I hate all blogging awards except for the ones I am nominated for. That means I hate all of them (apart from James Higham’s Blogpower awards!).*

One of the biggest problems is that there are just so many of them. The ones I always saw as the most important were the Bloggies — but perhaps that is just because they are the ones I came across first. Besides, I’ve never been nominated for them, so I hate them.

It’s a bit like degrees, as we have been discussing a few posts back. There are so many blogging awards that most of them mean zilch. So it’s quite funny to see Neil Clark acting as though he is some kind of cyber-god for winning a particularly flawed poll.

The full details are over at The Wardman Wire. Because you could vote multiple times (once a day, apparently), Neil Clark encouraged his readers to vote multiple times. Nineteen times in five days, to be exact.

Then when he won he went over to his patch on Comment is free and declared a blogging revolution — hilariously — “because my views are more in tune with ordinary people than most in the blogosphere”!

The only time I had previously come across Neil Clark before was when he wrote a particularly odious piece on Comment is free about the campaign to grant asylum to Iraqi employees for British forces. It rightly drew widespread condemnation from bloggers across the spectrum. (More on the Iraqi employees campaign here.)

However, this is perfectly in tune with his views on foreigners in general, so it seems. Mr Eugenides has pointed out that (as well as being a defender of Slobodan Milošević) Neil Clark is a candidate for the British People’s Alliance, which has among its policies the following:

The British People’s Alliance is also determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the deliberate importation of a new working class whose members understand no English except commands, know nothing about workers’ rights in this country, can be deported if they step out of line, and (since they have no affinity with any particular part of this country) can be moved around at will, so that the old working class can be told to go hang, taking with it its unions, its minimum wage, its health and safety regulations, and so forth.

The British People’s Alliance is determined to expose, to halt, and to reverse the enforced bilingualism or multilingualism that transfers economic, social, cultural and political power to a bilingual or multilingual elite, so that those who are or will be excluded are or will be the English-speaking working class, black and white.

This is supposed to be a left-wing party, but it sounds more like the language of the BNP (complete with “some of my best friends are black” statement at the end). But it just goes to show — yet again — that the difference between left and right really is negligible. After all, big government is big government, and once it controls one part of the economy then control of other parts of our lives is not far behind.

Rather than left or right, what really matters is whether you are a liberal or an authoritarian. And ballot stuffer Neil Clark certainly isn’t a liberal.

(I will expand on my views on liberalism and statism in two separate posts soon.)

* I did actually win an award today, and coincidentally it was in a post about Neil Clark.

Ofcom has said that it is thinking about letting television stations broadcast more adverts. Ofcom are considering allowing nine minutes of advertising per hour. Currently an average of seven minutes per hour is allowed, although a maximum of twelve minutes in any one clock hour is permitted.

Longrider is a libertarian but reacts with horror to the news. Meanwhile, Craig is worried about the impact on coverage of Formula 1.

I am no fan of television adverts, but I have to say that I feel sorry for broadcasters in this respect. The comments on the article from Times Online are mostly negative, perhaps encapsulated by this one by Harry Taylor.

Surely not! Is there not too much advertising already, mostly purile, repetitive and often misleading?…

With all its faults give me the BBC.

Of course, if Times Online were to write an article about a proposed increase in the License Fee, everybody would be saying the opposite. But, as they say, there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Commercial broadcasters are expected to pull excellent programmes out of thin air with the minimum of advertisements. And as we’ve seen this year, another major form of revenue for broadcasters — premium-rate phone-lines — has become a bit of a taboo. People must accept that adverts are a necessary evil — but a balance must be struck.

But for all of their (supposedly) good intentions, a lot of Ofcom’s advertising regulations work against the viewer. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than Formula 1. F1 has the dubious honour of being the only sport event to be broadcast in the UK where adverts are showing during the action. And football fans complain about adverts during half time! Think about how F1 fans must feel!

Once again, it has to be accepted that adverts in F1 are a necessary evil. F1 is almost unique in that a Grand Prix can last anything from 90 minutes to two hours with no break in the action. (The only other sports I can think of that go on for so long with no breaks are long-distance running and cycling, which are usually not shown live by a commercial broadcaster.) Seemingly, this is just too long for ITV to go without showing an advert. This means that they can’t bunch them up at either side of the action as they do with football.

But does it have to be this way? Many F1 fans would be willing to see some form of compromise, but the solutions put forward are currently prohibited by Ofcom (PDF). The main culprit is pesky article 3.1:

Television advertising must be readily recognisable as such and kept quite separate from other parts of the programme service. Breaks containing advertising spots of any kind, including teleshopping spots, must be identified in vision and/or sound, for example station identifications going in and out of breaks.

