Commons vote on PR

I'm teaching about proportional representation tomorrow, so it's timely that the House of Common approved a motion on PR today (3rd December). Coverage in various places, including the Guardian, Telegraph (sign-up required), and Independent, plus several less-prominent sites that seem to be carrying the same version of the story (here, here, here, here, and here - I link to several in case some links don't last).

This is pretty meaningless, since it's clear that the government doesn't plan any changes. Nonetheless, it's slightly frustrating to see Conservative MP Lewis Cocking trotting out things like "The British people have made their opposition to this clear. In 2011, 13 million voted to retain the first past the post system". That refers to the AV referendum, but choice there was between FPTP and AV, not PR. So, the British people haven't had chance to express their views on that.

I should say though that Sarah Olney (whose motion it was) may be partly responsible for this, since her comments seemingly focus on criticising FPTP. We could change away from FPTP without introducing PR (for instance, if each constituency used AV to choose its MP - the result might still be very disproportional, though it would be slightly less clear how to judge that).

Anyway, one particular point of interest is the breakdown of votes. Amongst those who voted against is David Pinto-Duschinsky. My students will be reading a critique of PR by his father. (My knowledge of the relationship is based on Wikipedia, so I hope it's right!)

Holocaust denial on campus

This coming year, I'm planning to teaching this piece by Catriona McKinnon on Holocaust denial. So, I've been paying some attention to recent debates over freedom of speech.

Bridget Phillipson has announced that the Labour government will be pausing implementation of the previous government's Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, partly because (she suggests) it might protect Holocaust denial. An official statement can be found here. 

This move has been welcomed by students or, at least, the NUS. (Presumably student opinion isn't unanimous.)

Quote on education

I just read Viv Groskop's review (which I saw on MSN) of Exam Nation (Amazon affiliate). This was supposedly from The Guardian, though when searching for the original I found a different review online. Anyway, it seems like quite an interesting book, even if it sounds like it's focused on schools rather than higher education.

What really caught my eye though was the reviewer's quotable ending: "the process of great education is a bit like the process of doing well in any test or indeed in life: you have to be prepared to do the work". That might be a nice remark to share with incoming students...

Tuition fees

Coverage of UK higher education often focuses on the £9,000 per year paid by most domestic undergraduates. I don't see much likelihood of immediate change. Universities need the money, but there's little public support for increasing student debt (or for government subsidies).

Still, the government has scrapped VAT exemptions for private schools. This has led to many day school fees rising to over £20,000. (Eton's fees are rising to £63,000, but I'm not clear whether that's tuition-only or includes board.)

For another point of comparison, a friend just posted that four Oasis tickets (for the seats/date he wants) are currently being advertised for over £25,000 via re-sellers.

Maybe the university fees aren't so bad in comparison...

A ban on outdoor smoking

According to BBC reports, the new Labour government (not to be confused with a New Labour government) is considering a ban on smoking in certain outdoor spaces. This might initially sound quite draconian, given that smoking outdoors is not generally so dangerous to others, but actually the places proposed - thinks like pub beer gardens - are places where one might well be in close proximity to other people's second-hand smoke. Whether or not this is a proportionate measure, it is potentially justified by harm to others, rather than paternalism.

Oxford uses the Alternative Vote

Unfortunately, I missed the registration deadline to vote for Oxford's next chancellor, but I was interested to see that they use a (slightly modified) AV system for the election. I blogged quite extensively about AV back in the day of the UK referendum (e.g. here and here).

It doesn't seem that AV is particularly likely to be adopted for general elections these days, even if the recent election (parliament; BBC; Wikipedia) has sparked some renewed debate about the problems with FPTP (e.g. this short feature, posted in the run-up to the election).

I assume Oxford's use of AV constitutes an endorsement of sorts and, at least, an illustration of how it works.

Halocene VIP

It’s been a long time (as in, 10-15 years) since I last went to a gig, but last night we went to see Halocene playing a support slot at the Engine Rooms, following their festival appearance at Download. It’s not every day that an unsigned band from Tennessee makes it over to Southampton.

We paid extra for VIP tickets (more than the tickets actually), which were supposed to involve a meet and greet before the show. We were told to turn up at 6 (an hour before doors), so got there about 5:45, only to be left standing outside – and wondering whether we were in the right place – until about 6:30, when the small queue in front of us finally started moving.

Then someone came over and called my name out and took us to one side. He explained that we wouldn’t have the usual meet and greet experience, because we were the only two who’d purchased VIP tickets for this show, so instead he took us over to the band’s tour bus, where we got to sit and chat with Brad and Addie (a short conversation, but covering music we like, things to do in Southampton, and the differences between ducks and geese). Then we got given our exclusive VIP t-shirts and a photo opportunity outside:

I wished afterwards that I’d asked for a photo in the van, but never mind. We were escorted into the venue to wait for the show.

It was a bit of a wait, but when they finally took the stage they blasted through ‘Just Won’t Die’ followed by a cover of ‘Killing In The Name’ – where Addie had the crowd singing along, ironically doing just what she asked. The set was mostly originals, including ‘Repent’, ‘This Is Our War’ (my partner’s favourite), and ‘Maleficent’ though, sadly, they didn’t do ‘Devil Inside Me’ (which is one of my favourites).

They did throw some other covers: ‘Unholy’, ‘The Kill (Bury Me)’ (which was largely Addie solo) and then finished the set with ‘Chop Suey’ during which Addie got down into the crowd.

It was a shorter set than I’d like, since they were only the support act for the night (with Atreyu headlining). They’re playing their own headline show in Brighton tonight, but sadly that’s a bit too far, especially given that I’m off to a conference tomorrow while my partner has exam boards to deal with.

Perhaps one day we’ll get another chance to see them in person but, until then, I guess we’ll have to stick to their regular streams.

Edit: This video is a similar set from the same tour.

Starmer on voting rights - is he consistent?

The Telegraph reports that Keir Starmer has backtracked on an earlier pledge to give voting rights to EU citizens. (This is behind a paywall but, for now at least, reproduced via MSN.)

This isn't entirely new news it seems, because they appear to have run a similar story last year. Although an earlier Guardian story is a bit less clear on plans anyway - suggesting that it's simply being looked at.

What struck me about the original story, however, is his comments (quoted at the end of the piece) about the voting age:

"On the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, I strongly believe if you can work as you can when you’re 16 and 17, if you can serve in our Armed Forces, if you pay your taxes as you do if you’re a 16 or 17-year-old, you have a right to say how those taxes are going to be used."

If these are his reasons for wanting to lower the voting age, then it seems odd that EU citizens - and, indeed, other immigrants - who are able to work and pay tax shouldn't also be given the vote. Maybe (the right to) military service is more important than this passage suggests.

A House of Citizens?

I don't know whether the Metro letter page is preserved for posterity or not, but there are some interesting comments on the House of Lords in today's letters. This seems to follow on from recent discussion, which includes one call to abolish the HoL entirely. This follows the recent news that at least one peer also wants to abolish the HoL.

I'm not clear whether some replacement is envisioned or whether James Bradshaw from London would prefer a unicameral parliament. However, David Jubb from Devon offers an interesting alternative in today's letters:

"I’d rather have a House of Citizens than a House of Lords, with people from all walks of life contributing, as we do with jury service.

It would bring common sense to Westminster from every part of the UK and could be based on the model of successful citizens’ assemblies."

This idea isn't new (as he perhaps knows, given the reference to citizens' assemblies). Random selection, along the lines of jury service, is generally known as sortition. It has been proposed before, as a way to replace the House of Lords (Amazon affiliate link) or, indeed, even to replace elected representatives (Amazon affiliate link).