This is one of those moments that sets one’s outer liberal at war with one’s inner Richard Dawkins. Bosworth Conservative MP David Tredinnick’s expenses reveal he spent £210 on astrology software from, it appears, “Crucial Astro Tools” and £300 on tuition from the same company to learn to use it.
The Voice has come by the text of an email he sent to a constituent explaining the claim:
Thank you for your email about my claim for consultancy services from Crucial Astro Tools. As you may be aware I have a longstanding interest in Parliament on the subject of Integrated Healthcare / Complementary and Alternative Medicine. I was at that time considering improved regulation for Group 3, Alternative Disciplines as set out in the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report, “Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, ( HL Paper 123/1999-2000) In particular I I was looking at the relationship of Astrology to Indian Ayurvedic medicine and wanted to see if I could relate it to English Herbal medicine as taught by Culpepper who considered all plants to have Astrological correspondences. To do this I needed to improve my understanding of Astrology.
I explained to the Fees office in advance why I wished to make these claims and they were agreed because of my longstanding interest in Complementary and Alternative medicine and my file noted to that effect.
I hope this is helpful.
Actually, what am I saying. Richard Dawkins slam dunks it, doesn’t he. Incidentally, cc’d into the email thread was one David Cameron (Libra, the balance) – did he maintain his equilibrium on reading the above, one wonders?
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Aging, Development, and Living at High Altitudes (Oxygen Levels)
The Charge of the Light Brigade - A perfect analogy for the United Kingdom today
Lib Dems miss out by 4 votes in council by-election
New lunchtime concerts for 2025
A looming trade war?
Only 3 historical inaccuracies
Rare 1950s film of Thomas Cubitt's stuccoed streets in Pimlico
Matt (Bristol)
David Raw
Mark Frankel
Peter Martin
42 Comments
Why couldn’t he just look astrology up on wikipedia?
Or think about for 3 seconds and realise it’s absolute bollocks.
I’m not sure why anybody would think Richard Dawkins illiberal, particularly not if they’ve actually read “The God Delusion” or many of his other works – in TGD he even dedicates a chapter to defending the teaching of religion in schools!
Dawkins to me comes across as the ideal liberal – he robustly objects to something, can back up his objection with both scientific data and compelling rhetoric, and then goes on to say that if people want to support this thing then that’s their business but they shouldn’t be allowed to force it on others and they shouldn’t get special perks from the state for doing so…
Dave Page is right. I’m mystified at the popular image of Dawkins as a hard-liner. His response to nonsense is measured, moderate and appropriate. All he’s doing is advocating *reason*, for goodness’ sake: why do people find this so objectionable?
As far as I can tell, people think of him as strident only because he challenges beliefs we’ve all somehow come to think of as sacred, even if we don’t happen to share them. You can criticise someone’s deeply held political beliefs, but for some reason you can’t criticise their deeply held religious beliefs. What, when it comes down to it, is the difference?
Latsot: I think the answer to your first question is that Richard Dawkins often uses very robust and aggressive language to put his case. His book review at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml is a good example. I’ve not read the book, nor know much about it, so I don’t know if his criticisms are fair ones, but when he uses phrases such as “a silly, pretentious, obscurantist and mendacious book”, using four negative terms rather than just the one, he certainly doesn’t given an impression of being “measured” or “moderate”. As I said, not having read the book, it might well be that his conclusion is “appropriate” though 🙂
I think DP & latso make a good overall point and I hold my hands up to sloppy thinking there as per liberalism.
However (as Mark suggests) the man does call something bollocks if it’s bollocks, almost in as many words, and he does so with detectable glee. I’ve read TGD.
I suppose the wider point I should have drawn out was whether I should be snorting at this story and calling complementary medicine as a whole bollocks or whether I should bow to diversity of lines of enquiry, open-mindedness etc. But, since it’s my money paying for this bollocks, the answer is clearly yes, I should be calling it so.
