The following is a clarification of my following tweets.
@robjhicks: Anyone got a link to Cameron's explicit targeting of homosexual kisses on tv? Mail article seems a little loaded.
@robjhicks: @thisisdavid see this http://t.co/n6YVdf7 not clear if its banning erotic kisses full stop or just banning gay kisses. Thoughts?
It was written in haste and on a train upon realising that 140 characters was far from enough space to explain such an issue. I have not used the luxury of hindsight and further evidence to edit this post.
My tweet arose from this Daily Mail article and the subsequent tweets that I saw of people accusing David Cameron and the coalition of homophobia.
Alas, the Mail is often preoccupied with erronesouly blaming the perceived erosion of things that it likes with things that it doesn’t like (the sanctity of childhood and homosexuality for example) which provoked the question from me – do the government’s plans explicitly target homosexual kisses before the watershed and place them under greater scrutiny than heterosexual kisses or is this article largely indicative of the Mail’s views on homosexuality? The former is completely unacceptable, serves to undo hard-fought equality legislation won by LGBT campaigns and should be immediately condemned. You will find me standing should to shoulder with those doing the condemning if this proves to be the case.
At the time however my only evidence for this being the case was the Mail article which, for the above reasons, I was disinclined to take at face value, hence my probing for further clarification on the exact nature of the plans.
There is a case that the government could be trying to make (not one I necessarily agree with I hasten to add) that some kisses, without gender as a deciding factor, are too ‘erotic’ or over-exuberant for young audiences to view. The implementation of such a policy would be an equality minefield (and rightly so) and should be subject to intense scrutiny from those who champion equality. My point however was that as difficult as such a policy might be to implement, it is not in itself inherently homophobic and, if undertaken, should not immediately be condemned as such. Call it silly, unnecessary, an attack on TV makers’ artistic licenses if you will, but if full equality is stated in its objective (admittedly another minefield) then it should not be condemned as homophobic until it is proved as being so.
Such sensitive policies rightly make equality campaigners wary. It is to our credit that our attention and our morals are immediately alerted to areas of policy where equality might be compromised but I am of the opinion that it is always best to allow a policy or opinion to be fully explained before denouncing it as prejudiced. We do ourselves, and consequently our causes, no favours by attacking others before we are fully informed of their intentions which is why I shall wait for full details of the watershed plans (and ask the necessary questions on Twitter!) before I make accusations of homophobia.
Let us also keep this in mind - it is far more desirable for this government to be fully committed to the equality of LGBT people than for it not to be. Cathartic though it may be to attack our opposition, a liberation campaign has achieved the most precious of victories when it no longer needs to attack.
Wednesday 4 May 2011
Saturday 5 March 2011
The importance of Leicester South
Labour's had plenty of reason to enjoy by-elections of late; a comfortable victory in Oldham and the embarrassment of the Lib Dems in Barnsley have bolstered the PLP with two promising new MPs whilst delivering two vital morale boosts to a party still finding it's feet in opposition after 13 years in government.
Auspicious by-election results are not necessarily precursors to a general election victory though and most certainly shouldn't be read as such. This May's by-election represents a much bigger opportunity for our party however, the Leicester South seat has a distinctive make-up precipitating ideal conditions to lead the national discourse on young people's issues.
Two large universities lie in the constituency teaching tens of thousands of students each year. De Montfort University and the University of Leicester produce tomorrow's nurses, economists, artists, doctors, lawyers and politicians and come May will be poised to jettison two graduating classes of unprecedented size into a landscape of record youth unemployment pinned onto a waning economy. Whoever triumphs in Leicester South this Spring will not be able to ignore the mandate bestowed upon them to help salvage a generation faced with an increasing lack of opportunity. Whatever the outcome the Labour Party should be leading this charge, recognising that educating, training and employing our young people represents the best investment we can make in our efforts to rebuild our economy.
It is far too easy as a party in opposition to become a party of reactive rhetoric. The situation facing the young people of this country represents an opportunity to proactively set the agenda of how we ensure education and employment are available for our young people - we should grab it with both hands, lest we stand by and let a generation drift into economic stasis.
University of Leicester in particular is continually accredited for it's work in widening participation in higher education but this work will sadly be in vain if education opportunities are not reflected in employment opportunities upon graduation. If a gargantuan increase in tuition fees didn't quite conquer political apathy amongst our youth then an indeterminate spell on the unemployment scrap heap certainly will. Whichever side of the debate of the student protests you're inclined to fall down on, the events of last November exposed two realities - our students and young people recognise when they are being served an injustice and they will fight it when they are (through violence, diplomacy or otherwise).
