The Scots perennially insist that Scottish law is different from English and Welsh law so what happens in the Scottish courts need not carry any implications for south of the border.

Ever since reading this United Nations report, I’ve worried about Britain’s nuclear submarines being based at Faslane:

- “A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

In a way, I can understand the reluctance of the Scottish court to award damages or compensation for injuries inflicted by (regular?) acts of violence. In Scotland, there’s no knowing what such a decision could lead to – mass bankruptcies, I suspect.

How about higher public spending as a percentage of national GDP and bigger tax revenues as a percentage of national GDP for starters?

At least I think Cameron is bound to give us examples of “societies” – whatever they are – which aren’t “broken” so as to guide our future government – which ever party is in power – on what it is that they need to emulate.

If it really is SOOO difficult to decide what makes the Danes so contented, there doesn’t seem to be much prospect for Cameron deciding what the politically correct necessary prescription for Britain will be, even with his PPE degree from Oxford.

Is this treatment of teachers likely to help or hinder brokenness in society:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/union-warns-teachers-not-to-break-up-playground-fights-1876402.html

–
A teachers’ union is warning its members against intervening in playground fights.

The move by the 8,500-strong Scottish Secondary Teachers’ Association (SSTA) comes after local authority officials refused to compensate a 58-year-old female teacher who was punched in the mouth after she attempted to break up a scuffle between pupils.

She subsequently had to undergo dental surgery to repair her teeth, which were damaged in the incident, and was left with a £2,500 bill for her trouble. However, Glasgow City Council refused to sanction compensation or even allow her time off to go to the dentist – advising that the claim was invalid because there was no negligence on behalf of the council.

The incident comes at a time of growing controversy over teachers’ powers to restrain pupils. In England, Michael Gove, the Conservatives’ schools spokesman, has said one of the first acts of a Tory government would be to issue new guidelines giving teachers greater powers to restrain pupils and also search them, with a view to confiscating any dangerous weapons.

Ann Ballinger, general secretary of the SSTA, said staff would be “less inclined” to intervene in clashes as a result of the city council’s actions, and that the incident would have severe consequences for the maintenance of discipline in schools.

The union has already contacted all its members in Glasgow about the incident, and is writing to all its members warning them of the dangers of intervening.

The teacher concerned has refused to comment on the issue because of the terms of her employment, but a family friend said she had been through “a difficult ordeal”.

Ms Ballinger said: “If teachers feel they do not have the full support of their local authority if they get injured in such an incident, then it puts school staff in a very difficult position, and they will be less inclined to get involved.”

City council officials said teachers should weigh up the risk to themselves before getting involved in any playground incidents and not put themselves at risk or aggravate the situation.
–

I think you’re slightly missing the point.

Denmark may ‘feel happier’ – but there are SO MANY differences between it and the UK – that it’s a huge task to work out what the important differences are.

> The hard evidence from: The Spirit Level is that those manifestations of “brokenness” are observably more prevalent in countries – like Britain – where the income distribution has become significantly more unequal.

Yes, but are you saying that inequality of income is the sole and only reason that society is now more broken than it was 50 years ago?

I doubt you’d feel the situation is determined by 1 factor only.

So we still need to look at each actual actor in the UK, has it changed. Is the change an indication of more or less broken-ness.

So, let’s leave the ‘explanations + theories’ to one side -and focus on the facts on the ground

Experts stunned by swan ‘divorce’ at Slimbridge wetland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/8477351.stm

OTOH let’s look for an unbroken human “society”.

Presumably, Denmark qualifies as the Danes were rated as the most contented nation in this international study:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/07/02/nations.happiness/index.html

Britain came in at 21st with the US at 16th.

The hard evidence from: The Spirit Level is that those manifestations of “brokenness” are observably more prevalent in countries – like Britain – where the income distribution has become significantly more unequal.

