Introducing Aaron Bell’s BrandIndex Top Tips
January 23rd, 2007
This week: Sell Johnson & Blair
The new weekly markets on Politicians’ Popularity offered by IG Index give us the chance to pit our wits with their market-makers on a regular basis. Mike has kindly given me the opportunity to share some analysis and tips each week; hopefully these will provoke some debate and also be profitable in the long run – we shall see!
A few posters have commented on the unpredictability of the results – opinion polls naturally have a margin of error and this gets reflected in the published figures. This volatility is something we have to live with, but its effects should be neutral in the long run – it will turn some bets that should have been winners into losers and vice versa. Indeed, if IG over-react to an unusual week, then we can even use the volatility to our advantage by betting that things will return to normal next week. The tricky part is, of course, deciding whether a jump in the data is “unusual” or whether it actually reflects underlying shifts in opinion.
A good general rule would be to try to bet on the more high-profile politicians. This is because swings in their ratings (whether through natural variance or through events) will tend to be larger and so IG’s “cut” of 0.5 doesn’t represent such a large proportion of the likely range of possible results.
It’s also important to remember that not all of those filling in the somewhat monotonous BrandIndex surveys share our interest in the fortunes of politicians – indeed many of them may not have heard of some of the more minor figures, or they may not know to which party they belong. I strongly suspect that quite a few respondents simply negative every politician: Lansley, Willetts & Clegg, the three most anonymous, all have very similar ratings consisting of about 2% positive and 13-14% negative.
This helps to explain one of the more surprising facts that emerges from analysis of the data – politicians of all parties tend to move in the same direction each week. For example this week the Labour politicians are up from 75.2 to 76.1, the Conservatives up from 89.6 to 91.1 and the Lib Dems up from 81.4 to 83.2. This can be explained by two theories – firstly natural variance may lead YouGov’s sample to include more or fewer people who are sympathetic towards politics in general, and secondly political news may have a “plague on all your houses” effect – party funding stories could well be a classic example of this.
So, down to business. Last week’s ratings were unusually high and I would expect a general fall. In light of Ruth Turner’s arrest it seems sensible to focus on Labour politicians; all the more so since IG have already priced in sizable falls for Cameron & Hague (as well as Gordon Brown, whose unexpectedly high rating gave me a losing bet last week).
Jack Straw seems a bit high at 73.3 – 73.8 but until the last two weeks he hadn’t been below 74 so this is one best swerved. We profited on a John Reid buy last week and IG are predicting a further rise from 73.2 to 75.0 – 75.5 – this might be overdoing it a bit but also I think one best avoided – Reid’s average ratings before the latest scandal were around 79 – 81 and he could be on his way back towards these levels since he seems to have defused the situation fairly well.
My two selections for this week are therefore as follows:
Sell 2pts @ 83.8
Given that Johnson hasn’t previously been above 84 (though YouGov have rounded their data in the past) this seems a fairly safe sell, despite his rating of 84.9 this week. His negative rating of 18.8 this week is abnormally low in the absence of much news – in every previous week he has been in a narrow 20-21% band.
Sell 1pt @ 61.3
Blair was one of the few politicians to fall this week despite the overall positive trend, though this is partly because he had such a poor week previously. However I can see him falling again after the latest cash-for-honours developments and even if he recovers a bit there’s still some wriggle-room between his rating this week and IG’s sell quote. In light of the bigger risk to the upside, however, smaller stakes are advised.
Last Week’s Results
Gordon Brown Sell 2pts @ 68.5 Make-up 68.8 Loss of 0.6pts
John Reid Buy 1pt @ 69.8 Make-up 73.2 Profit of 3.4pts
Boris Johnson Sell 0.5pts @ 94.0 Make-up 92.3 Profit of 0.85 pts
Running Total P/L: +3.65pts
NB A point (“pt”) is simply a way of rating the strength of a bet without divulging the stakes involved – roughly speaking a 1pt bet should be a normal-sized bet for you whether that’s £1, £10 or £1000!
Aaron Bell is a former politics student who works in the Trading department of bet365. The views expressed are his own and not those of bet365.
If you do not have an IG account please use the links on the site and mention PBC. A small commission is paid towards the site’s running costs.
MessageSpace Advertising
Interesting article. I am personaly a bit worried about this market still. I would like to see what happens next week, and how these predictions pan out
I have just completed a YouGov survey - all the brands that I take no interest in, of course - but there were no political questions at the end.
The thought does just occur to me: are they deliberately omitting from these surveys all those who are politically committed? If so, that might make a considerable difference to these results.
3 - Your ‘fame’ as a soothsayer has spread
2.Tressage, I sometimes get the political questions tagged on at the end but not always.
Which way will the PM go over the Catholic church wanting and an opt out over equality laws, regarding gay rights and adoption.
Will Cameron follow what ever Blair does, or announce his postion now.
Could effect both mens popularity next week, depending on the positions taken.
Nice work, Aaron.
I’ve had a dabble based on your recommendations. I’ll take it easy at first because, like Benedict, I want to see how it works. In theory, us PB wonks ought to score well.
We’ll see.
Re 5, Dez, perhaps you might care to comment on this:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-gay-people-feel-discriminated.html
I personaly think that the law proposed goes further than the public might feel it ought too though.
re 6. I gather that Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report is advising IG on their prices. I’m following Aaaron’s tips.
7,
Thanks Benedict.I read the link.
It certainly is a contentious issue for many.
However not been Catholic or Gay, is not that an emotive issue for myself personaly.
I imagine as you say Blair would take the postion in the link, third way solution, rather than black and white.
Believe the cabinet is split.
Do`nt know what Camerons position might be.
Entirely off thread. If anyone knows about this Facebook networking phenomenen that has hit universities, there is apparently group with 20 members called ‘Gays for Miliband’! I have no idea what to make of it from a punting perspective, but interesting bearing in mind that Ruth Kelly was a former girlfriend of his. Must be the moustache.
10. Henry, but are they for David or Ed?
Re 9, Thanks for the feedback Dez.
I wonder how many gay people actually care what the Catholic church does or says on the issue, hence me asking the question.