As strong as the student vote could be in Leicester, parliamentary elections are rarely won solely off the back of these issues - many other issues will contribute to the success of the future MP for Leicester South. Beyond polling day though the constituency is the perfect spring board to reach out to our students and our young people and offer them an alternative to this Tory-led government that is offering them no solutions to their impending difficulties.
Auspicious by-election results are not necessarily precursors to a general election victory though and most certainly shouldn't be read as such. This May's by-election represents a much bigger opportunity for our party however, the Leicester South seat has a distinctive make-up precipitating ideal conditions to lead the national discourse on young people's issues.
Two large universities lie in the constituency teaching tens of thousands of students each year. De Montfort University and the University of Leicester produce tomorrow's nurses, economists, artists, doctors, lawyers and politicians and come May will be poised to jettison two graduating classes of unprecedented size into a landscape of record youth unemployment pinned onto a waning economy. Whoever triumphs in Leicester South this Spring will not be able to ignore the mandate bestowed upon them to help salvage a generation faced with an increasing lack of opportunity. Whatever the outcome the Labour Party should be leading this charge, recognising that educating, training and employing our young people represents the best investment we can make in our efforts to rebuild our economy.
It is far too easy as a party in opposition to become a party of reactive rhetoric. The situation facing the young people of this country represents an opportunity to proactively set the agenda of how we ensure education and employment are available for our young people - we should grab it with both hands, lest we stand by and let a generation drift into economic stasis.
University of Leicester in particular is continually accredited for it's work in widening participation in higher education but this work will sadly be in vain if education opportunities are not reflected in employment opportunities upon graduation. If a gargantuan increase in tuition fees didn't quite conquer political apathy amongst our youth then an indeterminate spell on the unemployment scrap heap certainly will. Whichever side of the debate of the student protests you're inclined to fall down on, the events of last November exposed two realities - our students and young people recognise when they are being served an injustice and they will fight it when they are (through violence, diplomacy or otherwise).
As strong as the student vote could be in Leicester, parliamentary elections are rarely won solely off the back of these issues - many other issues will contribute to the success of the future MP for Leicester South. Beyond polling day though the constituency is the perfect spring board to reach out to our students and our young people and offer them an alternative to this Tory-led government that is offering them no solutions to their impending difficulties.
Thursday 13 January 2011
Gove's Baccalaureate Battle
The reason Michael Gove’s English Baccalaureate is proving to be so toxic is the sheer plurality of views on the subject, a diversity that neatly reflects the vast range of learning methods, areas of interest and talents that any single representative cross-section of school pupils will reveal.
The notion that a whole country’s school-age population can be satisfied, fulfilled and lifted to a level of achievement from a solitary system of academic hoop-jumping is naïve at best and is arguably both grossly negligent and condescending.
It fails to address the vast talent pool that is the youth of this country and instead seeks to push our children through a tight gap of attainment: it is the equivalent of attempting to push a square shaped object through a circular hole, it is a fruitless activity that ignores the raw material (if I may be excused from using such an industrial term) and the reams of evidence available on how to get the best out of said material.
The problem is our children are not square shaped or circular, they are star-shaped, they are triangular, they are oval. They are every shape imaginable. No one hole is ever going to accommodate all of our shapes.
Gove’s ambition is usually admirable and his rhetoric has noble elements to it. I agree whole heartedly that we have a duty to our children to impart upon them core life skills such as literacy and numeracy but disagree that they must be taught through the same academic vehicles that this country has used for centuries.
We have a plethora of vocations in this country which contribute vast amounts to our economy and our society and most of which require and teach the literacy, numeracy and other core skills that we are currently seeking to disseminate through our dog-eared textbooks. It goes without saying that a child naturally disposed to more practical activities will be more motivated and open to learning in activities that harness these practical, even non-academic, tendencies.
Where our real duty in this debate lies is in ensuring that the children of this country have an education that motivates, inspires and advances. A degree certificate alone is no longer the golden ticket into employment that it once was and this country is a better place for it. Let’s build our education system around those who it will educate, not around out-dated conceptions of academic box-ticking.
The notion that a whole country’s school-age population can be satisfied, fulfilled and lifted to a level of achievement from a solitary system of academic hoop-jumping is naïve at best and is arguably both grossly negligent and condescending.
It fails to address the vast talent pool that is the youth of this country and instead seeks to push our children through a tight gap of attainment: it is the equivalent of attempting to push a square shaped object through a circular hole, it is a fruitless activity that ignores the raw material (if I may be excused from using such an industrial term) and the reams of evidence available on how to get the best out of said material.
The problem is our children are not square shaped or circular, they are star-shaped, they are triangular, they are oval. They are every shape imaginable. No one hole is ever going to accommodate all of our shapes.
