Author Archives: Joe Otten

Compulsory reading for anybody interested in politics should include Drew Westen’s The Political Brain - Review here.

Westen’s analysis of the Democratic defeats of the Bush years is that the Democrats failed to tap the emotions of the electorate, and relied too much on rational argument. Bill Clinton, it is argued, is the exception that proves the rule, being unusually empathic. The book predates Obama, who seems to have learned some of its lessons.

Today’s discussion point: How does this translate to Britain? My impression is that there is …

The debate on Genetically Modified Organisms has been raging, largely unchanged, for some years – Frankenstein Foods are coming to your plate if they are not already there. Aficionados of science fiction may point out that Moreauesque foods may be a better term, since Dr Moreau did genetic engineering, whereas Dr Frankenstein merely assembled a living organism from body parts, all of the same species. But I digress.

Greenpeace lead the charge saying

While scientific progress on molecular biology has a great potential to increase our understanding of nature and provide new medical tools, it should

…

The BBC and Comedy Central are carrying news that there will be no new tax break for married couples in this year’s budget. The measure is in the coalition agreement, with Liberal Democrat MPs free to abstain. The BBC also reports significant unrest on the Conservative backbenches where many are calling for a new tax break to sugar the “pill” of equal marriage. However there are still plans to introduce a limited transferability of the personal allowance between partners this parliament.

I find the idea that the government knows the best way for you to define your relationship supremely …

There has been a lot of comment on Lib Dem blogs lately attacking the faith school system and religion in education. I want to use this opinion piece to offer a different and more liberal perspective on secularism. Secularism to me means that the state has no business deciding on matters of religious truth, and no business telling parents what faith, if any, they ought to bring their children up in.

While I am no believer myself, what matters to me in politics is whether somebody shares tolerant liberal values, whether they are in favour of a critical and questioning approach to problems or simple obedience to authority. It may seem too obvious to be worth saying, but there are religious people and atheists on both sides of that question.

So I would like to see us adopting a policy towards religion in education that has three characteristics:

1. The state does not decide for parents how they should raise their children.

2. We should not attack schools that are well run and have good results. It is my view that in the case of successful faith schools, this is largely due to selection. But then why should a selective faith school be treated differently to a selective community school? And is it not safe to assume that faith schools take a uniformly less broad and less tolerant view of faith than non-faith schools.

3. There should be choice within schools. We have to admit that for all the talk and good will in the world, there is very little choice of school for many people. It should therefore not be assumed that a choice of school represents an endorsement of a school’s faith identity (or lack thereof).

Faith is not just an issue for faith schools. Community schools are also required, in nearly all cases, to assume that their pupils are broadly Christian and are not permitted – in the rules for seeking a “determination” from the SACRE – to canvass for the actual religious views of children or parents.

Let me repeat that.

Schools are not permitted to find out what faith allegiances parents and children actually have. This is illiberalism of the absurdest degree. So rather than focussing – as the faith schools debate usually does – on who runs schools, I wish to focus on the rights of parents and pupils to equality within the system whether they are Christian or not.