Royal does seem to have a knack for causing herself problems:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6290451.stm
11. David - apparently there’s a soft focus picture too. Is anyone a member (of Facebook, not Gays for Miliband).
14. Henry, now that you mentioned some the New Lab (former) couple (David Miliband and Ruth Kelly)…was Liz Lloyd the former girlfriend of Ed Miliband? I always get confused and I pair her with Purnerll (but today Daily Mail update on his love life made me realize it wasn’t him)
Btw, thanks to Aaron Bell for the piece. I always make a lot of confusion with BrandIndex!
15. I have a vague recollection that she was.
12 Benedict,
I could not answer that, but can imagine that the argument put would be total equality with in the law.
Therefore the issue becomes a point of principle.
However living through the eighties when my father was a strong Thatcherite, and my mother a strong left CND Supporter.
I listned to both sides and ended up in the illogical position to many a centrist.
Always thought they had to be another way especially in Yorkshire at the time, between the two positions.
So with this would be looking for compromise if possible.
8 - “I gather that Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report is advising IG on their prices. I’m following Aaaron’s tips.”
Is that unconscious humour, Mike? What’s Anthony done to upset you?! He’s OK, although having discussed ‘investment opportunities’ with Aaron from time to time, my money’s also on the PB man!
It’s very simple. Catholics will not place children in homes of sin, so no co-habiting couples whether gay or straight. If forced to do so by the law, God’s law trumps man’s, and of course, every Catholic adoption agency in the UK closes its doors at once. If that is what Labour want they are going the right way about it.
Re 17, Dez, thanks for your comments (which you are also welcome to put on my blog, Peter the Punter managed it
)
The problem with points of principle, is we are a very varied country!
re 19, Commentator, well, yes that is there position.
19.
Think they are split on the issue, well at least in the cabinet.
Do`nt know how other parties are on this, on the front benches at least as, I haven`t read their position yet.
19. Wouldn’t ‘homes of sin’ rule out pretty much every household in the UK…? ‘let him who is without sin cast the first stone’ etc….
Re 21, Dez, I am not sure we have a public one yet, a position I would seek to maintain as long as possible. Perhaps that is political cowardice?
19: Note the difference from the Northern Ireland position. As gay couples can currently not adopt at all in Ulster, the issue doesn’t arise - this is why the Northern Ireland regulations could be put through with less controversy despite an attempt to block them in the Lords. I’ve not heard that unmarried heterosexual couples are automatically refused by the Catholic Church - that aspect hasn’t come up in the lobbying.
The default position, espoused by the Anglican Church, is that the adoption agency, whether religious or not, should decide on the basis of individual assessment whether a particular home is sufficiently loving, stable, etc. to be suitable. The question is whether it is (a) reasonable or (b) offensive for a Catholic agency to say that they consider it impossible for a gay (or unmarried?) couple to provide a suitable home, no matter how loving and stable they might be.
As with the issue of boarding houses (should they be allowed to have “No gays here!” signs?), however, the debate is a bit artificial, since the number of gay couples applying to adopt from agencies known to take a dim view of homosexuality is presumably pretty small.
21.”Think they are split on the issue, well at least in the cabinet”
According to the Independent, Johnson is leading the “anti opt out” part of the Cabinet with the support of Peter Hain, Jack Straw, Des Browne, David Miliband, Tessa Jowell and Lord Falconer.
With Blair there’s Ruth Kelly and John Hutton.
The rest seem not to care so much.
It would be very interesting if there’ll be a Commons vote on the issue. Angelan Eagle and Chris Bryant are aheading the “no opt out” fight from the backbenches.
20,
True Benedict and long will it remain so, a varied country.
I have read it, your blog, no comments as yet, thanks for the offer.
Re 22, jan Hus, apart from suggesting the discussion would be more appropriate on my blog as it is not betting related, I would agree about not throwing stones.
However the issue is not whether we are all sinners, but whether the sin is at is were institutionalised.
Re 24, Nick “As with the issue of boarding houses (should they be allowed to have “No gays here!” signs?), however, the debate is a bit artificial, since the number of gay couples applying to adopt from agencies known to take a dim view of homosexuality is presumably pretty small.”
hence my article asking is any gay gives a t*ss.
I can’t imagine they do, nor would they want to by law stay where they are not welcome. So why all the heat and lack of light in the debate?
Re 25, Andrea, i don’t think there has to be a vote, I think it may be comming in as a regulation but may be wrong.
Dez, Go on, please comment
As a lapsed, (very lapsed) Catholic ‘As I was saying to that Richard Dawkins’……. I find this attitude of his Eminence rather strange, didn’t he spend a lot of his career, protecting priests with a peculiar fondness for little boys.Ah the Catholic Church such a history of tolerance and understanding, those Cathar scum thank God they were all burnt, the only way to treat ‘em.
28,
The lack of heat and light is maybe because of the intrest groups involved.
As people go into their de-fault position automaticaly before considering the problem from both sides.
Feels more like a free vote issue to me, like abortion and hanging debates, rather than a partisan issue especially within the UK.
Re 30, Coldstone, as I understand it the Cathars position was on the one hand you must leave your wife/husband because living in such a relationship institutionalises sex and so is sinful, but you can shag who you want because we all have needs. In the 12th century that was a very dangerous ideology. I don’t condone execution for belief but you do have to look at things in their time and place.
The Catholic church is forgiving and in the example you sight far far too forgiving, but the question is one of institionalising “sin”.
Re 31, Dez, I agree.
I am no fan of New Labour and their interfering laws. But surely one thing is crystal clear. In the 21st century the idea that archaic, antiquated religious organisations can opt out of laws is absurd.
If a religious organisation can opt out, then any organisation must have the right to opt out. In which case there would be no law in the first place.
If they do let religious organisations opt out, then what will be the definition of a religion? Can I form my own religion and opt out? If not why not?
Re 33, MikeL, you mean like Siehks and motor cycle helmets?
Indeed the whole point of the article on my blog is to ask the question do gays currently feel discriminated against in the provision of goods and services?
23,
Do`nt think it is political cowardice.
