement: “Alongside the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be TAUGHT in science lessons”

I’ve little problem with the discussion of creationism. But the teaching of the doctrine is another matter. We shouldn’t teach creationism as a scientific point of view; it’s not, and doesn’t claim to be. The theory states that a divine being literally created life, the universe, and everything. As such, it’s explicitly based in faith, both in a god, and an idea of what that god might do. It isn’t an empicically tested hypothesis, as inclusion in a science lesson would suggest.

And yet that’s how it’ll be taken; because children expect what they’re taught in a Science to be demonstrably true. Far from challenging creationism, encouraging Science teachers to teach on it will simply lend it the perception of fact. We should teach pupils about creationism, and the debate that surrounds it - but in RS, along with every other belief system based in faith above empiricism.

I wonder at this:

Schools Secretary Ed Balls is getting together with Britain’s agony aunts for a “relationship summit”.

An “anguish of agony aunts” - the collective noun chosen by themselves - will advise ministers on how to support children facing family breakdown.

I won’t contest the benefits of a stable childhood. But consider the role of an agony aunt. They receive letters from those who consider themselves to have a problem. Some might therefore have some insight into those caught up in family breakdown perceive their trouble; but a very specific group of those, who might consider opening their private lives to that most public of forums, the tabloid newspaper.

Nor does the receipt of letters necessarily guarantee that the replies will be of any use. The agony aunt’s position doesn’t require them to dish out advise that’ll work, but that sounds plausible to the reader. And so play to whichever prejudices and conceptions they feel their readers might have of family breakdown. Nor do we have any means of seeing whether any find their Aunts’ advice useful. They hardly make themselves open to feedback forms; and given that most write for a newspaper with wider content, aren’t subject to the vagaries of an open market which might demonstrate how well their advice went down.

So, we’ve no idea whether they’re worth much at all, and have no means of finding out. Way to find a potential cul-de-sac? Listening to those involved in break-ups would seem a surer start…

It’s an interesting question that’s been kicking around for some years now: ID Cards. Why?

It’s become increasingly, achingly clear that they’ll be useful for anything. The only determined advocate is someone who stands to make massive amounts of cash out of their introduction. The implementation would cost an immense amount of money that we couldn’t really spare before this recession reduced the amount of money available for the state. And any idea so terrible it’s drawn together Tony Benn and UKIP is clealy not too wise to implement.

But even politically it is difficult to see any advantage. When it was matched by the Tories it was conceivable to see this as a piece of clothes stealing but now they are opposing the policy we are left with the preposterous notion of Labour winning over social rightists. Quite simply this isn’t going to happen. It seemed possible after that “Hug-a-hoody” stuff but since that phrase was quickly traded in for “Broken Britain” they were tucked back into the fold nicely. What Labour is left with is a policy that causes them to lose out massively amongst civil liberties voters. There are two other major parties offerinng to scrap the proposals and for those who this is a primary concern its fairly hard to justify not voting for either in the case of being situation in a marginal.

So either in terms of doing any good or in strategy the policy is dead weight. So why keep it?

Three words: the Lib Dems.

Prior to this identity idiocy there was one major offer Labour could put on the table for this lot if it came to a hung parliament. If they submitted to reform of the one area Liberal Democrats really care about, voting systems, and implemented Proportional Representation they could be assured a coalition. They could also be assured that that coalition was one they would have to get used to, as for the forseeable future a Lib-Lab union would be the only imaginable set-up British politics could handle.

Now this was something which Labour was never really going to stomach, but if you want to know why they are still keen on this daft idea consider this: at the moment the Labour Party partisans have united in a fashion which would have seemed implausible only a year or so ago. Blairite, Brownite, these terms have rapidly become meaningless as factionalism is overlooked. Backed against the wall they stand as one.

Now do you really imagine that after all that pride swallowing they are going to smile and accept that a Third Party will prop them up forever?

It was unlikely that the same people who had enjoyed an overwhelming landslide were ever going to let that happen, but after the amount of disregarding of grudges they’ve had to perform already there is simply no way that they are going to let the Liberal Democrats seize the position of kingmakers. No, the upper echelons of the Labour Party hierarchy wants to maintain the present electoral system: if for no other reason that in some ways the constant threat of the Tories was what this pack of right wingers keep the substantial left at bay so effectively.

So how do ID Cards fit into this intrigue? Simple: they’re both negligible and disposal to Labour, crucial and central to the Liberal Democrats.

