Monthly Archive for April, 2007

New Labour, Old Labour, Tory Press and spin

Published on April 10, 2007 in New Labour. 0 Comments

Tough on the causes of crime

The saddest thing about the last 10 years of New Labour Government is the way, in my opinion, the New Labour Government didn’t act ‘tough on the causes of crime’.

When confronted with this accusation, Blair’s line is that lower income groups now have more money which means, presumably, that they don’t have to turn to crime to subsist.

Unfortunately, this clearly shows that New Labour never really understood this liberal ethic.

Getting in amongst the dust and the grime to discover and address the actual problems people really have, admittedly, is not much fun. It requires paying social workers lots of money, being friendly and understanding towards people you wouldn’t invite to your middle class dinners and produces results only after long periods during which time the electorate has probably got bored and frustrated.

Unfortunately, it’s in the dust and the mire where the crimes originate and solving problems at this level is the only true way to deal with issues like crime and recidivism.

Putting up a drug addict’s State Benefit isn’t going to stop them mugging an old lady for her pension. Helping the addict to kick the habit takes longer and is more complex but it works.

New Labour and Spin

On a more positive note and giving a little succor to New Labour on the subject of spin. I remember the negative stories that poured from the Tory press during the decades before New Labour came to power. The negative Labour spin put on just about any story that was around during that time must have contributed to keeping Old Labour out of government for so long. A brief look at a sample of the tabloid press today shows that nothing has changed over the years except that, perhaps, they have now found a way of effectively fighting back.

It is a sad commentary on the Right Wing that the biggest accusation they and the Tory press can bring against Tony Blair and New Labour is that Tony Blair, for a while, was better at spin than them.

The Right Wing Alternative

Lastly, I was once at a Conservative Party barbecue. Don’t ask me how I got there. It was an accident. The guy in the house across the road invited me and my wife and we didn’t like to refuse. In retrospect, I think it was probably some sort of a Tory Party fund raiser.

The woman sitting next to me mentioned something about Africa so, being a proud and concerned new parent at the time, I said it was sad so many children died young through malnutrition.

She said it didn’t really matter because the African Blacks were used to their children dying young and therefore wouldn’t feel as bad about it as we would.

I’ve never forgotten that conversation or the disgust I felt as I quietly left with my wife, vowing never to talk to that neighbor or his friends again.

Yes, I am a laissez faire liberal. Yes, I am saddened that New Labour has not practised the liberal philosophy they preached. Admittedly, I will vote Independent or for a liberal representative in any election. I also accept that people who are really committed to solving societies problems are few and far between in any Party and that the chances of a truly liberal (small l) government remain remote.

Nevertheless, if that woman was representative of her Party, I can’t be anything other than relieved that we’ve had New Labour in power over the last ten years, since the Right Wing alternative would have been so much worse.

Bye for now

Rob

(Hey. Go on … be brave … hug a liberal! You won’t catch anything and you might solve a few real problems.)

Everybody is doing it so it’s OK?

Published on April 10, 2007 in morality and gambling. 0 Comments

Doc over in Doc’s Political Parlor made a common sense point about legislatures liberalizing gambling.

Does the ‘everybody else is doing it’ argument strike you as the oddest argument in favor of expanding legalized gambling? That sure didn’t work with our mommas when we were growing up.

He continues

We should do it because our neighbors are doing it? You know what mom would say about that, ‘If everybody jumped off of a cliff, would you want to do it too?’

This simple piece of common sense blows holes through much of what the UK Government is doing to liberalize gambling at the moment.

The UK Government’s view appears to be that lots of people want to gamble, and it’s happening everywhere, therefore the UK people should get a piece of the action through taxes which is (sort off) fair enough.

However, actively promoting gambling through the Gambling Act 2005 is quite another thing. The direct consequence of their actions is that more people will end up gambling and that will hurt more people which is obviously a bad thing.

In effect, the UK Government have said that lots of people are gambling therefore it should be encouraged.

Cyber bullying is in the news today in the UK where teachers are being humiliated by pupils while their friends take mobile phone pictures of them which are then put on the Internet. Lots of youngsters seem to think these images of skirt lifting and trouser pulling down are great.

No doubt measures will be taken to try to put an end to these unpleasant, if popular, activities. So why shouldn’t we be making at least the same amount of effort with gambling?

Perhaps it all comes down to the confused state of morality these days.