For a non-partisan brief on the trends in the measures of income inequality in Britain, see this from the House of Commons Library on: UK income inequality & international comparisons:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snep-03870.pdf

Quote: “Among European countries the UK is the 6th most unequal on two measures (Gini coefficient and the ratio of income received by the highest and lowest fifths of the income distribution). Sweden and Slovenia had the lowest levels of inequality, Portugal and Romania the highest. Among OECD countries the UK is the 7th most unequal, with Turkey and Mexico most unequal, and Denmark and Sweden the least unequal.”

In other words, income distribution is more unequal in Britain than in most other European countries and compared with most other OECD countries. Other studies show that the biggest increase in the inequality of income distribution in Britain was during the 1990s.

Btw Denmark and Sweden are both affluent countries by European standards and tax revenues (or public spending) as percentages of national GDP are higher than in Britain.

QED.

sounds like we’re agreeig that the issue is trying to look at what goes on in society and see if that suggests things are changing, and if so are they becoming slightly more or less broken.

> But why pick on only alcohol misuse as the crucial sign of “broken society”

I threw that in as just one factor – there are loads of factors we could look at.

It is a nice one that is pinned 100% on measured evidence.

> rather than, say, the leap in the Gini coefficient measuring the increasing inequality of income distribution

You could look at that as society factor – but it sounds like that is no longer direct evidence of brokeness; you’re measuring instead a factor once removed: measuring something which some people say contributes to a broken society – not measuring the brokeness itself.

I’d prefer to stick to factors that are
i) directly linked to brokeness (violence, crime, educational attainment, independent self-supporting households, etc)
ii) are areas where we have statistics and facts – so we’re not just blowing hot air.

ii)

The influence of groups on the behaviour of individuals belonging to particular groups has been well-documented from many famous and less-famous experiments by social psychologists.

Outstanding examples:

The Hawthorne Experiment
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2004/10/19/26126/staff-under-the-microscope.html

The Zimbardo Prison Experiment
http://www.prisonexp.org/

Sprott was careful to distinguish between the observable behaviour of human groups, about which he wrote a book, and the nebulous notion of “society” which was a construction. Without extensive clarification, we are not at all clear on what “society” refers to or how to observe it. Hence the difficulty in answering my very basic questions about how many societies are there in Britain and how can we tell?

I continue to be amazed at Cameron’s rhetoric which displays a remarkable ignorance about the social sciences despite the fact that he is a PPE graduate from Oxford.

We certainly like to keep them out of Scotland.

Wonder if this policy will catch on with the Tories?

You genuinely believe that people that disagree with your narrow definition of ‘ethics’ are immoral?

I know you guys feel obliged never to get judgmental, but most sane people do think that beating and torturing kids is immoral, yes.

But why pick on only alcohol misuse as the crucial sign of “broken society” rather than, say, the leap in the Gini coefficient measuring the increasing inequality of income distribution during the 1980s when Mrs T was PM?

It would seem that the selection of the critical indicator of “brokenness” is arbitrary and tendentious.

After all, we have this recently published book: The Spirit Level – Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett:

“What they find is that, in states and countries where there is a big gap between the incomes of rich and poor, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity and teenage pregnancy are more common, the homicide rate is higher, life expectancy is shorter, and children’s educational performance and literacy scores are worse.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article5859108.ece

QED?

On the evidence, I’m still unconvinced that Cameron is any too bright.

We’ve still not settled exactly what “society” refers to. I mean, how many societies are there in Britain and how can we tell? As Sprott said “‘What is a society?’ is that it is a figment of the imagination. . ” (@51 above)

> Absolutely. If “society” – whatever that is – is “broken”, that presupposes there must have been a previous time when it wasn’t “broken”. Cameron really needs to tell us when that was.

That presupposes quite wrongly that broken-ness is either 0% or 100%.

Whereas it would be sensible to wonder if society is more broken now, then at an earlier date.

There is evidence that society has changed recently – so therefore it may well have become more broken or less broken.

Eg, hospital statistics say that liver damage due to excessive drinking is now a problem for young women, which it wasn’t 30 years ago.

That is one measurable change. There must be loads of others, that are also evidence based.

