Nicky Morgan asks for congratulations for Loughborough SU RAG, which this year has raised more money than any other RAG in the country.
Harriet Harman asks for an update as to the riots in Belfast, and asks if the PM has met with the NI FM and deputy FM.
Over 80 police officers have been injured in the riots. Police "acted with real restraint".
Harman: Will patients keep their guaranteed right of seeing a cancer specialist within two weeks of seeing their GP?
Only keep targets where they actually contribute to clinical outcomes.
Harman calls question evasion; accuses the Health Secretary of having done the same. Repeats her question.
For some people two weeks is too long. That's the point. Asks Harman to answer a question: is it Labour policy to cut the NHS? Manages to get in a quip about the Labour Leadership election being about sucking up to Trade Unions whilst doing so.
Mr. Speaker vetoes having that question answered.
Harman accuses him of ditching the guarantee for cancer patients and not having the guts to admit it to the house. She tries a new question: The NHS White Paper shows extra administrative costs. How much extra will it cost?
Goverment cutting £1bn of administration from NHS.
"Obviously they can't answer questions; they haven't got the answers".
Labour defending beauracracy of the NHS. Coalition want money to go on treatments and patients and doctors and nurses.
Harman accuses him of question evasion. Again. She insists that the White Paper admits there'll be extra costs.
"We are not reorganising the beauracracy; we are scrapping the beauracracy.
Bob Russell asks for conversations as to how the extra VAT voluntary and charity organisations will have to pay can be paid back to them.
PM says he'll certainly have them. One way to help voluntary and charity sector is to look at funding them on same basis as Government funds itself.
Lillian Greenwood asks for guarantee that firefighters and police maintain their ability to access occupational pensions before state pension age.
Pensions review being carried out by former Labour minister. Two reports: Christmas and New Year, where public sector pensions are looked at and Government tries to find fair resolutions. All parties should be involved in this.
Chris Heaton-Dennis: Will PM have conversation with Zuckerberg to get rid of Raoul Moat tribute group on Facebook.
Raoul Moat was a callous murderer. Full stop. End of story. Cannot understand any wave, however small, of sympathy for this man. Sympathy should be for victims and community.
Valerie Vaz: Ask Secretary of State for Education to take time out from the "Apology Tour" to explain his decision to school and college in her constituency.
David Cameron: Apology tour is refreshing.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Badgers Saved!
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/07/13/wales-badger-cull-order-quashed-91466-26842056/
So... after a few years of argument as to whether killing badgers will save the cows, the court of appeal has ruled against the Welsh Assembly Government testing the idea out. They don't seem to have claimed that Badgers don't transfer bovine TP to cattle; rather, they have decided that the evidence that a cull would help isn't substantial enough to justify it going ahead. This keeps the option for the WAG to make another attempt next year open, but it seems unlikely that it will get through the courts the next time around. Despite the chance of a cull going ahead in the future, today's result is a good one.
So... after a few years of argument as to whether killing badgers will save the cows, the court of appeal has ruled against the Welsh Assembly Government testing the idea out. They don't seem to have claimed that Badgers don't transfer bovine TP to cattle; rather, they have decided that the evidence that a cull would help isn't substantial enough to justify it going ahead. This keeps the option for the WAG to make another attempt next year open, but it seems unlikely that it will get through the courts the next time around. Despite the chance of a cull going ahead in the future, today's result is a good one.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Video Games and Attention
Lock your consoles away! Video games cause attention problems! At least, that's what some people seem to be trying to imply with a study.
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6268047.html
Some readers will probably notice a few problems, even if they don't bother to read the comments.
"According to the research, the link was the same whether the study participant played games or watched TV"
Clearly, based on this evidence, no-one can claim that "video games are bad for you" without also claiming that "TV is bad for you." It does not show that playing video games is any worse than watching TV. Indeed, I'd say that many videogames are a lot better for your attention than a lot of what gets shown on TV. Note I say "a lot", not "all" or even "most".
Secondly, two hours a day is a moderate amount of time for people to be playing videogames, so claiming that there is a "correlation between gaming more than 2 hours per day and troubles staying on task" just points out the well-established idea that too much of one thing can be bad for you. Also, the correlation is merely "small to moderate". I myself spent a lot of time playing videogames when I was in school and still managed to get good grades in all my GSCEs.
Then there's the fact that correlation does not imply causation... nor can it tell you which factor causes which. It could easily be that people with attention problems particularly like watching TV or playing games, rather than that watching too much TV and spending too much time playing games CAUSES attention problems.