This means that any way of ITV simultaneously showing both adverts and programming is prohibited. A split-screen solution is often proposed. One part of the screen contains the race action, perhaps as an inset in an advert. But it’s not allowed. Sky Sports News can do it because it is permitted as long as only text is displayed. But even a scrolling text service in this style would not be allowed on ITV, because the rules are stricter for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel Five.

Other reasonable compromises are also prohibited. For instance, ITV would not be allowed to broadcast audio advertisements while race pictures take up the screen. ITV could not even overlay text adverts on top of the race pictures.

All of this is not allowed by Ofcom, probably for noble reasons. But most F1 fans would love to have any one of these solutions over the current situation — where ITV interrupt the race completely and broadcast commercial breaks that last minutes.

Also working against F1 fans is the requirement that ITV must display an ident going in and out of commercial breaks. This prolongs the commerical break for yet more crucial seconds.

Indeed, if you are an F1 fan you might be tempted to suspect that Ofcom’s regulations were specifically designed to get in the way of F1 the most. Because, despite the constant references to how commercials should only appear at “natural breaks” of the programming, one paragraph — which was included specifically with ITV’s F1 coverage in mind — proves that this is all just for show.

In live coverage of long continuous events breaks may be taken at points where the focus of coverage shifts from one point to another of the event for example after a resume of the current placings in a race and before refocusing on a particular section of the race.

So even though there are no “natural breaks” in an F1 race, ITV may show adverts just by giving a run-down of the positions in the race before going to a break, and saying what lap the drivers are on when the adverts are finished.

I also reckon that the rules surrounding the amount and length of commercial breaks also works against F1 viewers. It also works against viewers of football, films, or any other long programme.

Now, my memory of what I am about to say is sketchy. It must have been almost a decade ago and I was still rather young. But I am sure that while I was on holiday in France I watched a commercial break that lasted several minutes. It felt like about fifteen, but it might have been ten minutes. I don’t know. But what I do know is that I would never have seen a commercial break last that long in the UK.

But these breaks were not included willy-nilly in the middle of programmes. The obscenely long commercial break was, in fact, placed out of harm’s way at the end of a football match (or a film, I can’t remember). It was there to make up for the lack of adverts during the programme.* So, while at first a commercial break lasting ten minutes may seem obscenely long, would not most of us prefer this kind of solution? One where the adverts were tucked away where we don’t have to see them?

As such, I would support a liberalisation — or at least a fundamental re-think — of advertising regulations. This is not only for the reasons I have outlined above, but for another reason which is the drive of my liberal view on most things.

Insiders at the regulator are keen to emphasise that they want to avoid coming close to US advert levels, which they believe would be unpalatable to British audiences.

If they were so unpalatable, broadcasters would of course not want to do this for fear of making viewers switch off. No regulations necessary — broadcasters will find the “correct” level of advertising naturally.

I suspect that a few years down the line we won’t have to worry about this at all. Due to the increasing prevalence of PVRs, soon enough we will all be able to record the programmes then fast-forward through the adverts. (I usually already do this when I watch Grands Prix because I am not in a position to watch the races live.)

Advertisers will have to find more and more creative ways to reach viewers. Product placement might be harder to regulate. And soon enough we probably won’t always even realise when we are watching adverts.

* I might actually be completely wrong about this, and the long commercial break may have been caused by some kind of technical mishap or something else. I did not know because I could not speak French, but the scenario I described seems most likely to me.

I usually think of myself as a liberal. But maybe I am different when it comes to organ donation — or when it comes to dead people. I certainly understand and sympathise with the viewpoint put forward by Longrider.

Our bodies belong to us, not the state. We decide what becomes of them after death, not the state. If we decide to donate them, then that should be our choice, not the state’s.

But I can’t help thinking that Liam Donaldson’s idea of changing the current system of opting in to an organ donation scheme to one where you have to opt out is a sensible solution to a major problem.

We all know that there is a shortage of organs. As such, lives are lost (one person per day apparently). Moreover, it seems to be generally accepted that many people — probably a majority — would want their organs donated after they have died. It’s just that most people do not get round to putting their name down and getting that donor card. Longrider says:

So because these people did not specifically tell the state why they were not on the register, the state is to assume in all its arrogance that they were guilty of apathy.

But I don’t think it would be arrogance for the state to assume people were guilty of apathy. The BBC story suggests that 70% of people would like to donate their organs, but only 20% get round to signing up.

Moreover, it makes common sense that people would be apathetic. While carrying a donor card may give you a “warm glow”, this is probably not a high enough incentive to encourage people to go to the hassle of registering. Under the current system, people who are indifferent or just slightly in favour of donating their organs actually do not donate their organs. As such, lives are lost.