Gove’s ambition is usually admirable and his rhetoric has noble elements to it. I agree whole heartedly that we have a duty to our children to impart upon them core life skills such as literacy and numeracy but disagree that they must be taught through the same academic vehicles that this country has used for centuries.
We have a plethora of vocations in this country which contribute vast amounts to our economy and our society and most of which require and teach the literacy, numeracy and other core skills that we are currently seeking to disseminate through our dog-eared textbooks. It goes without saying that a child naturally disposed to more practical activities will be more motivated and open to learning in activities that harness these practical, even non-academic, tendencies.
Where our real duty in this debate lies is in ensuring that the children of this country have an education that motivates, inspires and advances. A degree certificate alone is no longer the golden ticket into employment that it once was and this country is a better place for it. Let’s build our education system around those who it will educate, not around out-dated conceptions of academic box-ticking.
Saturday 8 January 2011
AV Referendum
There are many good reasons to vote for AV just as there are many good reasons to not vote for AV. There are also many bad reasons, for and against; Labour may want to derail the possibility of Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats redeeming credibility off the back of a successful yes campaign, staunch Conservatives may seek to exert some superiority over the liberal factions in their coalition whilst seasoned electoral reform advocates may turn their noses up at the tepid compromise that AV represents to some. A referendum may also represent an extra playground in which to throw mud at our political opponents, a rhetoric free-for-all bereft of the parliamentary responsibility imposed by the normal decision making process. In succumbing to the temptation of any of these however we are failing to realise the true potential that this referendum offers us.
As proponents of the concept of democracy as a tool with which to govern we have a duty to enhance the system as and when we can, to ensure we are operating with the most democratic procedures as we can. As subjective as debating the nuances of democracy can be there are still areas of objectivity that should inform the nature of the AV conversation. If you’re reading this then chances are that you are a member of the engaged minority: an anomalous group who have taken up a personal interest and responsibility in the running of this country. You may also be a member of a political party. Let me then place you into a hypothetical situation; a new voting system has been designed and is unanimously agreed as being the most democratic system, it also decimates the number of MPs one of the main political parties would gain if a general election was called immediately. How would the members of that party vote? It is probably fair to say that they would vote against. I would take issue with this decision.
Setting the hyperbole of the example aside there are lessons to take away. If the most democratic voting system does not translate into elected members for a certain political party the system should not be immediately rejected, no past successes or reputation entitle a party to an election win. It is most likely the messages and policies of the campaigners that have failed to win votes and not the system which has failed to represent voting intentions. As voters, activists and leaders we have an overwhelming responsibility to protect and develop the democratic practices of the country; I would rather be a singular voice in a country of proud democratic practices where the power rests with the governed than the leader of a national party that draws success from a system where the opinion of the electorate is not the main guiding force of the government.
May’s referendum offers us a rare opportunity to reassess our voting system whilst receiving a direct mandate for implementation from the electorate. We would be wise not to sully the decision making process with our own party political biases but instead to construct a conversation informed solely by the democratic values of the voting systems on offer.
Happy campaigning.
As proponents of the concept of democracy as a tool with which to govern we have a duty to enhance the system as and when we can, to ensure we are operating with the most democratic procedures as we can. As subjective as debating the nuances of democracy can be there are still areas of objectivity that should inform the nature of the AV conversation. If you’re reading this then chances are that you are a member of the engaged minority: an anomalous group who have taken up a personal interest and responsibility in the running of this country. You may also be a member of a political party. Let me then place you into a hypothetical situation; a new voting system has been designed and is unanimously agreed as being the most democratic system, it also decimates the number of MPs one of the main political parties would gain if a general election was called immediately. How would the members of that party vote? It is probably fair to say that they would vote against. I would take issue with this decision.
Setting the hyperbole of the example aside there are lessons to take away. If the most democratic voting system does not translate into elected members for a certain political party the system should not be immediately rejected, no past successes or reputation entitle a party to an election win. It is most likely the messages and policies of the campaigners that have failed to win votes and not the system which has failed to represent voting intentions. As voters, activists and leaders we have an overwhelming responsibility to protect and develop the democratic practices of the country; I would rather be a singular voice in a country of proud democratic practices where the power rests with the governed than the leader of a national party that draws success from a system where the opinion of the electorate is not the main guiding force of the government.
May’s referendum offers us a rare opportunity to reassess our voting system whilst receiving a direct mandate for implementation from the electorate. We would be wise not to sully the decision making process with our own party political biases but instead to construct a conversation informed solely by the democratic values of the voting systems on offer.
Happy campaigning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)