August 2nd 2010, 08:08pm
A story concerning politics, science, vested interests and “selectively edited, out-of-context data” is not uncommon: recently there have been several about homeopathy. In this case I’m referring to a Washington Post story on petitions denied by the US Environmental Protection Agency in a story which was tweeted, earlier this afternoon, by Caroline Lucas (the Green Party’s leader and sole MP).
Caroline Lucas has proved herself an interesting an intelligent politician who has developed the Green Part in the UK into a far more credible political force than might have been imaginable a few years ago. She has speaks well crucially not just on affairs environmental but also on affairs economic, international and judicial. I haven’t heard her speak on health, but that’s probably because I missed it. As their sole MP, Ms Lucas is effectively their spokesman on everything and she does it well. The Green Party in the past have been vulnerable to claims that they are a single issue pressure group, and that they have an axe to grind on that issue. By demonstrating a breadth of expertise, and by providing solid, evidence based arguments for her case, Ms Lucas has been an effective debater both during and after the election.
On Thursday she tweeted that she had signed David Tredinnick’s Early Day Motion calling for NHS Trusts to be able to pay for homeopathic “treatments”. This strikes me as a dangerous position for such a progressive Green politician to take. Given the attacks on climate change science from the “sceptics” and the UEA email scandal, associating herself with an anti-science agenda like this seems to both to undermine her scientific credibility and promote the perception that she is pandering to a “new age” lobby in her constituency. While she is trying to make the issue local choice, the fact that she will not give her position on homeopathy does not help (this is precarious fence-sitting).
What is perhaps even more sad is that this does a disservice to those who believe that such arguments should be decided by having a better informed evidence-based debate. When he received his honorary fellowship here in Cardiff, Stephen Fry spoke of the values of the enlightenment being under attack from many sides. Those who believe in the value of evidence, science and knowledge cannot afford to indulge themselves. You cannot pick and mix with science or selectively choose the evidence to confirm your prejudice. It goes wherever it goes, and if we are interested in the truth then that is where we must follow.
CarolineLucas, climate change, homeopathy
View Comments
July 19th 2010, 09:07pm
There are two things of note in the Mark Elms being paid over £200k whilst a primary head, one of which is highlighted in yesterday’s superb piece by David Mitchell, his best yet: the arbitrary nature of comparing salaries with the Prime Minister. The other is the fact that Elms appears to have been paid almost £10k in “overtime”. Even ignoring the difficulty of calculating these hours whilst he is earning £100k consultancy alongside his “day job”, teaching is professional work and the salary is pay for the duties; at least this is the argument that is used for most teachers (how many of Elms’ staff get to claim overtime because they spent Saturday marking?). Like Mitchell I believe that a brilliant surgeon or barrister being paid highly would be what is expected but equally they would not be paid for the work they do, not “extra hours”. And similarly for the daft comparison that started this: the Prime Minister doesn’t claim overtime.
The “benchmark” is particularly silly when you consider the renumeration the Prime Minister receives directly from the public purse whist in office is a fraction of the value the office holder will realise (lucrative publishing deals and speaking engagements at the very least will inevitably follow) whereas for all teachers (not just heads) they are getting a real salary that reflects the full payment they will get for the work they are doing, work that is serious and challenging. And if Mark Elms is seen to be worth his salary (which is £80k not £240k) the important fact is that many teachers work just as hard for a lot less: and this should not mean overtime payments but recognition for the work they do in terms of improved conditions as well as pay.
condems, pay, teachers
View Comments
June 25th 2010, 07:06pm
Oh dear. Among the many depressing things to happened already in this Parliament, is the Conservatives putting David Tredinnick on the health select committee. Â Yes, that David Tredinnick who was revealed in the expenses scandal to have claimed for astrology software, and who now has tabled early day motions calling for the NHS to be allowed to fund homeopathy again, and citing studies which claim it is effective in treating breast cancer and depression. (Simon Singh debated Tredinnick on Today yesterday morning.)
Julian Huppert MP has tabled amendments correcting the inaccuracies in Tredinnick’s EMDs and I’ve written to my MP asking him to sign them to
to support the most effective use of limited NHS funds at a time when the public sector is being cutback, and to support evidence based decision making.
If you’re in the UK I’d urge you to do the same.
astrology, Conservatives, David Tredinnic, evidence, health select committee, homeopathy, NHS, Parliament
View Comments
May 4th 2010, 11:05pm
For several years I’ve voted tactically in elections where “my” party has not stood a chance of getting in, and I’ve wanted to keep a Tory out. Â I’ve been successful in that, and I do believe there’s a duty not to waste a vote on a hopelessly ideological gesture that fails to recognise the flaws of the system or is rooted in an naive belief that there is no real difference between the two front runners.
It wasn’t always like this. Â The first time I voted, I elected the candidate whose campaign I’d worked for, who lived in my constituency, and who swept into power along with a Labour government with a huge majority. Â It was idealism and pragmatism in happy union. Read the rest of this entry »
Fabian Society, general election, Gordon Brown, Labour, Liberal Democrats, trade unions, voting
View Comments
May 2nd 2010, 01:05pm
A coalition may be more stable that a government with a tiny majority, but either way we could be back at the polls within two years.