The problem is that deity based religions are no longer convincing for many, yet little effort seems to have been made by Governments to identify alternative morality structures to which people can turn for guidance on their actions.

Laws of the land may provide a frame of reference for the ordinary man but where is the frame of reference for the legislaters?

Many would regard the morality of Governmental promotion of gambling as being highly questionable.

Sources of morality is the hot topic that needs to be addressed but, unfortunately, it is being avoided.

Like the ’causes of crime’ it is a problem that won’t go away.

Bye for now

Rob

(Rob Hopcott – online author and firm believer morality can exist outside religion, if we only look.)

Feeling uncomfortable about the morality of gambling but wondering why?

Published on April 3, 2007 in morality and gambling. 0 Comments

It seems to me that a lot of people feel uncomfortable with gambling but aren’t really sure why.

Interestingly, the petitions against gambling on the Prime Minister’s 10 Downing Street site have garnered only a small number of signatures.

(Of course, this may reflect the lack of publicity skills of those organising the petitions rather than people’s lack of belief in the cause.)

When questioned about gambling, many say that they would feel at ease with participating in a small lottery or raffle but wouldn’t go into a casino.

When pressed as to why, they usually have difficulty in explaining themselves.

Perhaps the Gambling Act 2005 has now prompted many of us to look more closely into where our personal morality comes from in the modern age.

Like myself, many people in the UK seeem no longer comfortable with religious belief, and perhaps we need to understand ‘good’ or ‘evil’ from a different starting point. Otherwise, how do we make a judgement about activities which make us feel uncomfortable of which, probably, gambling is only one?

Most people would agree that gambling ‘hurts’ some people at least. But so do cigarettes, cars and food.

Many people say that it is ’stupid’ for anybody to gamble. They point out that the odds are always loaded against the punter who will almost certainly lose in the end. So, should we encourage people to do something that is ’stupid’?

Perhaps it is also a matter of where the hurt stops. Is the hurt limited to those who become ‘problem’ gamblers. Or is it limited to the families and children of ‘problem gamblers’ who suffer from the consequences of anothers actions? Or maybe everybody who gambles is hurt a little bit.

One might also ask whether it is even actually ‘bad’ to hurt people – after all a small percentage of the population rather appear to like it?

Certainly, it is easier to ask these questions than answer them but, surely, answer them we must, if we are to make our country and world a better place.

Perhaps the greatest danger we must guard against is exemplified in popular UK TV humour.

‘Awe … yer makin my ‘ead ‘urt … am ah bovvered!’

Yet how many of us ‘thinkers’ would actually say the same, but using rather posher words?

Bye for now

Rob

(Rob Hopcott – online author and openly committed to ‘being bovvered’

Online disinhibition, freedom, imagination and burgeoning laws

Published on April 2, 2007 in Politics of Internet freedom. 0 Comments

I was interested to read John Suler, Ph.D. and Professor of Psychology at Rider University discussing the online disinhibition effect and it’s causes. As he says:

It’s well known that people say and do things in cyberspace that they wouldn’t ordinarily say or do in the face-to-face world.

However, how long people will regard the Internet as being a thing of the imagination in which they can freely and openly interact is very much open to question.

Laws have already been passed and much of the law that will probably be legislated in the near future is likely to be concerned with the breaking down of the anonymity felt to be enjoyed by many hitherto on the Internet.

Laws already exist to require sites to reveal ownership and contact details where there is a potential of commercial gain. The laws of defamation are already being used against the unwary and, in the UK, laws are in existence to prevent the promotion of terrorism.

Of course, little that is communicated on the Internet is truly untraceable. It is really just a matter of how easy it is made to follow the trail.

Arguably, it will not be long before any form of online activity will require overt identification.

An Internet of the imagination, where people are free to say and be as they will is rapidly disappearing.

Of course, few will not understand the need to chase people for taxes, prevent Internet users saying hurtful and inaccurate falsehoods about the innocent and penalise those who actively promote physical harm to the general population.

However, the Internet has been a wonderful paradise of free imagination and growth, since it’s inception, and many, including myself, will be saddened by the shackles that are rapidly growing on it’s freedom.

As Jean Jacques Rousseau said,

man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.

It would be a wonderful thing if the thinkers of this world, who have done so well in building the wonderfully free and open resource that is the Internet, could now turn their brains to finding a way of dealing with these problems and hold back the need for regulation.

Rob Hopcott

Online author and Internet liberal)