Last, but not least, the coauthors of the study are "two familiar voices with a history of decrying deleterious effects of games", which makes the chances of the research being unbiased fairly slim.
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6268047.html
Some readers will probably notice a few problems, even if they don't bother to read the comments.
"According to the research, the link was the same whether the study participant played games or watched TV"
Clearly, based on this evidence, no-one can claim that "video games are bad for you" without also claiming that "TV is bad for you." It does not show that playing video games is any worse than watching TV. Indeed, I'd say that many videogames are a lot better for your attention than a lot of what gets shown on TV. Note I say "a lot", not "all" or even "most".
Secondly, two hours a day is a moderate amount of time for people to be playing videogames, so claiming that there is a "correlation between gaming more than 2 hours per day and troubles staying on task" just points out the well-established idea that too much of one thing can be bad for you. Also, the correlation is merely "small to moderate". I myself spent a lot of time playing videogames when I was in school and still managed to get good grades in all my GSCEs.
Then there's the fact that correlation does not imply causation... nor can it tell you which factor causes which. It could easily be that people with attention problems particularly like watching TV or playing games, rather than that watching too much TV and spending too much time playing games CAUSES attention problems.
Last, but not least, the coauthors of the study are "two familiar voices with a history of decrying deleterious effects of games", which makes the chances of the research being unbiased fairly slim.
Friday, 9 July 2010
Elle MacPherson and the Rhino Horn Scandal That Should Have Been.
So... Elle MacPherson, supermodel extrodinare... or something... admitted she consumed rhino horn. She told Witter that it tastes "A little bit like crushed bone and fungus in a capsule." One wonders how she knows what crushed bone tastes like.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article7139977.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
Rhino horn, apparently, is made of keratin, which is what your fingernails are made of. Whether a lot of crushed fingernails would taste like crushed bone, I don't know, but I don't think that biting your nails has been seriously reccommended as a treatment for anything other than one's nails being too long, so it would follow that attributing some sort of miraclous medical qualities to something made of the same substance is a little baseless. MacPherson herself didn't have a good explanation for how consuming rhino horn, or Chinese medicine in general would have any benefits - she merely claimed that it worked for her, which leads me to think that she just deluded herself into thinking that there would be any benefits from the practice, helped no doubt by those people who trade in Chinese medicine.
So... we have a group of five species, three of which, according to Wikipedia, are critically endangered and a fourth endangered, and they're being hunted down so people can swallow ground down fragments of their horns, when those people could basically get the same substance by grinding down their fingernail clippings. If anyone would like to point out the logic to this practice now would be a good time to speak up.
Thonoir has a post on the subject here:
http://networkedblogs.com/5yVZh
As he notes, his efforts at getting the issue the public exposure it deserves were less than successful. The interview SHOULD have caused a scandal. Instead, it seems was reported on and then left alone, at least until MacPherson came out and made an apology.
Some apology.
Thonoir quotes her words from and refers to an article here: http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/185887-elle-macpherson-statement-star-denies-using-banned-animal-products/
Things that are wrong with her statements:
She said she "never knowingly consumed or encouraged the use or consumption of any products which contain material derived from endangered species". So, either she didn't know she was consuming rhino horn, she actually didn't consume rhino horn and she somehow thought her comments would be seen as a bit of a joke, or she didn't know that rhinos are endangered, despite apparently having dabbled in conservation issues via boycotting her favourite resteraunt for serving bluefin tuna.
While, to be fair, may be possible that when she said "works for me" she was talking about chinese medicine in general, she WAS, if we can rely on the interview on the Sunday Times websits, referring to rhino horn when she said "Does the job though."
Apparently she regrets "any distress or offence that her banter with an interviewer might have caused". Oh. I see. So the "she somehow thought her comments would be seen as a bit of a joke" hypothesis has some merit then. It was banter. Not meant to be taken seriously, it was a joke, have a laugh and move on banter. Yeah... right. Either the woman was lying when she said she didn't consume rhino horn, or her "banter" was in incredibly poor taste.
Keeping to the subject of "reasons why Elle MacPherson is a bit of an idiot", there's this little exchange between herself and Witter that was reffered to at the beginning of this post:
Witter: Are you tired of the press? Is it anyone’s business whether you wear a cycling helmet?
E MacP: I’m sure I’ll be slammed again this summer for riding my bike around Notting Hill with a child perched on the handlebars.
A quick Google search reveals that she was criticised for that in 2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2974763/Supermodel-Elle-MacPherson-criticised-for-letting-son-ride-on-handlebars.html
By her comments, it seems that she's quite happy to do it again.