To the LDs the proposed database and card system is the epitome of New Labour dependence upon regressive statism. This is the issue which enthuses just about all of them and is one of the very few that is able to unite this inherently bi-sected coalition of social democrats (wondering just when the hell that started being the extreme left) and liberals (wondering why we can’t get back to the 18th century already, as they rather enjoyed that one). For this reason ID Cards make life a lot easier for Nick Clegg.

‘New Politics’ Established Via Sustaining The Status Quo

Clegg hasn’t clearly stated that he’d push for PR in the advent of being a coalition maker. In fact he seems to have waffled about something called ‘New Politics’ when asked about the issue. What this mist of vagueness actually means is anyone’s guess, but hopefully its something other than what it sounds like: the ominously complimentary harmonising with Cameron’s constant calls for a “Change” that we’ve been hearing ever since he stole that line off of someone who actually meant it. Or else letting whichever party’s bigger form a highly vulnerable an ineffective minority government (see ref: Canada). There’s a chance that Clegg does want the policy that lets the LibDems claim the number of seats they’re pretty much indisputably entitled to, but there’s also a (far greater) chance that he’s an ineffectual faffer who won’t push as far and as hard as he can.

In which case…

Brown declares “LibDems! Join ranks with us and I’ll get rid of those nasty ID Cards, since that’s how consensus politics works”. Clegg is able to push for this and maybe another few tokens in some behind-closed-doors mutterings and then can return to his party with a substantial scalp: the ID database has been tossed in the skip. The second most important issue the LibDems all care about has been sorted and hey, who cares about the most since they will be in government (Vince Cable replacing Darling? Perhaps, perhaps…) and thus it seems like FPTP has delivered the goods anyway.

Will they be happy with ti? No. But will that be far more tolerable than if he’d showed up saying “No PR, I’m afraid…But we have got a few cabinet spots and some changes to EU relations legislation which I…” If he did that he’d probably get fucking deposed. Which would rather complicate and extend the formation of any coalition, of course.

So: under this anaylsis Brown maintains a policy he doesn’t really care about since others do and the seats that it’ll lose him are of less importance than the leverage it will grant him if it comes to forging a coalition. And thus the presence of the LibDems endangers our nation’s civil liberties. Without them Labour would have dropped this policy like a stone. With it, they’ll lose some seats to the LDs and Tories but have a last line of defence against PR.

Tom suggests a very plausible strategy for Boris’ spinning strategy:

Hmm, Boris can always say he’s looking forward to working closely with the next appointment on KNIFE CRIME and YOUNG HOODIE MUGGERS etc. The spin is obvious and easy, show Boris as the Voice of the People, we need change, fresh start, new broom, Blair unfortunately tained by the failed policies of the Labour past, yada ya. Job’s a good ‘un. I should do this for a living.

That assumes he gets his way; as well he might, given the subservience of the London papers and Blair’s numerous enemies on either side of the spectrum. But it could go wrong.

Blair’s statement made it clear from the start that Boris forced him out. That makes the move look political, and that could play badly. The police exist to enforce the legislation of democratically elected bodies. The need for that legislation to be applied universally and without prejudice means that the police force must exist without political influence. Democratic bodies should exist to ensure the force remains accountable and enforces the laws properly - but it must itself remain free from interference from partisan individuals.

Democracy comes in the formulation of the law, not its application, which should remain the same no matter who does the application. So when a politician clearly edges a public servant out of their job, we should worry. Blair is abused as a political appointment, but his political resignation matters just as much - it’s exactly the same principle, after all.

And, if Boris did force Blair out, that raises a perhaps more damaging charge; that of political immaturity. Blair gives the impression that Boris wanted him gone largely out of dislike and disagreement. And yet that’s what you’ll encounter every day in public, and indeed general, life. You won’t like everyone you meet, and you won’t agree with everyone you work with; but you need to accept that and move on if you want to ever get something done.

That Boris apparently couldn’t do that here could be made to work against him. The opposition could easily use this, and the rash of resignations from his office over the Summer, to form a narrative of incompetence; with such trouble, they’d say, it’s clear the man can’t operate in public life. That could hurt, if it last long enough.

The news that the Tories are opposing a third runway brought about the response of “about time” from me. As Her Majesty’s Opposition it’s the sort of thing that they should have been up to a long time ago. It’s also a sound piece of populism: protests in opposition of Heathrow Expansion have been well attended and I met a pair of rank & file protestors returning from one recently who were strikingly articulate. They were also the sort of “Swing voter” that politics is largely fought around. Opposition in my area of London (West) is by no means difficult to find. The campaign is well organised and well supported, with propoganda peering from numerous windows and posters over various trees.