Its a nice position to be in when in opposition, wait to see the government twisting in some form of conation.
And you don`t have to take sides and upset either.
However they do eventualy ask where you stand, but by then the anger is less intense.
Also people vote in the main vote against things a government has done.Not what they achieved.
Re 35, Thanks Dez, I tend to agree again!
On that note i am off to try and finish a sterling engine for the Brighton model engineering exhibition! Back later.
14: “Is anyone a member (of Facebook, not Gays for Miliband).”
*Habitual lurker raises his hand*
As a British University student, I’m pretty much obliged to join Facebook, to keep up with friends, local events, etc. But it also has the entertainment value of providing numerous pointless groups to browse through (and occasionally join), like the one you mention. I have seen ‘Gays for Milliband’, but am regrettably not a member (since only the ‘pro-Milliband’ part applies to me). Seems like just a bit of silly fun, anyhow.
On-topic: my liberal-leaning instincts are somewhat torn over this one. On the one hand, I see no good reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt (or unmarried couples, for that matter!) - but on the other, there is a legitimate question over whether the govt has the right to tell the Catholic Church what it can and can’t do. Tricky. Arguably, what should matter most is the interest of the children in question - but even with that in mind, it’s not clear. Would passing the law reduce the number of children waiting for adoption, by forcing adoption agencies to accept prospective adopters who they would have otherwise turned down? Or would it increase it, by encouraging those same agencies to close down altogether? I really don’t know.
Discrimination on grounds of sexuality is inherently wrong, IMO, but I’m not sure whether this effort to prevent it will end up doing more harm or good overall. Just glad it’s not me who has to make the decision…
32
It was a little more complicated than that, Benedict. The real problem with the Cathar revolt, (like all heresies) was that it threatened to weaken Christendom at a time when the threat from militant Islam was potent and real. The Church felt it had a responsibility to ensure that Europe remained united to oppose that threat, heretics were the internal enemy, Islam the external one: ‘As I was saying to that Melanie Phillips’
38 And the excuse for the Catholic Crusaders in one crusade diverting their attention to attacking Byzantium - the Orthodax Christian bulark against the westward spread of Islam would be what exactly?
re 19. well we’d be better off without their bigoted agencies anyway if that’s their attitude. I thought the Children Act meant that they were emant to put the interests of the child first.
Because the Crusaders were jealous of the wealth of Byzantium, and they considered it to be decadent, they also suspected that Byzantium was doing deals with the Muslims. Byzantium had always looked down on the ‘Latins’ and only appealed to them for military help, because Constantinople was being attacked from North and South and they could no longer hold the line. The ‘help’ Byzantium hoped to get from the west, was 10,000 fully trained Norman mercenaries, they were not best pleased, when the scum of Europe arrived led by a loonie ‘Peter the Hermit’ It was always a very strained alliance.
re 31. I was thinking whilst watching the Ch4 prog on gambling yesterday. Why were MPs given a free vote on issues such as abortion and gay rights as moral issues yet Labour MPs were whipped into the Aye lobbies on the Gambling Act. Why wasn’t that a moral issue? Perhaps some of the Labour MPs both out and closeted on here could advise!
If you want to believe in imaginary friends that is your business - if you’re an adult.
What you are not entitled to do is to claim that your deluded & ludicrous belief in the supernatural gives you the right to shape government policy.
Filling children’s heads with hateful superstitious bigotry & nonsense is, of course just a form of child abuse.
41. Oh come off it, the attack on Byzantium was just an opportunity for plunder and self-aggrandisement. Much the same could be said of the Albigensian ‘crusade’ as well.
43. Who filled your head with all that hateful bigotry Colin? it wasn’t your Dad and me, that’s for sure.
42
Watching this last night was the final nail in the coffin for me, an acknowledgement that the Uk is being run by an organisation comprable to a criminal cartel.
Don’t worry about the terrible social problems the super casinos will cause, the gambling addictions, the crime, They (The UK government) will make billions in tax revenues from the misery they are about to unleash on this country.
There is no doubt that NuLab is the most corrupt, evil institution ever to have run the UK and they must be removed from power, by force if necessary. The people of the UK must remove these scum from power immediately and restore some semblance of democratic government to the UK.
Anyone got a Chieftan tank I can borrow?
The Catholic adoption thing has got to be a complete non-issue. As long as the Catholics are prepared to point gay would-be adopters in the direction of a secular agency (and I’m sure they would be) I don’t see that there’s a problem.
Of course, that’s far too simple for those on both sides who want to feel persecuted for whatever reason.
44 Much the same as the Bush/Blair invasion of Iraq with a likely similar long term effect - the weakening of the West and the strengthening of militant Islam for some years to come.
Parents wishes are the basis of faith based adoption agencies - the desire a child should be brought up in a home that reflects their desires. Is it wrong for a Jewish, Muslim, Catholic or indeed Indian, African, Chinese or European parent to express a desire that their child is adopted into a home sharing those attributes. Indeed it seems state agencies already discriminate on race - stories of white parents being ruled unsuitable to adopt black children.
Few people would argue about that preference that a Jewish child to be adopted into a Jewish family - thus discriminating betwen others and Jews. Should Jewish adoption agencies be forced to consider Muslim, or Christian families equally with Jewish ones? For a faith to ask for the same rights seems to me equitable. Adoptive parents haven’t an absolute right to adopt and agencies have an established list of factors they consider. Why should the desire of the Catholic Church to select suitable Catholic families be made illegal?
I wouldn’t go into a Casino if you were to threaten to break my finger, but I wouldn’t stop anyone else going in. I’ve always believed that taxing morons, smokers etc perfectly acceptable even desirable. If your stupid enough to do these things, you can’t moan when you lose your money, to either the owners of the casinos or the chancellor. After all if your a Tory (in particular) aren’t you supposed to believe in the freedom of the individual, where are libertarians like Alan Duncan at times like this,I’ve read ‘Saturns Children’(hardback) I remember the discussions down at the ‘Silver Cross’ a lot of now prominent Tory politicians used to join in, Why aren’t they giving full support to the government’s proposals?