Suddenly the disregard the woman shows to animal welfare is less surprising: she's careless with the safety of her own children.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article7139977.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
Rhino horn, apparently, is made of keratin, which is what your fingernails are made of. Whether a lot of crushed fingernails would taste like crushed bone, I don't know, but I don't think that biting your nails has been seriously reccommended as a treatment for anything other than one's nails being too long, so it would follow that attributing some sort of miraclous medical qualities to something made of the same substance is a little baseless. MacPherson herself didn't have a good explanation for how consuming rhino horn, or Chinese medicine in general would have any benefits - she merely claimed that it worked for her, which leads me to think that she just deluded herself into thinking that there would be any benefits from the practice, helped no doubt by those people who trade in Chinese medicine.
So... we have a group of five species, three of which, according to Wikipedia, are critically endangered and a fourth endangered, and they're being hunted down so people can swallow ground down fragments of their horns, when those people could basically get the same substance by grinding down their fingernail clippings. If anyone would like to point out the logic to this practice now would be a good time to speak up.
Thonoir has a post on the subject here:
http://networkedblogs.com/5yVZh
As he notes, his efforts at getting the issue the public exposure it deserves were less than successful. The interview SHOULD have caused a scandal. Instead, it seems was reported on and then left alone, at least until MacPherson came out and made an apology.
Some apology.
Thonoir quotes her words from and refers to an article here: http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/185887-elle-macpherson-statement-star-denies-using-banned-animal-products/
Things that are wrong with her statements:
She said she "never knowingly consumed or encouraged the use or consumption of any products which contain material derived from endangered species". So, either she didn't know she was consuming rhino horn, she actually didn't consume rhino horn and she somehow thought her comments would be seen as a bit of a joke, or she didn't know that rhinos are endangered, despite apparently having dabbled in conservation issues via boycotting her favourite resteraunt for serving bluefin tuna.
While, to be fair, may be possible that when she said "works for me" she was talking about chinese medicine in general, she WAS, if we can rely on the interview on the Sunday Times websits, referring to rhino horn when she said "Does the job though."
Apparently she regrets "any distress or offence that her banter with an interviewer might have caused". Oh. I see. So the "she somehow thought her comments would be seen as a bit of a joke" hypothesis has some merit then. It was banter. Not meant to be taken seriously, it was a joke, have a laugh and move on banter. Yeah... right. Either the woman was lying when she said she didn't consume rhino horn, or her "banter" was in incredibly poor taste.
Keeping to the subject of "reasons why Elle MacPherson is a bit of an idiot", there's this little exchange between herself and Witter that was reffered to at the beginning of this post:
Witter: Are you tired of the press? Is it anyone’s business whether you wear a cycling helmet?
E MacP: I’m sure I’ll be slammed again this summer for riding my bike around Notting Hill with a child perched on the handlebars.
A quick Google search reveals that she was criticised for that in 2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2974763/Supermodel-Elle-MacPherson-criticised-for-letting-son-ride-on-handlebars.html
By her comments, it seems that she's quite happy to do it again.
Suddenly the disregard the woman shows to animal welfare is less surprising: she's careless with the safety of her own children.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
The Reform.
So... Clegg set out his great reform plan on Monday, and I haven't yet had a little ramble about it... so now's as good a time as any. I found an analysis on the proposed changes over at politics.co.uk, which should help to give this post some sort of structure. You can find it here: http://www.politics.co.uk/analysis/legal-and-constitutional/analysis-who-benefits-from-clegg-s-reforms--$21381249.htm
Labour are against equalizing the constituency sizes because they help the Tories and hinder them. It's natural that a party would be against a proposal that would lead it to doing worse than it is now, but are equal-sized constituencies really unfair because they favour a particular party, or is "fair" where you fiddle with the boundaries so that all major parties get roughly the same number of seats, even if that means having great differences between the number of electors in different constituencies?
Plaid Cymru are against it as well, as at means Wales loses a quarter of it's seats. Again, it's probably fair, but it's a bit of a bitter pill to swallow. There is a referendum for more Assembly powers on the same day as the AV referendum though, and if Wales can get law-making powers, having fewer seats in Westminster won't matter too much.
I suspect that the reforms will further highlight the political differences between England, Scotland and Wales. I don't expect we'd see that much change in Scotland or Wales, but England will probably get a higher proportion of Tory MPs. People in Scotland and Wales will take note of the contrast. It would probably lead to more support for independence, or at least yet further devolution.
Some analysts have suggested that AV might actually hurt the Lib Dems in some places, as they gain from tactical votes from people trying to keep one of the two biggest parties out. This is quite a contrast to the prevailing opinion that "AV helps the Lib Dems."
The question is: how much might AV help or hinder Labour. Labour, I assume, would stand to lose seats, as it's one of the two biggest parties. However, I don't think it would lose as many seats for Labour as it would for the Tories. In that sense, AV might help to counter the increase in Tory seats brought about by boundary changes, whilst possibly increasing the number of Lib Dem MPs and keeping Labour with a respectable number of MPs in comparison to their rivals.
Labour are also against the date, as they note that turnout will be higher in places where other elections are being held. This is true. So what? The referendum isn't somehow less valid because some people can't be bothered to vote, and if some people aren't going to vote because they're not interested in the matter, then surely they won't be that bothered about the result.
Scottish and Welsh politicians do have a better argument: the referendum will get in the way of the debates around their own elections.
Apparently, there are plans to give the sitting Prime Minister two weeks to form a new government if the current one falls. This, I assume, is a way of dealing with the problem which would arise when Parliament votes to bring down the Government but does not vote to dissolve parliament.
Speaking on the topic of no confidence votes and votes to dissolve parliament... I have to wonder why Labour was so against the 55% rule on the basis that no confidence motions should be carried by a simple majority. I myself didn't understand that a motion to dissolve parliament wasn't the same thing as a no confidence motion at first, but then I'm not an MP. The Shadow Cabinet SHOULD know the difference. Did they really get confused or were they deliberately muddling the two motions up?
Jack Straw has called the increase in the dissolution threshold "the first major U-turn of this government", as is reported here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/labour-fumes-over-av-referendum-$21381235.htm
He's also called for making the Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections "a proper referendum on this ConDem government", which is just the wrong thing to do. Senedd and Holyrood are NOT Westminster, and elections to the former bodies should NOT be treated as "General-Election-Lite".
Back to the original article:
It raises what would happen if the AV referendum were to fall: some suggesting that if it did there would be no incentive for Clegg to stay in the coalition. I'm not sure that's true. The agreement was that the referendum would be held, not that AV would be introduced, and there are other things that Clegg wants to do while in office. It seems the people who wrote the article also think that a failed referendum won't necessarily mean that the coalition will collapse. It is possible, though, that even if Clegg wants to stay in the coalition in the event that AV falls, Lib Dem backbenchers won't let him.
The arcticle brings up another interesting idea that I'll comment on here even though it's not directly related to reform. It suggest that the coalition might break up a year before the next election in order to give the Lib Dems time to cement their identitity. It would be interesting to see how things would work out if this did happen: it would basically mean that the Tories would be a minority government for a year. They could at least rely on the Lib Dems to vote against a dissolution motion if it was made before they felt they were ready to fight an election.
Labour are against equalizing the constituency sizes because they help the Tories and hinder them. It's natural that a party would be against a proposal that would lead it to doing worse than it is now, but are equal-sized constituencies really unfair because they favour a particular party, or is "fair" where you fiddle with the boundaries so that all major parties get roughly the same number of seats, even if that means having great differences between the number of electors in different constituencies?
Plaid Cymru are against it as well, as at means Wales loses a quarter of it's seats. Again, it's probably fair, but it's a bit of a bitter pill to swallow. There is a referendum for more Assembly powers on the same day as the AV referendum though, and if Wales can get law-making powers, having fewer seats in Westminster won't matter too much.
I suspect that the reforms will further highlight the political differences between England, Scotland and Wales. I don't expect we'd see that much change in Scotland or Wales, but England will probably get a higher proportion of Tory MPs. People in Scotland and Wales will take note of the contrast. It would probably lead to more support for independence, or at least yet further devolution.
Some analysts have suggested that AV might actually hurt the Lib Dems in some places, as they gain from tactical votes from people trying to keep one of the two biggest parties out. This is quite a contrast to the prevailing opinion that "AV helps the Lib Dems."
The question is: how much might AV help or hinder Labour. Labour, I assume, would stand to lose seats, as it's one of the two biggest parties. However, I don't think it would lose as many seats for Labour as it would for the Tories. In that sense, AV might help to counter the increase in Tory seats brought about by boundary changes, whilst possibly increasing the number of Lib Dem MPs and keeping Labour with a respectable number of MPs in comparison to their rivals.
Labour are also against the date, as they note that turnout will be higher in places where other elections are being held. This is true. So what? The referendum isn't somehow less valid because some people can't be bothered to vote, and if some people aren't going to vote because they're not interested in the matter, then surely they won't be that bothered about the result.