As for people who flatly object to donating their organs after death, they surely needn’t worry about the system changing to an opt-out. You might say that if the current system had the problem of “not getting round to opting in” then the proposed changes would lead to people “not getting round to opting out”. But this wouldn’t be the case.

The reason that people do not get round to registering at the moment is because they do not have particularly strong views one way or another. But if you object to having your organs donated, you do hold a strong view. So people who don’t want to donate their organs will have a sufficient incentive to opt out. So they will.

I can understand why some people find it objectionable that the “default” option would be for your organs to be donated without having given your express permission. As Longrider says, the proposal is one to steal the bodies of the dead. This leads on to an interesting topic tackled by Chris Dillow: do dead people have rights?

I would have thought not. I would strongly hope that my wishes are respected when I am dead. But to be frank, if there is one time in my life (ahem) when I won’t worry about my rights, it will be when I am dead. After all, it’s not as if I will care much about it then. I will be dead, so it would be a little bit impossible.*

I can understand why this might be different if you are a religious person. But even then, I would have thought that this is mostly concerned with concepts like “spirit” rather than your body itself. After all, your body is a bit of a lost cause as it will only be eaten by maggots anyway.

In sum, I think the idea that the state “steals the bodies of the dead” is a little bit grisly. But it’s not nearly as grisly as letting one person per day die due to a shortage of organs when there is no shortage of potential willing donors.

* For similar reasons, I never really understand the hoo-ha surrounding inheritance tax. A tax you only pay when you’re dead? Surely more taxes should be like this! Moreover, one of the strongest arguments against high taxes is the fact that it reduces incentives to work. But there’s not much you can do to incentivise a dead person to do, well, anything really.

Wouldn’t you know it. Just as some of us were praising the Lib Dems for refusing to sell out on their principles on independence, another bunch of people are accusing them of being “neither liberal nor democratic”.*

Is refusing to accept a referendum undemocratic? I don’t think so. In this country at least, referendums have been used for periods of significant constitutional change, pursued by whichever party is in power. In essence it provides a double mandate to go ahead and make those changes.

The first mandate is when a majority of the legislature supports the change and proposes the referendum. The second mandate comes when the referendum is won. Essentially, it is a mechanism to make bloody well damn sure it is what the electorate wants.

And there is the big sticking point for supporters of independence. Because while the SNP have a plurality seats and got a plurality of votes in the election, they have nowhere near a majority.

As I said on Friday, there is no mandate for a referendum. That post provided a reaction from an anonymous commenter:

If there’s a majority for it in parliament there is. Simple as that.

To which I reply, “precisely”. Because there is not a majority for it in Parliament.

On the Lib Dems’ refusal to enter into coalition, Iain MacLaren says,

This is a real disgrace and shows the contempt with which the LibDems treat their own voters.

In fact, the opposite is true. The Lib Dems’ “own voters” voted against independence and voted against holding a referendum. If they were to make a slippery deal with Alex Salmond on an independence referendum, they would have utterly betrayed their own voters.

He goes on,

Will we now see the same attitude over local council coalitions too?

But this misses the point a bit, I think. Presumably — and correct me if I’m wrong here — none of the parties that the Lib Dems might go into coalition with in local councils is asking them to commit to breaking up the country.

At Island Life (emphasis mine):

So, for “Liberal Democrats” that were willing to get into bed with a party who undemocratically went to war in Iraq, undemocratically want to renew Trident and undemocratically close A&E departments in busy hospitals, only to completely dismiss out of hand forming a democratically chosen parliament with a party who wants to ask the people’s opinion on an important constitutional matter is the most narrow minded and petty nonsense I’ve ever heard.

That completely misses the point as well. Calling the Iraq war and suchlike “undemocratic” is popular, but what is the definition of democracy? In this country we have a representative democracy. A party asks for a mandate, gets it, then does what it wants. No matter how much we might disagree with it, the Labour party was democratically elected. So what makes any of their policy pursuits undemocratic?

And the fact that this is and important constitutional matter only underlines why you should be cautious not to hold referendums at the drop of a hat.

The SNP were the only party to make gains on Thursday, but have a look at the bigger picture when it comes to independence. Of the six largest parties in the Scottish Parliament, three were in favour of independence and three were against.

Of the three against, all made losses, but not big losses. An overall loss of six seats.

Of the three in favour, one made big advances. But the other two have disappeared without a trace (one spectacularly so), save for a couple of Greens.

In terms of pro- / anti-independence split in the Scottish Parliament, things are not much different to how they were before. Yes, the SNP are the largest party — but mostly at the expense of the other pro-independence parties.