Personally, this change in alcohol misuse, I would rank as an increase in broken-ness.

The Corn Laws were a classic case of protectionism which were intended to benefi the few – the landed interests which dominated the Tory Party in the early 19th century – at the expense of the many who were dependent on money wages for their living. Manufacturing interests were opposed to the Corn Laws – hence Cobden and Bright and the Free Trade Hall in Manchester – because they believed protectionism reduced the cost competitiveness of British made manufactures.

Famously, Robert Peel took the lead in Parliament in the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. That split the Tory Party and kept it out of power for a generation. Disraeli – the grandson of immigrants – eventually led the party back into government.

As it turned out, the cost of transporting grain from America continued to provide protection to grain producers in Britain until the 1870s when – to brutally simplify – large iron ships with steam engines brought down the costs of sea transport across the Atlantic.

The relevance is that the reluctance of the Tory Party to repeal the Corn Laws was a classic case where landed interests prevailed over the Benthamite utilitarian principle of policies for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number.”

Absolutely. If “society” – whatever that is – is “broken”, that presupposes there must have been a previous time when it wasn’t “broken”. Cameron really needs to tell us when that was.

What with this and Cameron’s stupid claim a year ago that the cut in VAT had failed, I’m coming to the conclusion that Cameron, like Blair, isn’t any too bright.

I do hope we are not going to make a serious mistake at the next election.

I

C’mon. Bentham’s utilitarian principle favouring policies for “the greatest good of the greatest number” was intended as a thoroughly democratic notion – namely, a prescription to legislate for policies which benefited the many rather than the few at a time when the franchise for Parliamentary elections was very narrow so Parliament tended to legislate in favour of the interests of those represented in Parliament rather than the majority of the population.

It took Parliament to 1846 to repeal the Corn Laws which were intended to maintain high prices for corn in order to benefit landed interests regardless of the consequences for those who depended on money wages for their living.

JS Mill was a self-avowed utilitarian but wished to set clear limits on the extent to which legislation could justifiably limit individual freedom:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”

In other words, individuals should not be forced to comply with some (societal) moral code limiting their actions, providing those actions did not inflict harm on others.

Quite so but you evidently have no understanding of Communism.

In the official Soviet ideology in Stalin’s time state farms were regarded as ideologically superior to collective farms, in which the farm land, buildings, livestock and equipment were (theoretically) held in local community ownership.

Try this entry for Fascism in the Oxford Companion to Politics:

“Fascist ideology also included a romantic, an antirational allure, an appeal to the emotions, to a quasi-religious longing for a mystic union of peoples and their prophetic leader. In reaction to a utilitarian liberal state, fascism revived aspirations towards a normative or ethical state. According to this view, the community existed not merely as a practical convenience but in order to fulfil the individual’s ethical and moral potential. How people perceived these themes depended on the eye of the beholder. Conservatives viewed fascism as a bulwark against Bolshevism or as a middle way between worn-out liberal capitalism and the communist horror. Radicals viewed fascism as a genuinely revolutionary ideology that would sweep away discredited ideals and institutions and replace them with a new disciplined and cohesive society.”

The problem is that by this account the Nazis also subscribed to that – as did most totalitarian states:

“The tax department chief of the Association of Industrialists (Reichsgruppe Industrie) emphasized that it was useless to attempt precise comparisons between the new and old tax regulations because the important issue was ‘the new spirit of the reform, the spirit of national Socialism. **The principle of the common good precedes the good of the individual stands above everything else.** ‘”
Avraham Barkai: Nazi Economics (Berg Publisher Ltd (1990)) p.183 – Mr Barkai is a research fellow at the Institute of German History, Tel Aviv.

IMO John Stuart Mill sets out the long British tradition:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
JS Mill: On Liberty
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

For a comparison between the “negative” (JS Mill) and “positive” concepts of liberty, try this famous essay by Isaiah Berlin: Two Concepts of Liberty:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/twoconcepts.pdf

I’m with JS Mill and Professor Sprott – and Mrs T – but not with Cameron or the Nazis.