Disrespecting a Game 2

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.

Forecasts and predictions

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.

Disrespecting a game

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.

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).

Education and rote learning

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.

Is social justice left-wing?

I just saw a piece in the Daily Express about the AHRC's plans to fund a Centre for Law and Social Justice. The angle is very much that this is a waste of taxpayer money. They quote an unnamed academic, who says it is shameful "to be using public money to create a research centre with an explicitly left-wing equality, diversity and inclusion agenda."

Of course, the AHRC has been criticised for its political agenda before (see here and here), when it included the 'Big Society' among potential funding topics. In this case, the suggestion is that they are going against the government agenda. As the Daily Express refers to the AHRC doing this "Despite the Conservative Government's concerted war on woke..."

One thing that's not clear to me, though, is why they assume social justice to be a left-wing agenda. The Centre for Social Justice describes itself as independent, but was co-founded by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. It's described by Wikipedia as 'centre-right' and, according to ConservativeHome, it was influential on Cameron's Conservative government.

JME blog

I've just had a post, about strike ballots, published on the Journal of Medical Ethics blog. You can find it here. 

Readers may recall that I've written about similar themes before. The latest piece is indeed similar, but applied to a new issue (strikes by healthcare workers, rather than UCU).

Toronto Mayoral Election

I saw via the BBC that there are over 100 candidates, including a dog, running for Toronto mayor. Despite looking at a couple of sites that claimed to cover everything one might need to know, I struggled to find the voting system involved. The site just linked mentions that a candidate could win with just 20% of the vote. In fact, it seems that the election uses first past the post - at least, according to Wikipedia, though no citation is given. This means that, in theory, one candidate could win with just 1% of the vote.

FPTP seems pretty undesirable when there are this many candidates. However, while some form of instant run-off could overcome some problems, it would also be burdensome on voters to rank all of the candidates.

Abortion is illegal in the UK

Much of the news coverage around abortion concerns the battle over Roe v Wade in the US. It is relatively low profile in the UK. However, a woman has just been sentenced to 28 months in jail for taking pills, when between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.

I don't know anything about this case, other than the news report linked above, but Labour MP Stella Creasy is quoted as saying "contrary to what some claim, abortion is not legal in England - and you can be prosecuted for having one".

It concludes with another quotation, from Mandu Reid (leader of the Women's Equality Party), saying "The laws that convicted her [the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act] are archaic and date back to the Victorian era, before women had the vote". 

This seems a slightly odd statement. It's true that the law pre-dates women's suffrage, but of course no one currently alive had the vote back then. Further, women have now had the vote for the last hundred years, so it's not as if there hasn't been opportunity for change.

Generally speaking though, older laws command more respect than newer ones, because they've stood the test of time. Later generations could repeal them if they wanted to, but haven't seen the need to do so. This suggests that they're happy with the laws as they are. (I think Hobbes says something along these lines, but can't be bothered to look it up right now.) 

An ideal learning community(?)

"The fundamental academic freedom is the freedom to study according to one’s convictions and interests. Those who are called ‘teachers’ are essentially experienced and continuing students who have special responsibilities to those less experienced of their fellows who are called ‘students’; study is both a private and a public activity, involving discussion in speech and writing with one’s fellows to achieve a better development of one’s understanding and in some circumstances an assessment of that understanding for the sake of public recognition."

- Peter Campbell, 'Affluence, Academic Authority, and University Government' Political Studies (1975), at p. 147.

One of my colleagues has been known to say something along these lines at open days. I'm not sure how it goes down with prospective students, being told that they'll pay over £9,000 per year to learn from those who are still learning themselves, though it is of course true - we are all studying continually.

Why my vote wasn't counted

I didn't vote yesterday, but that's because I registered for postal voting and had posted my ballot last week. As it turns out, the election in my ward was declared void when one of the candidates died. My condolences to his family.

I didn't hear the news until later, and I doubt that many did, so I don't know how much effect it would have had one voting. However, this does highlight some interesting things about voting.

First, discussions of contraction consistency sometimes consider the effect of one candidate withdrawing. It is sometimes assumed that if A wins a three-way contest between A, B, and C then A should also beat B (or C) in a two-way contest. But this is not the case in many voting systems.

Second, this case also highlights the fact that - in the UK - voters elect individuals, not parties. If the votes were cast for the Conservative Party, rather than for Mr Galton, then he could presumably be replaced with another party nominee. But the votes are for the individual. This is relevant when elected officials decide to change party. It is sometimes suggested that this ought to trigger a by-election, though this is not the case.

Mordheim undead

I haven't posted any hobby content in a while, but I just finished painting this set of undead heroes for Mordheim and I'm pretty happy with how they turned out: