And another thing…

STILL catching up on news stories over the Christmas period, and this one made me fume.

Now, I know I’ve been accused in the past of pandering to the whole Daily Mail/“it’s political correctness gone mad” thing, but there’s a very good reason why this kind of half-witted nonsense should be opposed.

In the 1980s, the right-wing press had a field day with the antics of left-wing councils allegedly banning the words blackboards, black coffee and  “man” in manhole covers, etc. In fact, a lot of it was made up, but the damage was done and Labour paid a heavy electoral price, particularly when our cadidates were drawn from the alleged “loony left” section of the party.

Yet today, it’s almost as if Labour (and other) councils are looking at their archived press cuttings from the ’80s and saying: “Hmm, that’s a good idea – why didn’t we think of that before?”

Take this latest nonsense about red ink: where is the empirical evidence that using a red pen on a pupil’s work will have any detrimental effect whatever on his development? Where is the research? Where are the numbers? Where are the “victims” of red ink, and do they blame their own failures in life on the colour of the pen their teachers used?

Well, if they do, they’re morons. And so are the half-wits who came up with this latest idea. 

Here’s a suggestion about why some kids do better than others at school – they’re cleverer! Yes, maybe it’s nothing to do with red ink, or because their school was called a “school” and not a “place of learning”… Maybe kids who are brighter, or whose parents spend time reading to them and teaching them the value of learning and books and respect for their teachers and for authority will do better than their fellow pupils (am I allowed to say “fellow”? Is that sexist? Do I care?).

All of this obsession with “non-threatening, non-offensive” language is simply a distraction. It gives succour to the right wing and their allies in the media. But worse than that, it doesn’t matter. Teachers and (I hate this word – ) educationalists should be concentrating on teaching kids to read and write, to learn stuff instead of worrying about whether the wee souls are going to burst into tears because there’s a red instead of a green cross on their jotter.

Rant over.

I VOTED against a complete ban on smolking in public places and opted instead for what was actually in Labour’s manifesto in 2005 – a ban in those places which serve food. I think that was a reasonable compromise, although I accept it would have been difficult to enforce in practice.

Before I say what I’m going to say (and it’s not something I could easily have said while a minister), let me lay out my credentials: I’m a non-smoker and always have been (apart from a few ill-judged attempts to look cool while on holiday in Prague years ago – long story involving lots of nausea). I was brought up in a house where both parents chain-smoked and my mother died of lung cancer at the relatively young age of 70. So I have no love for the weed, I hope that’s clear.

But the Department of Health recently held a consultation on whether the smoking ban should be extended into people’s private vehicles and homes. Now, I know this caused a great deal of perfectly understandable outrage among a lot of people. So let me make this clear: the government will not, under any circumstances, legislate to stop people smoking in private. It would be a crazy move and, believe it or not, ministers are not crazy people – they’re politicians and they recognise political realities.

And if they did attempt to legislate in this direction, I would risk the wrath of those who don’t believe Scottish MPs should vote on English matters by voting against it.

But as I say, I won’t need to, because it’s not going to happen.

Which leads me to ask the question: why on earth consult on such a move in the first place? We end up getting all the grief for absolutely no political gain.

Anyway, hat-tip to Iain Dale for raising this matter today.

THOSE of you who accuse Labour of promoting the “nanny state” might be interested to know that West Sussex County Council is run by the Conservatives.

MOST of today’s newspaper profiles of David Cairns mention that he’s a former Roman Catholic priest and that legislation – the Removal of Clergy Disqualification Act 2001 – had to be introduced specifically to allow him to take his seat.

What’s not being reported (because it’s not really relevant, I admit) is that until this law was passed, no member of the clergy, other than Church of England, could become an MP. That included Church of Scotland ministers, who can now take their seat but wouldn’t have been able to before 2001.

Not a lot of people know that…

STRANGE shenanigans over at Harry’s Place, after an academic by the name of Jenna Delich managed to persuade their service provider to take them offline. Harry’s offence, apparently, was to point out that Delich had circulated to fellow academics a hyperlink to an exreme right-wing, white supremacist website.

Now, I’m no lawyer, but on what basis did Delich achieve this result? Either she did or did not circulate material containing a hyperlink to David Duke’s site. If she did not, she certainly deserves an apology. But my understanding is that she’s not actually denying that that’s exactly what she did. So, you can get a site taken offline now just because you’re embarrassed by something it says? Because a site criticises you?

Anyway, fortunately, Harry’s Place is back up and running now, with, I understand, a different ISP. Even without this little local difficulty, it’s always worth a read.

(Incidentally, is that David Miliband in the masthead for Harry’s Place?)

I have no love for cigarettes. Apart from a couple of ill-judged Camels while on holiday in Prague in 1995 (and, inevitably, a fine Cuban on the evening of Labour’s 1997 victory), I’ve never smoked. My mother, who chain smoked from a very young age, died of lung cancer a few years ago. So, as I say, not a big fan of the weed.

Having said all that, I didn’t vote for the complete ban which has been in force in England for exactly a year; I voted instead for what was in Labour’s 2005 manifesto: a ban in areas where cooked food is served.

Nevertheless, the ban has proved more popular and workable than I had expected, even among smokers.

Now I read of proposals to classify movies according to their smoking content. All very well, but I do hope we’re not going to start retrospectively editing classic movies in the same way some iconic photographs have been butchered. I remember being appalled that a publicity shot of The Beatles had been digitally altered to remove the band members’ fags from their hands. What next? Taking Winston Churchill’s cigar away?

I was relived to see that Sebastian Faulks, in writing the new Bond novel, had maintained his hero’s addiction to tobacco. Relieved not because it’s a particularly cool or attractive habit – it’s not, it’s pretty disgusting – but because the character Ian Fleming created was a smoker, and characters set in the 1960s shouldn’t have 21st century standards imposed upon them retrospectively. That would be entirely dishonest. It would be the equivalent of remaking Tess of the d’Urbervilles and depicting Angel Clare as a feminist.

But let’s get this in perspective. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines featured one of the most gratuitous scenes of graphic violence I have ever seen, depicting the death of a police officer by a killer android who drives its arm through the back of his seat, through his stomach to take control of the car he’s driving. And that was given a 12A certificate. Under these proposals, had Arnie lit up a fag, I’m guessing it would have been given a 15 or even an 18 certificate. Come on.

And given that two thirds of stabbings occur when the attacker has been drinking, can we expect scenes where James Bond orders a vodka martini to be cut or for the movie in question to be restricted to adults only?

Of course film producers and actors must have a responsibility to their younger, more impressionable audience members and not to be complicit in their making any health-damaging lifestyle choices. But we have to draw the line at preventing young audiences watching classic movies like Casablanca or Doctor No just because the main protagonists have a taste for cigarettes.

An undoctored picture of James Bond having a fag

Another gag from John O’Farrell last night: “A few housekeeping details – the fire exits are at the back, and if you want to smoke, could you be so kind as to move to eastern Europe.”