24. There is no issue - and no, Catholics would not place children in the home of a co-habiting unmarried straight couple. It would place with a single parent or a married couple. It would not place the child in a situation of sin, no matter how “loving and stable”. The immorality Christians perceive in sex outside of marriage makes it not suitable for children.
There is, and I hope as a Labour MP you and your colleagues understand this, no possible way that a Catholic adoption agency would violate the teaching of Christ on marriage any more than a Catholic hospital would perform an abortion. If you compel, through civil law, Catholics to place children with gay couples then each and every Catholic adoption agency shuts down that very day. You cannot force your values on religious people, and a lot of vulnerable children, who have been successfully placed by Catholic agencies for many decades, will be left stranded on the altar of your “you must bow to our morals and approve homosexual partnerships” ultimatum.
For the Church will not change two thousand years of teaching to please New Labour.
29.” don’t think there has to be a vote, I think it may be comming in as a regulation but may be wrong.”
yes, I think you’re right.
I was just pointing out that a vote (especially a free vote) would be interesting (just to see how parties split)
44
Yes that to!
51.”It would not place the child in a situation of sin, no matter how “loving and stable”
How many Catholics commit sins (from time to time)? I strongly doubt that all Catholics partents of Great Britain are sinless. So why are they still allowed to keep their children with them?
Mark Senior about.
14. Hi Alisdair. Quick question if you can, how much emphasis should people put on the Labour deputy leadership arms race on Facebook.
Apparently Alan Johnson has over 200 supporters on Facebook, Jon Cruddas has 70, Harriet Harman’s 19, Hilary Benn’s got 23 and Peter Hain has 14. Is it a genuine barometer of popularity among students, or all about which student labour clubs are most organised. Or do you reckon people just join their friends groups and that this is immaterial?
I wonder how close it will be to the PLP vote?!!!
25
‘Think they are split on the issue, well at least in the cabinet”’
If it was Muslims instead of Catholics ,naturally the entire cabinet would be supporting their opt out.
Bush approval rating in free-fall.
28% approval. 29% approve of troop surge.
Iraq considered by far the most important problem.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/22/opinion/polls/main2384943.shtml
57 - I don’t think Jack Straw would.
56.”I wonder how close it will be to the PLP vote?!!! ”
How many “gays for Miliband” are there in the PLP?!
56 - (I’m also a student). I personally don’t think Facebook would be a great barometer so wouldn’t pay any attention to it.
I still fail to understand why religions get a special place amongst belief systems in this country. People are suggesting that if people have a religious belief that supports discrimination against gay people then they should be allowed to discriminate on such grounds. Well what about if someone had a non-religious belief that homosexuality is wrong - should they be allowed to discriminate? What about a non-religious belief that interracial marriage was wrong? Would that be ok? Why should a belief be awarded a special position in society because there’s a deity at the centre of it?
60. I think I know of 1 Andrea!
61. Thanks GQ.
62. Exactly. There are only 2 credible options:
1) No law at all. Discrimination allowed.
2) Have a law saying no discrimination is allowed.
Simple as that. To be able to opt in or out of laws as you please is absurd.
63. Henry. Can you give a clue on who he/she is?
In terms of Con and LD positions on the “op out” issue. Lorely Burt (LD Spokesperson for Women and Equality) said:
“People in our society who hold religious beliefs should enjoy no special status above people with secular beliefs. We should never enshrine one as superior to another in law, which essentially is what is being proposed.”
Can I consider it as the LD official position as she’s the spokeperson on Equality or was she speaking at personal level?
On the Tory side, John Bercow is being quoted as against the opt-out. But it’s hardly surprising.
63. Certainly not!
64. From a simplistically rationalist perspective, yes. But the idea that religions should have a special - even privileged - place in the life of a country or state has been around for a very long time indeed.
66. Do you think that his/her reputation will be totally damaged if outed as a Miliband’s fan?!
68. Very good!
re 49. As I’ve said elsewhere adoption agencies have to legally consider the rights of the child above everything else. Now it might be important to a 10 year old Jew to be brought up in a Jewish household and any reasonable person would see that, but a 6 month old - pull the other one.
re 62. Quite right. Catholics may just think I’m sinful, an equally devout Muslim might want me put to death. Both would say they were issues of conscience and who’s to say which one is right and which not? Not discriminating against someone because of who they are is a moral absolute and if people with strange superstitions want to say otherwise then fine they should be allowed to. What they should not be allowed to do is discriminate.
This thread raises two groups of questions:
(1) What is a religion? What criteria does a philosophy have to meet to be entitled to be called a religion? Who has the authority to accord it the status of a religion?
(2) Are all religions entitled to the same level of respect? Are they all entitled to the same level of weight when drafting laws? If not, what criteria lend weight, (eg number of adherents?)? Who makes such decisions?
I can argue against any set of answers :
67. Well if we’re in a situation where it is agreed that a proposed law is not rational but it is still being put before the House of Commons then I’m afraid I just have to give up. The idea that this could be the situation in a civilised country in the 21st Century is beyond belief.
72.
(1) An organised set of beliefs that endorses itself not by scientific enquiry but by “faith”. The criteria mentioned above. No-one has special authority but each person can make an individual judgement.
(2) No. Yes (none). N/A. The voting public (and hopefully they’ll have the sense to see I’m right).
re 2. Having fought my name to the end of the Brand Index. I mean who on earth goes to work thinking I must rave about Boots or Woolworth or whatever to my colleagues today. There were some political questions at the end and then another set about footballers!
70 - a Jewish girl putting her child up for adoption chooses a Jewish agency because she wants Jewish parents for it - you are discriminating against that choice in favour of another couples “right” to select a child whatever the wishes of the parent. It is a discrimination against the freedom of conscience, of religion and parental choice. I would equally support the choice for a non-believer to select a Humanist adoption agency or a black person a black adoption agency. Adoption is about three parties, the blood parent, the child and the adoptive parent not just the child.
I fully support the proposals where they apply in the public sphere, whether it’s accomodation on offer or other goods and services for sale or rent, but not in matters of conscience and especially in matters of family overiding people rights to practice their faith.