Clearly he should not be allowed to charge us for his hobby. Treddinick is a moon-howling believer in astrology.
[Check Hansard]
A career change seems overdue.
Alix,
I fail to see what is ‘Liberal’ about defending astrology, and spending taxpayers’ money on pernicious drivel. Astrology is not harmless as some might claim. In this instance it is being used as a substitute (not an alternative) to medicine.
…indeed. As I said.
So any MP could in theory claim for something related to “a long-standing interest”, even though it is patently unrelated to any of his parliamentary duties and responsibilities?
Say an MP has a longstanding interest in amputee porn. So the Fees office would sanction a claim for him to attend an exhibition in Amsterdam? Sounds like it would be entirely feasible.
You cannot say Richard Dawkins is not liberal because he is not convinced by the pronciples of religion. I don’t know the guy but he seems pretty progressive on any issue that requires common sense, and I’m sure he counts a few members of the clergy amongst his friends. Dawkins would probably not make much distinction between religion and astrology. I know others have said the same; I had to add my voice.
No – I’m not that Steve Jones, although I suspect his views on this might be
However, I have to raise a protest. What on earth is this twaddle about Richard Dawkins views being illiberal? From a social level his views are impecably liberal and this item shows a fairly profound misunderstanding of what he stands for.
Of course he is no friend at all of conservative (with a small c) fundamental religious interests, but many of those are in direct conflict with liberal (with a small l) views. I can only think that it is Richard Dawkins’ personal style is what is objected to. If not expressing views about irrational belief systems is a requirement to be considered liberal in any sense then heaven help us and maybe you should examine your own attitudes.
As far as the astrology stuff goes – well that is clearly bonkers. But then we did reputedly have Nancy Reagan consulting the stars on behalf of her husband so at least he hasn’t got his finger on the red button.
Since when is having a ‘longstanding interest’ in something a sufficient reason to get the taxpayer to pay for it?
Does a ‘longstanding interest’ in Manchester Utd justify putting a season ticket on expenses?!
There is a slight conflict on the Lib Dem membership card in not wishing people to enslaved by ignorance and conformity.
Adherance to astrology and most complementary medicine is based largely on ignorance and in opposition to conformity.
Richard Dawkins is a Lib Dem supporter and holds the somewhat absurd belief in the power of reason 🙂
Steve (and Kershan), as I said above, DP and latso made this argument very well and I held my hands up to sloppy thinking on the Richard Dawkins/illiberalism point, with the one reservation about the language and manner he tends to use.
But please, feel free to carry on having a go at me.
“Richard Dawkins often uses very robust and aggressive language”
typical Aries
😉
Should have said “and Liberal Hammer” in first line.
Latsot: I think the answer to your first question is that Richard Dawkins often uses very robust and aggressive language to put his case.
Mark, are you saying I’m not a liberal here?
I’ve finally got around to reading the God Delusion and on the whole it is measured and well argued. The chapter I expect to have biggest problems with is the one explaining is position on “religion = child abuse” so we will see.
Can I call Dawkins a radical liberal?
He does after all have a habit of riling many of the more moderate liberals, as perhaps is shown here.
I personally think we need both wings – otherwise how will we ever say one the one hand… but on the other…
Mark Pack: my (main) point is that if he used that kind of language about any other subject, nobody would bat an eyelid. We’ve somehow granted religion a license to get special privileges, not only legally but in ordinary conversation! We’re supposed to respect it and not call it nasty names, when nothing else gets the same privilege. When someone like Dawkins breaks this weird convention, it causes an uproar.
Your point about using four ‘negative’ words instead of one is mystifying because those words mean *different things*. He is using them because of those meanings, not because they are likely to be considered negative.
I was at that time considering improved regulation for Group 3, Alternative Disciplines as set out in the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report, “Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, ( HL Paper 123/1999-2000)
Whether the kind of complementary medicine legislation Tredinnick has enthusiastically promoted down the years (“licencing” for alternative medicine types of various stripes from the merely deluded to the utterly barking) would constitute “improved” regulation is rather debatable.