This intersection of local and national politics is inevitably going to benefit whichever party promotes the policy popular amongst locals: as they are the ones most affected they are the ones who have the matter as a priority. For the most part the expansion is an immensely minor issue for voters, if indeed it registers at all. It thus makes good sense for the Conservative’s to oppose this policy: it will lose them roughly no votes and gain them ones from those who do not wish the noise and disruption they fear from a Third Runway inflicted upon them.

The difficulty for Labour is considerable: they can either fall in line and seem to become a Party in reaction rather than in power, or continue to enrage a set of voters with a party to turn to. This is by no means the typical Triangulation (when the alientated have no alternative) that New Labour covets. It shall be enlightening to observe their reaction.

Excellent news:

Trust Britain’s youth to be characteristically ungrateful. The Government goes to all the effort of making a website for 16 to 25- year-olds to express their views on identity cards, and all they get in return is a solid mixture of scorn, sneering and scepticism smattered across their fancy new forums.

In a bid to get the country’s youngsters on board the controversial scheme, the Home Office has launched MyLifeMyId.org, where 16 to 25 year olds “can have their say about identity issues in the UK.”

But anyone browsing the discussions on the site would be hard pushed to find a single positive comment, with contributors branding the controversial scheme as “creepy,” “dirty” and “illegal” and the website itself as an “online propaganda machine”.

There’s little public support for ID Cards - and the government can’t create it. Their plan to introduce the scheme by stealth rather falls to pieces when one of those degments initially targetted refuses to cooperate.

(Hat-tip: Back Towards the Locus)

A Catholic school in Bury has banned pupils from receiving the Cervical Cancer vaccination. It claims it isn’t in the position to do so; governors worry that side-effects can include dizziness. Some pupils must worry that the side-effects of cervical cancer can include death.

The decision just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t on the overt fundamentalist grounds other groups tried to stop the vaccinations; the Vatican came out for the vaccine. Their complaint seems centred solely on the grounds that pupils might faint; despite reassurances from doctors and the unavoidable fact that the vaccine can prevent a deadly disease. Do they have no sense of proportionality?

The plot for ID Cards trudges on:

The first identity cards from the government’s controversial national scheme have been unveiled.

The biometric card will be issued from November, initially to non-EU students and marriage visa holders.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the cards would allow people to “easily and securely prove their identity”.

So? Smith claims that these cards will make it easier for those here legally to prove that fact yet, if they’re here legally, they shouldn’t have to do so. It requires a lot of work and patience to enter this country legally from outside the EU. They have to prove their identity to do so - and once they have done, shouldn’t have to again. It’s incumbent on the government to enforce its laws without assaulting innocent individual’s liberty, and yet it clearly does so here.

But, there’s more:

“We all want to see our borders more secure, and human trafficking, organised immigration crime, illegal working and benefit fraud tackled. ID cards for foreign nationals, in locking people to one identity, will deliver in all these areas,” she added.

Don’t papers alreeady exist to help there? If the government feels they aren’t detailed enough, perhaps it should simply look into fixing that. It should be enough to add a fingerprint to immigration papers. They cannot be copied, and the need for a centralised database of details is negated by the useful fact that individuals carry their fingers with them and so can produce a fingerprint on demand.

And that possibility rather negates the argument that this is to the benefit of immigrants rather than the government. They don’t need to issue ID Cards, but will do so anyway. Presumably, they have a reason to do so, then; perhaps to accustom the population to the idea that they must justify their legal business at any time by forcing a group which can hardly protest to do so.

It fits with the next segment targetted; students and the young. People this age are, of course, used to proving their identity on a regular basis, softened by years of showing ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Like immigrants, the group has no strong political voice, and doesn’t vote in large numbers. So it’s another social division the government can foist ID Cards on with little trouble. The wider population becomes gradually used to the idea that they must carry ID Cards; so when they’re rolled out on a voluntary basis, more take them. And that suits this government.

Smith and the Home Office know there’s little active desire or support for a mass system of ID Cards. They can create that desire - or rather, weaken inbuilt suspicion - by fixing the idea that we should have to prove ourselves to the government. They can do that with less of a fuss by forcing vulnerable groups such as immigrants to do so first. And thus the idea becomes seen as normal; which it most definitely is not.