“Look we’ve found these pig farmers, they look ideal parents for young Mohammed, aged 6 weeks”
76. Fair enough - if enough people hold these views then the only rational approach is to say that in the area of adoption, EVERYONE must be allowed to discriminate.
76. So should a BNP-supporter have the right to demand her child goes to a family with racist views?
76 - if there is a BNP adoption agency licenced by law, why the heck not? If she kept him/her then the child would be brought up by a BNP supporter. It’s not illegal to be a BNP supporter is it? There are no thought crimes, crime involves action. This law is attempting to impose a correct way of thinking in to private life. England in common law recognises the primacy of family life and we recognise that parents can bring their chldren up in the philosophy they choose - except where that causes physical or mental harm (so the state over-rides Jehovah’s Witnesses in cases of operations or blood transfusions where child is endangered).
78 .Yes tjm they should, not a palatable thing this freedom sometimes but if a parent wants a white and/or a particulat race who are you or I to tell them otherwise? The old “I disagee with you, but will fight for your right to have it….”
Just like the whole CBB thing Jade is a waste of space nbody, but if thats her views we can all go off on one(which the Mail group have) but its her viewpoint, wrong as we think it is. Otherwise we are down the road of Mr GW Bush and telling people whats good for them, by force if needed and look at that mess.
sorry meant 78 - otherwise talking to myself again
Hi Punter I am now about if you are still here .
We adopted two of my children and in both cases the birthparents had the right to choose by whatever criteria they saw fit once we had passed the minimum child protection clearances.
My daughter’s birthmother chose us because she wanted to place the child with adoptive parents who had a graduate level education.
The birthmother of another little girl chose a different family because they owned a Harley Davidson motorbike and we didn’t…..
79 .Very well put Ted, but me thinks some Labour/Tory(are they not one party now?) want s to act & think as they wish, ID cards are a perfect example, even Mr flip-flop used(still does in pivate)to think so.
84.”but me thinks some Labour/Tory(are they not one party now?) want s to act & think as they wish”
erm, where are you leaving the Libdems? On this issue it’s not that there aren’t Libdems that aren’t arguing against the opt out. Lorely Burt MP said “People in our society who hold religious beliefs should enjoy no special status above people with secular belief”
Evan Harris MP has said that “it is rather sordid that the Catholic leadership should seek to try and blackmail Parliament and government”
84. Yes I am sure some of the more rightious in our party think that, but for every person you please you will anger many others. One persons choice/freedom is anothers curtailed. Why the state should legilate this as Labour try to do with every area of PRIVATE life is beyond me. Evan and others to the left of the party will always try to hold a high moral ground, but as always the higher you get the more out of touch with what people really want you are(eg. Labour party (77-97) Tory party(97 to present)
71 The logic of saying that “what they can’t do is discriminate” is to say that that Anglicans should be barred from preventing atheists being clergy (admittedly some Anglican clergy are atheists); that Catholics should be barred from refusing to celebrate the marriage of divorcees; that Conservatives should be barred from preventing socialists becoming party agents and so forth.
The fact is that discrimination is not wrong per se. Depending on circumstances, it can be quite rational and justified.
In this case, the Catholic belief that children are likely to be best brought up by married couples of either sex doesn’t seem like irrational bigotry to me.
Should an atheist be able to say they want their child adopted be another atheist/ agnostic? I say yes.
Not that I would, as I’m not an atheist or agnostic but I’d want the choice for my children if for some terrible reason I needed them adopted so should allow others the choice in this circumstance as well.
WRT race, it is a matter of fact that most people involved in adoption are pretty hostile to trans-racial adoption. In fact, it is almost impossible in this country.
89 - and for good reason too. Another reason that there are justifiably stricter laws on adopting from abroad.
On Moral Maze a few months back after the Madonna furore they discussed it. Rather interesting testimony from a Chinese girl who’d been adopted here. I think she was adopted from China, but didn’t feel like she quite ‘fitted in’ with her adopted parents; would have done more so if adopted by a Chinese couple here.
The posters here using logical and rationalist arguments to rip holes in the religious justifications for discrimination are doomed to frustration and failure. Religions are - by necessity - illogical and irrational systems of faith; and in those who adhere to them, the more fanatical the belief the more illogical and irrational it becomes.
There is no definition of religion - there cant be. Religions themselves define themselves to be valid religions, and will defend their status quo, and the list of valid religions. When new religions appear (as they always do) the status quo will call them pseudo-religion or cults, until they eventually play by the establishment rules and become absorbed into the status quo, at which point they become valid religions. Thus, neither number of believers, age of belief, extent of canon, etc can be sanely used to define a religion. Religions themselves oppose this because they realise it would be their demise.
The logic argument that if one belief system can be used to justify X (where X is discrimination, exception, special rights etc) then so can any belief system ignores two practicalities. The first is that religions realise that to accept that would be to open the floodgates and admit defeat by absurdity. The second is to miss the point that the religions - the Christian ones that is - still see the West as their domain. Many of us like to believe that we live in a secular society, but it isnt true. We life in a society that Christians believe is a Christian society, and they will continue to behave as such until the church is disestablished and a law is passed to the effect that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” - if you catch my drift… (Note that even in the USA this didnt end the matter)
The desire of the religious to have special dispensation to behave in certain ways is not itself irration. After all, if you had some special “thing” that allowed you to get your way wouldnt you use it? Of course you would - and that is why religion continue to exist. Organised Religion is a method of interest groups getting their way - not unlike political parties - unike personal religion, which is meditational method for coping with some of the trials of life.
83
perhaps the Harley showed a preference for a certain way of life. A family friend of ours joined police in the 40’s because they rode Harleys (not in the UK).
A close friend of mine had problems adopting because she was white, her husband black but state agencies thought he wasn’t black enough (he was a Major in the TA, graduate, proud to be British) so while there are plenty of mixed race children up for adoption, desperate for parents, it was a long struggle to get approved.
Noted today, despite the NI version going through at Hain’s instigation, that NI still doesn’t allow gay adoptions apparently. That discrimination I most definitely oppose.