Scottish and Welsh politicians do have a better argument: the referendum will get in the way of the debates around their own elections.
Apparently, there are plans to give the sitting Prime Minister two weeks to form a new government if the current one falls. This, I assume, is a way of dealing with the problem which would arise when Parliament votes to bring down the Government but does not vote to dissolve parliament.
Speaking on the topic of no confidence votes and votes to dissolve parliament... I have to wonder why Labour was so against the 55% rule on the basis that no confidence motions should be carried by a simple majority. I myself didn't understand that a motion to dissolve parliament wasn't the same thing as a no confidence motion at first, but then I'm not an MP. The Shadow Cabinet SHOULD know the difference. Did they really get confused or were they deliberately muddling the two motions up?
Jack Straw has called the increase in the dissolution threshold "the first major U-turn of this government", as is reported here:
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/labour-fumes-over-av-referendum-$21381235.htm
He's also called for making the Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections "a proper referendum on this ConDem government", which is just the wrong thing to do. Senedd and Holyrood are NOT Westminster, and elections to the former bodies should NOT be treated as "General-Election-Lite".
Back to the original article:
It raises what would happen if the AV referendum were to fall: some suggesting that if it did there would be no incentive for Clegg to stay in the coalition. I'm not sure that's true. The agreement was that the referendum would be held, not that AV would be introduced, and there are other things that Clegg wants to do while in office. It seems the people who wrote the article also think that a failed referendum won't necessarily mean that the coalition will collapse. It is possible, though, that even if Clegg wants to stay in the coalition in the event that AV falls, Lib Dem backbenchers won't let him.
The arcticle brings up another interesting idea that I'll comment on here even though it's not directly related to reform. It suggest that the coalition might break up a year before the next election in order to give the Lib Dems time to cement their identitity. It would be interesting to see how things would work out if this did happen: it would basically mean that the Tories would be a minority government for a year. They could at least rely on the Lib Dems to vote against a dissolution motion if it was made before they felt they were ready to fight an election.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Prime Minister's Questions
PMQs
David Cameron marks 5th Ann. of 7/7.
Welcoming Somaliland elections.
Harman: Domestic violence - Harman disagrees with stopping short sentences for domestic violence cases. Cameron agrees that short sentences should stay in some cases and notes that taking them away completely was not part of the plan.
Uncalled for dig about Cameron's mother.
Will there be fewer police at the end of the parliament? No straight answer. Counters with a claim that Labour refused to guarantee police numbers wouldn't fall.
Prime Minister gets called to order by Bercow.
Jiim McGovern - supporting small businesses. Canelled tax breaks comp. games industry? Why?
Cameron: Government cut tax rates - 22p to 20p for small businesses.
Ensure justice for Equity Life policy holders?
Cameron: We need to get it done.
Resist economic plans by European Union? Basically yes. UK budget should be shown to UK parliament before anyone else.
Child poverty lower by end of this parliament?
Government is committed to tackling child poverty.
Non-resident second home owners voting? Problems with electoral role. Notes that voting in two places in one election is an offence, but notes that some MPs wouldn't be able to vote in their own constituencies if they couldn't vote where their second home is.
David Cameron marks 5th Ann. of 7/7.
Welcoming Somaliland elections.
Harman: Domestic violence - Harman disagrees with stopping short sentences for domestic violence cases. Cameron agrees that short sentences should stay in some cases and notes that taking them away completely was not part of the plan.
Uncalled for dig about Cameron's mother.
Will there be fewer police at the end of the parliament? No straight answer. Counters with a claim that Labour refused to guarantee police numbers wouldn't fall.
Prime Minister gets called to order by Bercow.
Jiim McGovern - supporting small businesses. Canelled tax breaks comp. games industry? Why?
Cameron: Government cut tax rates - 22p to 20p for small businesses.
Ensure justice for Equity Life policy holders?
Cameron: We need to get it done.
Resist economic plans by European Union? Basically yes. UK budget should be shown to UK parliament before anyone else.
Child poverty lower by end of this parliament?
Government is committed to tackling child poverty.
Non-resident second home owners voting? Problems with electoral role. Notes that voting in two places in one election is an offence, but notes that some MPs wouldn't be able to vote in their own constituencies if they couldn't vote where their second home is.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Oil Spill Reaches Texas
It seems that tar balls from the BP oil spill have reached as far as Texas. They don't know if they got there without being transported by shipping, but it does mean the spill is getting rather close to reaching Mexico.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)