We were away for Easter but, before we left, I'd noticed a pigeon or two taking an interest in the bush in our garden. I thought they might be building a nest and, indeed, it looks like that was the case:
.JPG)
I don't know whether I'll be able to post regular updates, because I don't want to disturb her/them* - but I'll try to if I get a chance.
*Edit: later research suggests it may actually be the male who sits on the eggs most of the day.
I've talked about this at various points before, but the BBC has a new piece on the history of penalty shoot outs here. While shoot outs are often referred to by pundits as a lottery, they aren't random - rather, they are a test of skill and nerve.
Ironically, shoot outs were introduced to replace lotteries, such as coin flips. The article linked above credits the idea to Michael Almog (later Israeli FA chief), quoting him as describing the drawing of lots as "an immoral and even cruel system for the losing team and not honourable for the winner".
I knew my partner was cooking chilli for dinner tonight, so I'd been told not to have beans for lunch. Therefore, jacket potato with cheese and peas:
.JPG)
It may seem an odd combination, but if you like peas and you like cheese, then why not...
In 'Essentially Contested Concepts,' W. B. Gallie imagines a championship contest where "each team specializes in a distinctive method, strategy and style of play" (p. 170) and there is no agreed scoring system, with each team competing to be acknowledged the best players of the game.
Of course, football isn't quite like this. There is an agreed method for determining who wins each match (who scores most goals) and the league championship (most points from all the games). But still, I'm sometimes reminded of Gallie when people debate how the game should be played.
Today, I see a bit of a discussion about importance of set pieces. This seems to be a current talking point on the BBC at least. Pundit Chris Sutton describes Arsenal as potentially "the ugliest Premier League-winning team in history". And Arne Slot says he doesn't like the emphasis on set pieces. It seems some don't like Arsenal winning the way they do, even if they are top of the table.
However, I was particularly struck by contrasting comments from Chelsea manager, Liam Rosenior, who is quoted as saying:
"I think that is the beauty of football, you can do it in so many different ways. There's no right or wrong way to play football for me. I'm sure when we scored from a corner yesterday, our fans didn't care what the goal looked like. I'm sure Arsenal's fans didn't care what their goals looked like either. The game is about winning."
It looks like the debate will continue...
We have a few more weeks of semester 1 (mostly assessment), before we start our second semester of teaching, but - when we get there - I'll be running my ethics of public policy module again. As usual, I'll start with a section on public health and paternalism, which includes tackling obesity. So, the advertising ban that comes into force tomorrow (5th Jan 2026) is particularly well-timed. This follows last year's earlier ban on multi-buy offers.
Following on from yesterday's post, another topic that I'll cover next semester is parental licensing. This was proposed/defended by Hugh LaFollette some time ago. However, it turns out that it's not merely a philosophical thought experiment. I just learned that Denmark does actually have a parental competency test.
Unfortunately, I don't know any more about it than what's in that article. It seems it isn't applied to all (prospective) parents, but only those that are considered a risk. Nonetheless, it appears that children can be taken away from parents who fail the test, even if they haven't yet suffered any harm.
Earlier in the year, I made a post about disrespecting the game of football. That concerned the practice of standing on the ball in Brazil. But, thanks to a recent BBC article, I learned that "under Ifab's law 12.4, a player can be booked for dissent by word or action, or even for displaying unsportsmanlike behaviour such as showing a lack of respect for the game". Unfortunately, they don't give a link, but I assume this should be easy enough to find.
Political scientists are sometimes expected to predict elections (and maybe other political events). And there's often some comment if pollsters (are seen to) get it wrong. But making predictions about the future is difficult.
One comparison might be to sports pundits. Out of 30 BBC pundits, no one predicted Liverpool winning the Premier League last season, for example. Another might be to weather forecasting. There's an interesting piece about that on the BBC. Weather forecasting is getting more accurate. And it seems that AI might be improving things further, though there's a cautionary note that models based on the past may fail to predict unprecedented events.
Luke Maring has an interesting article (here) on the obligation to vote. He argues that democratic citizens have a role-based obligation to vote, since failing to do so would disrespect democracy. And he motivates the idea that it's wrong to disrespect a practice with an example of a basketballer. (I forget the exact details of the case.)
I was reminded of this today, when I saw this article about Memphis Depay, in which the Brazilian Football Federation (CBF) is reported to have issued a letter saying that standing on the football is "provocation to a rival and disrespects the game."
I assume this was in Portuguese, so not sure how easy it would be to track down the original, but it's an interesting example (for those with more interest in football than basketball, at least).
EDIT: See follow-up post here.
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!)
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.)
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...
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...
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.
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.
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:
.JPG)
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.
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.
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).
Apparently this maths problem is doing the rounds. It didn't seem that challenging to me, though I can't comment on how difficult it would be for 10-year-olds.
I post it here mainly for the note at the end, reminding us that "education is not just about rote learning but also about critical thinking and problem-solving." I'm not entirely sure about the phrasing of this claim, since it seems to imply that education is partly about rote learning. Maybe that's truer at lower levels though.