I am truly puzzled by this government. Everything has to be imposed from above. I have very little respect for traditional Catholic viewpoints. I think Catholic adoption agencies are wrong, utterly wrong, to rule out gay adoptive parents. But they have a right to do so.
What does the government have planned next? Targets - all agencies to place at least 10% of children with gay parents by the year 2020.
The only way to stop all discrimination would be massive state centralisation and everything to be imposed from Whitehall. This is clearly the way we are heading under Mr Blair.
On the issue of hotels and gay people, again it is tricky. Some religious organisations running guesthouses may only allow male, or female guests. Should this be allowed? Some may only allow a heterosexual couple if they are married? Is this to be allowed?
93.”I am truly puzzled by this government. Everything has to be imposed from above. I have very little respect for traditional Catholic viewpoints. I think Catholic adoption agencies are wrong, utterly wrong, to rule out gay adoptive parents. But they have a right to do so. ”
shouldn’t you first puzzled by your parties MPs who are supporting it?
I find puzzling that some people are busy attacking the government whilst some of their party is advocating the same thing.
(Sean Fear can opt out from criticizing John Bercow’s thoughts on this matter though
Andrea,94
The luxury of opposition.
95. Dez, this issue seems to gain momentum, so I suppose both the tories and Libdems should voice their opinions about it.
Btw, I see that it seems that Blair thinks that Sedgefield councillors are idiots (I suppose some Labour ones too)
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/journallive/thejournal/tm_headline=exasperated-blair-fumes%26method=full%26objectid=18512524%26siteid=50081-name_page.html
79. 80. I just think that children should be placed with a family that is in the child’s best interest, judged on individual merits, not on blanket bans imposed by the previous parents.
I see that Guido is reporting that McTernan has been questioned under caution. I know I should know this but who’s McTernan?
94 Andrea - for may of us Graeme Archer put it well in his platform article on CHome. We are trying to find the balance between acceptance and imposition. I worry about booking a room in an private Hotel or stopping at a B&B on holiday because ,even after the law is changed the reception from the hotelier or house owner will tell me what he/she thinks, but it would be quite wrong for the law to allow those people to refuse my custom just as it would if I were Asian or Jewish. I recognise though that some think that a B&B or a Christian/Jewish/muslim guesthouse should be able to discriminate, I just don’t agree that making this illegal is an imposition on private life or conscience (don’t join the public hospitality trade) but recognise its a difficult choice. We don’t demand Jewish or Halal butchers carry pork products for the non Jews/Muslim customers.
On a lighter note the Canary Islands would become less attractive to gay travellers if a similar law forced certain gay establishments there to welcome all including families
I recognise our MPs are similarly unsure of where the boundary between conscience and discrimination is - perhaps because in part the acceptance of many changes by the general population has been surprisingly successful. The problem is that in my view some campaigners have forgotten tolerance in their search for equality and it’s become a matter of where you are marked in TheyWorkForYou on gay issues that matters sometimes rather than principles. Conservatives are desparate not to repeat Section 28 so may over-compensate to show their gay friendly credentials.
98. Chris A. He’s the Director of Political Operations at Downing Street. I think he was recently sent to Scotland to co-ordinate Labour campaign for Holyrood (SNP is probably jump up and down at the moment)
98 - “John McTernan is the Director of Political Operations. He provides political management and support for the development of the Government’s political strategy. The Labour Party pays his salary.”
as per No. 10 website.
I just knew Andrea would beat me to it, oh well…….
99. Thanks Ted.
“Conservatives are desparate not to repeat Section 28 so may over-compensate to show their gay friendly credentials”
I didn’t see anything coming from the tories (I don’t mean Widdy or Bercow opinions, but something from shadow ministers).
94 - yes, the LD MPs puzzle me too. But they aren’t the government, so I can’t blame them for the policy.
It’s like the smoking in pubs issue. I can’t stand smoking, but surely if somebody wants to set up a licensed club for smokers, they should be able to. Most LD MPs voted for an outright ban. I respect those who did not (with the exception of Lembit, who I cannot respect).
I am rather more libertarian than dear LD MPs. Tolerance is about respecting people’s views, even if they are nutty, or wrong, so long as no harm comes of it. I can’t see gay couples rushing to the local Monsignor to adopt a child. Or going to a guesthouse run by Ian Paisley’s church for a romantic weekend.
Similarly, I loathe the BNP, but would not ban them. I hate holocaust denial, but would not seek to make it a crime throughout Europe as Angela Merkel wishes.
102. Ukpaul
completely off topic I know, but was anyone else uneasy as I was today seeing the CCTV footage of the suspected 21st July bombers (which will be no doubt all over the front pages tomorrow). You can rest assured that we’re not going to get such graphic coverage of their defences and if for any reason they need a retrial then surely the prospects of a fair trial have been compromised?
104.”yes, the LD MPs puzzle me too. But they aren’t the government, so I can’t blame them for the policy.”
well, if they voted for it, they’re as much responsible as Labour MPs. I suppose.
107 - agreed, as much to blame at the backbench Labour MPs. But I blame the government, and those who frame policy more.
108. Confess you blame just Patricia for the smoking ban!
Ah Mark Senior at 82. You still about.
Just to clarify my perspective, I would equally argue for the rights of a hotel specialising in providing accommodation for homosexuals that did not want to accept a “conventional” married heterosexual couple as guests.
104. The ‘Liberal’ democrats only seem to be really ‘liberal’ in areas like sex and drugs. In other areas (e.g. the smoking ban and adoption etc. as mentioned above) they can be astonishingly illiberal, often taking an authoritarian PC line a Labour left-winger from the 1980s would have been proud of. I don’t think there are any genuinely libertarian individuals among their MPs.
109 - I used to quite like Patsy Hewitt. I remember her saying on QT that she might resign from the Cabinet if ID cards were imposed. Enough said!
109 - Patricia led the way! She voted against her own bill thus allowing other Ministers the freedom to demonstrate against her NHS reforms. Next we will have John Reid voting against parts of his Criminal Justice Bill - all a clever repositioning of Labour as the real opposition to this Government so Gordon can “be the change”
They might need it if the Met are entering the end game and they have real evidence of crminal behaviour in number 10.