An alternative view, taken by many scientists, is that it would allow assorted bullshitters to claim that they are “regulated health professionals”, with a consequent improvement in their ability to relieve the more trusting punters of their cash. The blog written by Prof David Colquhoun FRS articulates this rather well, see e.g. here or here. The latter post shows you where you can end up once you start down the road of claiming to “regulate” things that have no factual basis.
I’m not sure how I feel about Tredinnick trying to claim this on his expenses. He certainly is genuinely interested in legislation relating to this nonsense, though the amount looks rather excessive and astrology is a stretch even for the more wacky fringes of alternative medicine. Apart from anything else, having this information publicly disclosed (via a register of expenditure claimed on expenses) gives us a useful insight into just how loopy Tredder’s views on alternative medicine actually are. Though his views are likely no dafter than those of the Prince of Wales.
Alix wrote:
I suppose the wider point I should have drawn out was whether I should be snorting at this story and calling complementary medicine as a whole bollocks or whether I should bow to diversity of lines of enquiry, open-mindedness etc. But, since it’s my money paying for this bollocks, the answer is clearly yes, I should be calling it so.
Calling alternative medicine “bollocks” as a default position is not so far from what an extensive examination of the evidence comes up with, Alix – see Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst’s book Trick or Treatment – Alternative Mrdicine on Trial.
Just be careful you don’t call any of the alternative medicine practitioner associations “purveyors of bollocks”, as they are enthusiasts for libel litigation, as Simon Singh has recently been finding out with the British Chiropractic Association. You might think this was because they haven’t a leg to stand on scientifically. I couldn’t possibly comment.
Although there might be a defence of truth in that particular cause because bollocks in powdered form are said to have medicinal qualities in various traditional branches of alternative medicine.
That’s all I meant when I called them purveyors of bollocks yer honour.
For what it’s worth, I’ve gone through the Guardian’s “Investigate your MP’s expenses” site, or as much of it as I could stand. Seems like Tredinnick claimed a total of £680 for software and training…
http://dcorney.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/tredinnicks-tool/
Alix,
“I suppose the wider point I should have drawn out was whether I should be snorting at this story and calling complementary medicine as a whole bollocks or whether I should bow to diversity of lines of enquiry, open-mindedness etc. But, since it’s my money paying for this bollocks, the answer is clearly yes, I should be calling it so.”
I’d put it slightly differently. Since there is no evidence that astrology works, it’s not a question of being ‘open minded’. We shouldn’t have to pay for something that is indistinguishable from bollocks. Personally, I call things that are indistinguishable from bollocks “bollocks”.
Others might say I’m being closed-minded but a) they would be wrong (my mind is quite open – show me evidence that it works and I’ll change my mind) and b) that isn’t the issue anyway (since it’s clear that we aren’t getting value for our money on this software, the money should not have been spent.)
OK in a nutshell astrology=stellar c**p homeopathy=sugar pill c**p chiropracty=borderline bonecrunching c**p religion=many flavours of c**p crystal haeling=sparkly c**p need I go on ? I’m with Richard Dawkins and Ben Goldacre on this one and proud to say so. If you want an overdose of this crazyness have a look at http://www.timecube.com/ enjoy !
Latsot, this is all true. It’s just that my usual default principle is to doubt everything, even doubt itself, grasshopper.
I can’t help it. Mobs baying for one thing just make me uneasy, whether it’s healthcare based on great lumps of rock whirling through space (as the late great Douglas Adams put it) or the unconquerable triumph of reason. I cannot but remember what people did during the French Revolution in the name of reason, for example. It’s always a danger sign when someone tells you to “examine your attitudes” as someone did above. “Or we will lock you up and re-educate you” is the silent bit I hear following it.
So when I depart from my principle and find myself coming over all uncompromising and Richard Dawkinsish, I have to have a very good cause.
And, as I said in the original piece, this is a good enough cause.
And, as I also said in the bit that you quoted, astrology is bollocks.