The split in seats and votes is just over a third in favour, and almost two thirds against independence. Opinion polls asking voters their views on independence tend to discern roughly the same split.

The protests from supporters of independence are mostly along the lines of, “how can they call themselves a democratic party if they aren’t willing to hold a referendum? They must be scared of the result!”

That misses the point. Put simply, no party has ever campaigned for a referendum on an issue they disagree with. If the SNP ever found themselves in a position to do so, they would never hold a referendum on, say, bringing back the death penalty. That is because they are against bringing back the death penalty. But aren’t they scared of the result?**

Well, no. You just don’t hold referendums willy-nilly. This is not a direct democracy, and most people like it that way. Even Alex Salmond takes a cautious stance on referendums. I saw him on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago where he said that a referendum is something that should only come round once a generation.

I’m not sure that it’s a generation since the last referendum. But whatever, he might want a referendum but he accepts — as I think most people do — that you don’t just hold referendums at the drop of a hat. And a margin of victory that could not possibly be tighter, with over 60% of the Parliament having been elected on an anti-independence manifesto, is hardly an apt circumstance to hold a referendum on independence.

* Is nationalism a liberal ideology? Hmm.
** Unlike the issue of independence, opinion polls on the death penalty suggest that a majority are in favour.

I’m a bit late with this post. It’s old news really, but I still have a few thoughts about this issue of Catholic adoption adoption.

I finally got round to reading last week’s edition of The Economist a couple of days ago, and they had a piece about the issue (link requires subscription I’m afraid), saying that:

…it steps into the mine-ridden terrain where liberty… runs up against equality

This face-off between liberty and equality vexes many. Indeed, who wouldn’t want liberty and equality to be present in a society? If one threatens the other, what a difficult choice to make.

Perhaps surprisingly, The Economist comes down on the side of equality in this instance. But I would have thought that it would be better to aim for liberty. After all, if a society is guaranteed liberty, at least there is still a chance that it could achieve equality. Meanwhile, if equality is the main goal of a society, there is very little chance of achieving liberty as well.

To illustrate this, think about the adoption row. If Catholic adoption agencies are told that they must allow gay couples to adopt, their liberty to decide who they can and cannot serve has been taken away from them. If, on the other hand, Catholic adoption agencies are left to do as they please, there is every possibility that they would one day allow single sex couples to adopt from them. After all, as The Economist notes:

Give it time

Part of the unease over the gay-discrimination rules is that they are new. It would not occur to many to defend the exclusion of black adoptive parents, for example. Churches, like societies, do change. Just as most Christians have reconciled themselves to lending money at interest and most Jews do not examine the labels in their clothes to see if they contain mixed wool and flax, so homosexual parents may come to seem another variety in the bewildering gamut of family structures.

Attitudes change over time. Surely one day even the bigoted Catholic church will find itself accepting homosexuality in much the same way that racism is now seen as abhorrent when not so long ago it wasn’t.

And I want to make it clear that I am not siding with the Catholic church here. I want to say it loud and clear: the Catholic church is a bigoted organisation. But it is for precisely that reason why I find these attempts to force Catholic adoption agencies to allow single sex couples to adopt from them bizarre. I mean, it can hardly be as if there is a huge queue of gay people waiting to adopt children from such a bigoted group.

It was like a few months ago when legislation was passed to allow gay people to stay in the guest houses of bigots. Because gay people were really banging the doors down waiting to share a roof with homophobes. Wow, you really released the shackles there.

Whatever happened to that good, liberal, democratic principle of “you are a fucking arsehole but I will defend your right to be a fucking arsehole” (I paraphrased that you know). As Will P says in a strongly argued post:

We agree to disagree. If they want to cite religious reasons for not letting me seek to adopt a child with a hypothetical future partner, then fine, I’ll go somewhere else…

So that I can go to lengths to which I’d never really bother to go to express who I am, devout members of various faiths (and the gay adoption issue is just one example of this, which is why I’ve pluralised that sentence) are no longer free to express their deeply-held religious principles. In short, in our quest to be ever more liberal, we have become illiberal. We are on a dangerous course: we must stop now.

Much of this debate feels like chippy score settling than anything else, much in the same way that the ban on fox hunting was more to do with annoying some toffs more than anything else. I don’t think this really has the interests of gay people at its heart.

This does put me in the slightly odd position of agreeing with The Devil’s Kitchen. Of course, Bookdrunk is right to criticise that Catholic Church for their stance on homosexuality. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? Two people can have opposing viewpoints and they are allowed to disagree with each other. What’s wrong with accepting this and ending it there?