82. Well I’m off. If you see this want to know your reasoning re Bridgend. What are your sources I’ve heard nothing, and Welsh Goat raised some strong points against it on the Loc Govt thread I think.
96,
Andrea I agree surprised by the increasing momentum.
The Conservatives and Lib Dems will need a position soon.
On Newsnight tonight they are saying the anglican church agrees with the Catholic church on this issue.
Both Archbishops of Cantebury and York have wrote to the Times.
112. One of the greatest texts of liberalism is John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, based around “the harm principle”:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
Smoking near other people has scientifically been established to harm others. Thus, under liberal principles, it can be rightfully banned. Liberalism isn’t “no laws whatsoever”.
114. “Patricia led the way! She voted against her own bill ”
but Tony followed her in the same lobby. Infact the majority of PLP voted against their manifesto commitment (I think the manifesto didn’t include the toral ban), so I can wonder why they did that manifesto commitment if the mjaority of them was agaist!
“all a clever repositioning of Labour as the real opposition to this Government so Gordon can “be the change””
they’re doing the triangulation around themself!
117. Should parents be banned from smoking in their own homes to protect their children, then?
116.”On Newsnight tonight they are saying the anglican church agrees with the Catholic church on this issue”
now should I expect Chris Brynat starting to go around all TV studios again being pissed off not just with Catholic Church, but also with Anglican Church
112 - it is very difficult sometimes to gauge what is authoritarian and what is liberal, like on this adoption issue.
Clause 28 was certainly heavy-handed (nasty) illiberal centralising authoritarianism. But any PC legislation having the opposite effect to Clause 28 can also be heavy-handed illiberal centralising authoritarianism. The liberal view is somewhere between the two.
Smokers right or non-smokers rights? Respecting which makes you liberal?
Generally I feel the LDs get this balance right more than the other parties, so find “astonishingly illiberal” a bit OTT. The Tories have a pretty shocking record in the 1980s. Labour are clearly out to beat that record.
erm, I think I already got a question wrong in the end of the year competition:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2562857,00.html
Could be Camerons first real test to show his new Liberal credentials.
Blair passed and re-assured his conservative switchers when in opposition.
117 - This is true, although pubs wishing to become smoking pubs should be able to do so, there is a much better justification for banning smoking in public places for that reason.
121. Apart from Clause 28, what else constituted this ’shocking record’?
119. Yes you could make a case for it if you ignore enforcement issues. In reality, to enforce such a policy would entail far greater erosion of privacy rights in terms of intruding into people’s homes. Thus the good effect (an increased protection of children) would be smaller than the bad effect (the loss of privacy for all in their homes). Thus bad policy.
122 - yes, the Independent had the same story this morning. I got it wrong too.
“Should parents be banned from smoking in their own homes to protect their children, then?” - Tricky one. As a non-smoker with two children, I would say no. You will probably find that more harm comes to children from parents drinking at home. And I would not ban that!
I am also sure that more harm comes to bar staff from drunk customers than from smokers. Will they ban drinking in pubs? Under this government, you never know!
Opinion poll today: LDs 23%! I don’t really believe the LDs are out of the 16-20% box, but just as when somebody pays you a compliment that you know is not justified, I take it with a smile.
124. But is it right to allow premises open to the public to inflict harm on each other? What about if someone wanted to open a pub for football hooligans to come and fight each other? Perhaps with crowbars and knives?
119 - I would say that it should be prosecutable, yes; children should not be the property of parents to do as they wish, if parents smoke they should do so in the knowledge that their children could complain and bring prosecution, we would expect it if power had been abused either physically or sexually so why not for health abuse?
127. The drinking itself doesn’t cause the harm though. Its the violent choices people make when drunk. Unlike smoking, which directly causes harm.
117 - it’s good guide but open to a lot of interpretation. Who judges harm? Where is balance of harm and benefit?
116 - it will be a difficult decision for the Conservatives, I think more so than the LDs, and for Labour MPs in areas with large RC populations (West of Scotland & Lancashire). The current practice of Catholic agencies referring couples to other agencies seems eminently sensible. The Churches would have a stronger case of course if they accepted no public funding for those areas they want to keep the rule of conscience over anti-discrimination. I can support the choice of parents but it is difficult to apply exemptions to agencies that take public funding. A good triangulation would be to say that this law applied to any agency with public funding but private faith agencies were exempt.
128 - so would you ban alcohol in pubs? I know there is no such thing as “passive drinking”, but alcohol does cause things to kick off and some people choose “inflict harm on each other”.
126. So you would ban it if you could, but you don’t think it is ‘practical’. Very reassuring.
129. You could make the same argument about ‘health abuse’ for parents feeding their children a poor diet as well. Where does this nonsense end? The replies to my provocative point sadly seem to confirm my original contention about the ‘Liberal’ party being anything but liberal.
128 - Sounds like some pubs from my youth……
I’m one of the most libertarian here on so my answer may be off the wall compared to some - anyway, if there is clear and verifiable consent on all sides that they want to beat each other to a pulp then okay, whether they should have access to healthcare afterwards is a different matter and I’d imagine that, in the same way that other unhealthy lifestyles should carry penalties in this area, hospitals would withdraw any right to treatment.
So, you can beat each other up if you have clear consent all round but you have no right to be patched up afterwards. Any takers?
129 - I think there is a difference between a parent smoking at home a bit, as my father did, and parents holding a baby in one hand and a fag in the other. It’s a matter of degree; it’s so difficult to measure, but I don’t think it’s something you need a new law on. If a child’s home is a permanent blue haze, I’m sure existing legislation could do something as the environment would be detrimental to the child’s health.
131,
I agree with your triangulation theory.
Think would be a good compromise.
98.Newsnight Scotland reported a story in the Daily Record tomorrow regarding this.
131. You have I think made the key point there, about public funding. In fact this is another example of why it is unwise for charitable endeavours to enter the public sector ambit even to a small extent - the public sector will eventually seek to exert its control over them. In doing so it may well subvert their values, and will of course impose reams of unnecessary bureaucracy. This has happened with primary and secondary education over the last century, and is starting to happen again now with nursery education.