And, as I also said in the bit you quoted, we shouldn’t be paying for it anyway.
Is there any risk we might consider all my caveats firmly in place now?
Personally, I call things that are indistinguishable from bollocks “bollocks”.
I have to say my bollocks don’t look anything like any Astrological star sign, although I suppose if you squint a little bit, you could pretend they are Gemini.
Alix:
“Is there any risk we might consider all my caveats firmly in place now?”
Yes. I was agreeing with you. I thought I was just stating the point you made in a slightly different way. My intention was to suppport what you said.
You see, everyone now has eleven disturbing mental images to process thanks to that.
Sorry, that was to James’ comment.
And, sorry, yes, I see 🙂
It could be worse. We could be discussing Tarot cards. There are 79 of them.
How do you know that?! Are you or have you ever been a teenage girl?
Loving the google ads here – one for the Conservatives, one for an astrologer. Creaky old superstitions with no evidential backing really are taking hold in this country…
Are you or have you ever been a teenage girl?
I read Sandman as a teenager (I own the Vertigo Tarot – it is very pretty), so I suppose the answer must be yes.
Could we possibly have some qualifying test for MPs along the lines of “your IQ should exceed 50”?
Culturally-neutral test so that hothoused Eton morons couldn’t pass it. (Eton brainboxes could of course.)
Hmmm… that would be one sure way to eliminate the Tories quickly.
Latsot: you’re right that the four words mean different things, but in choosing to use four rather than one, it’s easy to see how he can give people the impression to me of loving rubbishing others and spoiling for a fight.
For example, consider the difference between me saying, “Your views are mistaken” with “Your views are wrong, illiberal, incoherent and eccentric”. Those four words all mean different things, but it’s a much more aggressive way of disagreeing. One suggests a possible dialogue where people may be persuaded; the other looks much more to be about bludgeoning into the ground people who disagree with you.
I’m not surprised if people extrapolate from that stridency to making misjudgements about Dawkins’s views, especially as his stridency gets reported much more often than people read his full views I suspect.
It may be wrong, but it’s not surprising. (And I don’t think any of the above is specific to his views being often expressed about religion. Indeed, from what I remember of his scientific writings in his spats with Stephen Jay Gould, he often had a similar style.)
James: it’s quite possible to be robust and a liberal, as you frequently demonstrate 🙂
I’d love to see Richard Dawkins slam dunk something.
@Mark Pack
You’re running the risk of sounding precious, sensitive, querulous and uptight.
Dawkins style can be combative, bellicose, pugnacious and contentious (okay, enough of that), but more often he is the soul of erudition and less often, usually in extremis, responding to some downright silly woo (you know – homeopathy, reiki, catholicism, that sort of thing). 😉
Your comment Scrotley seems to have generated some amusing Google Ads on this thread, ones which I’m sure Dawkins wouldn’t approve of 🙂
Ha! I’m getting eHarmony dating at the mo. Google obviously has me down for a sad and lonely liberal.
Damn, thought I was hiding that quite well.
Scrotley, you have put me to shame with your response. I was going to reply with something like “boo fucking hoo”.
It’s unfortunate when people take offense at things that were never meant to be an attack in the first place, but even worse when others take it upon themselves to be offended on other people’s behalf. Is there anything more nauseating?
As for Dawkins, I’ve met him, seen him talk in public a couple of times and on video dozens of times. He’s unmistakeably and unambiguously a *gent*.
Gould occasionally got caught up in his own rhetoric and Dawkins was right to take him to task for it. Billions of others claim to know things they can’t possibly know (such as the existence of a god) and Dawkins is equally right to ridicule it. Such beliefs are by definition unreasonable and there is no imperative at all for we unbelievers to respect other people’s unreasonable beliefs.
Iatsot, you wouldn’t be totally wrong with your first response, and I entirely agree with the rest of your post.
Fancy a date?
“Fancy a date?”
Yeah, I get that a lot 🙂