The report from the IFS this week, largely eclipsed by bigotgate and debate#3, that none of the main party’s proposals are sufficient to address the economic deficit means any government cutting into public services, more deeply than they admitted in the campaign, is going to find themselves deeply unpopular. They will need a full five year parliament to give their party two or three years to recover in the polls to have a hope of regaining the seats they’ve won at this election. A majority of say three seats will leave an unpopular government crippled by fear of rebellion and by-election. Like the Major government, the last thing they could afford would be to go to the country and face electoral wipe-out. The paralysis that the Murdoch press are trying to portray as the scary consequence of a hung parliament is far more likely with a single-party government. My guess would be we could face a very early election and the party handed the poison chalice of power will then be in meltdown.
But consider a Lib-Dem supported coalition: Nick Clegg has made it clear that electoral reform is a pre-condition. Following an early referendum on electoral reform, if the Lib-Dems have (as seems likely) gained far fewer seats in this election than their proportion of the vote share, the incentive to withdraw and force a new election in the new system would be high. And that will be an exciting election (not just the game-show hype we’ve got now) because suddenly all the parties will be freed from the tyranny of appealing to the centre ground, the “150 voters in 150 constituencies” that Julia Hartley-Brewer observed will decide this current election.
Electoral reform is by no means guaranteed, of course. The Lib-Dems could find themselves in deadlock (again, if they withdraw from a coalition as a result the outcome, once again, is an early return to the polls). And it will certainly not be the result of a Conservative government, should Cameron be able to form one. But I am hopeful. And perhaps it’s because for the first time since he became leader of the Conservatives it seems to me that there is actually possibility that Cameron will be Prime Minister (albeit most probably with Lib-Dem support) that I am thinking wishfully of electoral defeat at a premature election as the reward for the unlucky victor in this current talent contest.
coalition government, Conservatives, David Cameron, election, electoral reform, hung parliament, Institute for Fiscal Studies, Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, politics
View Comments
June 4th 2009, 10:06pm
Steve Bell often makes me smile.  But this is is incredibly good; he couldn’t lampoon a more deserving target more accurately.
View Comments
June 3rd 2009, 12:06pm
Did you threaten to over-rule him asked Jeremy Paxman of Michael Howard 12 times in 1997. He later seemed surprisingly regretful about the incident, but he still asked William Hague the same question a dozen times last night. It’s not quite such edge of the seat stuff (perhaps because the stakes aren’t so high) but Paxman is just as dogged and considerably less polite.
View Comments
May 29th 2009, 12:05pm
So Paul Parker, a red squirrel enthusiast is trapping and shooting greys for eating.  I support this; in fact I want to know where you can get this squirrel pie.
I’ve got just one concern. Â Parker says
“I cannot personally get enough of these grey squirrels, people are eating them. If I was getting a hundred, they would take a hundred each and every day, the demand is so high. They are sold as soon as they hit the counter.”
How long will it be, then, before some unscrupulous entrepreneur starts breeding the pests and all the good work will be undone?
View Comments
April 18th 2009, 05:04pm
Today’s Guardian is carrying a story about biodynamic wine drinking on page 7.
The idea that the taste of wine changes with the lunar calendar is gaining credibility among the UK’s major retailers, who believe the day, and even hour, on which wine is drunk alters its taste.
Ben Goldacre is on page 11. But perhaps this is beyond his remit, since wine tasting is surely subjective? Not when the Guardian’s report tries to give it a scientify veneer:
Jo Ahearne, winemaker for Marks & Spencer, became convinced of the theory when she sampled more than 140 wines over two days. “Before the tasting, I was really unconvinced, but the difference between the days was so obvious I was completely blown away.”
So, 140 wines?  Assuming this wasn’t just a really colossal bender, and therefore her judgement was not impaired, that’s a reasonable sample.  But two days?  The Guardian decided further testing was needed:
The Guardian tested the theory this week and tasted the same wines on Tuesday evening, a leaf day, then again on Thursday evening, a fruit day. Five out of seven bottles showed a marked improvement.
It must be true then. Â The Guardian does note that Steiner:
claimed to have conceived the concept after consulting telepathically with spirits beyond the realm of the material world. Among his other works are claims that the human race is as old as the Earth and descended from creatures with jelly-like bodies, and a belief that men’s passions seep into the Earth’s interior, where they trigger earthquakes and volcanoes.
But that’s not what makes it nonsense. Â If Einstein had claimed to conceive of special relativity because he’d consulted with spirits, it wouldn’t have invalidated the theory. Newton was a religious nut. Â It’s just not a good week for science and technology writing in the Guardian (on page 8 Matthew Weaver explains how electronic cigarettes work: they have “a clever-sounding atomiser inside”).
View Comments
October 10th 2008, 01:10pm
The best comment so far on the current economic situation is, of course, to be found in her Last Night’s TV column: “Iceland melts and the air is filled with the sound of pips squeaking.” The woman is a national treasure.
View Comments