128 - we still allow boxing, rugby and other potentially damaging sports.
132. No, not for a minute. See 130. You should stop the actual action that causes harm, i.e. the “kicking off”.
133. A child can easily correct his food choices from the age of about 12 onwards to undo any negative effect sustained previously. Unlike smoking, which permanently damages a child’s lungs. It seems like your definition of liberal is “The government should protect my ‘right’ to do whatever I want, regardless of how it affects others”. That’s not liberalism, that’s nutbar libertarianism.
Besides, who said I supported the Lib Dems anyway?
133 - Why shouldn’t a child be able to prosecute their parents for forcing them to live an unhealthy life? I’m not saying that other authorities should be able to do so (social services etc) but removing the child’s right to complain and have redress, as you imply, is the most illiberal suggestion of the lot.
I presume you are imagining that it is the ’state’ who should intervene, that *would* be anti-libertarian, as it is the individuals concerned who are to complain instead then it’s as libertarian as you can get!
I’m afraid we have got to the stage in this discussion where both protecting the rights of a minority, and ignoring them, can be represented as illiberal.
138 - Who pays the piper chooses the tune. I think it is difficult for a state to justify discrimination amongst its citizens, which is why as a Conservative I find myself at odds with many of my party in imposing state selection which says the state will better fund the education of the few the state selects, at the expense of taxpayers whose children don’t get that benefit (Margaret Thatcher I believe shares my view). The state needs to be neutral in its dealings with ciizens and in its imposition of duties on them. In case you think I’m pro-comprehensive I support Tom Paine and his view of multiple providers of education, independent of the state, offering parents the choice with state funding (vouchers?)
The Churches and voluntary organisations would be on better grounds in most cases if they were independent of state funding.
We are getting very serious here - bring back Jack W ASAP
143. I have never understood this passion for bringing back grammar schools?
Went to the only comp in my rural area, it streamed from 3rd year onwards by form class(projected no of o grades) and also by grade expected to be achieved in individual subjects as well.
144 - the whole grammar school debate is kicking off in Kent again. Oldborough Manor in Maidstone (which has FOUR grammar schools) came out with the 2nd worst GCSE results in the UK. It’s difficult to say either way if the students at Oldborough Manor would have done better at a comprehensive that at a secondary modern school (although I am sure secondary modern is not used as a term any more.)
Has this government descended into a complete shambles until Mr Blair steps down?
I can’t believe that if Tony Blair had any honour left that he would not feel a sense of duty, to turn up at Parliament to defend his actions while we still have soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish they had the right to refuse to turn up for duty because the government has not even provided them with adequate armoured vehicles or enough helicopters!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6292863.stm
145.SBS, I went to a good secondary school which produced kids that went onto some of the best University’s in the UK. It was simple, the school was of a manageable size which meant the teachers built up a rapport with the kids over the years which often led to good discipline and allowed teachers to identify and work with both bright children and those with special needs through streaming.
Re 37, Alisdair, “On-topic: my liberal-leaning instincts are somewhat torn over this one. On the one hand, I see no good reason why gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt (or unmarried couples, for that matter!)”
Cough, that is not on topic here. the topic here is political betting. It would be on topic here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-gay-people-feel-discriminated.html
Re 38,,Coldstone
Re 40, ChrisA, yes we are supposed to put the intertest of the child first, but
A. The family courts have not read the legislation.
b. There is genuine disagreement about wht is in the best interests of the child.
Sky now reporting the John McTernan story.
henryG. I am glad you have also noticed the moustache
Re 54, Andrea as a Catholic you and I both know that none of us are without sin, the point is that we recognise and try and deal with them.
We don’t institutionalise them.
Re 70, ChrisA, Just how exactly am I as a Roman Catholic expected to explain away my foreskin, and his lack of it when he becomes curious?
He is (assumming he had the operation) going to notice. Not only that by why should he not know his backround?
Re 72, Martyn, “This thread raises two groups of questions:”
No it doesn’t. that was me being off topic, by listing my comment which did relate to the issue.
See here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2007/01/do-gay-people-feel-discriminated.html
Re 77, MikeL, well said, and I agree,
Re 80, Big Mark, *cough* we agree.
Has that heppened before?
Re 92, Ted, Not black enough because he thinks he is British?
And folks are worried about whether a few agencies will allow gay adoption when they can go to others?
Umm…
146. Blair and Browne might like to turn up and explain this while we have the debate, it might give us a clue as to what the hell the big plan is?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2560930,00.html
Re 104, SBS here here!
NEW THREAD
Re 127, SBS, as a smoker,and father of 3 I do not smoke inside my house, and in fact the only place I can smoke indoors is th pub! Until this bunch of morons get voted out.
Re 134, UKpaul, fair enough, but what about sexualy transmited diseases such as AIDS. After all you have to consent to the act which gives you the disease, but pay no taxes for it (like smokers and drinkers).
Why not say to a man who is dying of aids, well that is your punishment for taking risks, we don’t treat smokers who have paid taxes for the risk, of drunken bar brawlers for the same, so buugger off and die horribly?
Frankly that is the logical extention of your position, and as a compassionate persion I find it repugnant.
162,Hi,Benedict White,hope you’re well.AS a heavy smoker myself,I sympathise withn your feelings to a point-I’m 36 next month,can notice I heave for breath when I cycle up a steep hill,so am going to atttempt to give up pretty soon-not least regarding the ban in English pubs on July 1st!
(For what its worth,my local is a very large,two-tier town centre pub,whose only smoking area post July 1st will be an upstarirs,uncovered area approx. 10 metres by 10 meters-for a pub than can accomodate ‘000s,with 30-40% smoking,can you imagine the density of population this could entail-cheer up,an upside is that I’ll buy real ale from my local supermarket,and thus spend more time on this site!
163 - If someone deliberately gives themselves aids then why should they take preference over someone who contracted it by chance? In these sort of cases there may well be a diminished sense of responsibility which would explain their actions and would soften that sort of stance however, similarly with suicide attempts etc.
In any case, consenting to the act does not mean you are consenting to the disease.