>Paul Ashton may well be right that ridicule is not an accepted form of
>academic debate, but I thought that what he posted was political
>rhetoric not academic debate, and ridicule of political rhetoric is
>normally accepted in British politics.
What I first posted, and what JVW replied to, was a study produced by a
Conservative thinktank. I don't think any objective reading of the
report can reasonably dismiss it as 'political rhetoric', but perhaps
John had not had time read it all?
I agree that neither Daly's article, nor some of the politicians'
comments quoted in the BBC piece, can be described as 'academic' --
they were clearly political and personal contributions to the debate on
the causes of poverty, though often using evidence from academic
studies.
>Where does Paul Ashton stand? Once that's clear, then we can move on...
... etc, etc.
The reason I started this thread about the Conservatives' report, which
John conceded was an 'important contribution to the real political
debate' and which should 'be taken seriously by social policy and
poverty analysts' was to try to elicit (or even 'provoke') a response
from some of the career social policy analysts here. We mere mortals
don't get to hear their views often enough (outside of their more
guarded published writings).
Although John undoubtedly meant what he wrote about the importance of
the report, I have to admit to not meaning what I said when I wrote
'I'm sure many members will be interested in the Conservatives' new
report...' (well, maybe I meant 'perhaps some members...'). But it was
never about my views on poverty, and so I'll say 'pass' to his
challenge for me to express them further than I have already in earlier
postings.
On the views and evidence of Charles Murray, Hartley Dean wrote:
>And just when we thought the underclass debate had been put to rest!
'we'?
Paul Ashton
[log in to unmask]
2006-12-13
======= At 2006-12-13, 18:45:17 you wrote: =======
>Paul Ashton may well be right that ridicule is not an accepted form of
>academic debate, but I thought that what he posted was political
>rhetoric not academic debate, and ridicule of political rhetoric is
>normally accepted in British politics. Whatever one thinks of the
>intellectual status of any political party's public policy statements
>[and I have been just as scathing about the same muddled arguments about
>the causes of poverty when they came from the Blair party], would anyone
>want to describe Janet Daley's piece as academic debate?
>
>Some of you may remember that some years ago David Green [formerly an
>academic social policy lecturer] of the Institute of Economic Affairs
>Health and Welfare Unit organised some meetings between proponents and
>opponents of the Charles Murray approach, residential over 24 hours to
>give the participants a chance to get to know and argue with each other
>better. I took part in two of them [with people of the calibre of
>Raymond Plant] and my chief memory is that those on the opposition to
>Murray side of the table tried to keep the discussion on an academic
>standards basis, while those on the IEA/Murray side of the table [Arthur
>Seldon wasn't there, but Lord Harris was] seemed unable to offer
>evidence at anything more than the anecdotal level ['I'm telling you
>that ...'], with all the problems they then had of making an
>intellectually rigorous case on such a flimsy basis when [package deal
>thinking again] the facts were confused with the values and both of them
>with the prescription. It was an extraordinary experience -- if any of
>the list readers were there or wrote for the books that came out of it
>[I know some of you did], can you add anything about the possibility of
>academic debate under such conditions?
>
>I want to support Paul Ashton's implied call for proper academic debate
>[I hope that's what it was]. It's a pity that none of the political
>parties seem interested in having one. Or are they having them somewhere
>secret, but offering these flaccid rhetorical substitutes for tabloid
>consumption? Do they even know any longer what academic debate is? In
>the absence of clear distinctions in the UK, we might get a clearer
>picture of difference if we took the ideological arguments about poverty
>and equality offered on the one hand by the Nordic social democrats and
>on the other by the German Christian democrats, and worked at their very
>different implications for social policies. Don't forget it was the
>German sociologist Georg Simmel who described the difference [1908]
>between the 'ordinary everyday poverty' which was taken for granted and
>accepted by the non-poor [because they saw it as part of their
>integrated hierarchical feudal society], and dependent pauperism. Only
>the latter was problematic -- see the similarity with the UK situation
>today. Whereas for the egalitarian Nordics it was all poverty, not just
>pauperism, which was problematic and to be abolished by restricting
>inequality and guaranteeing adequate income maintenance in or out of
>work. I know where I stand on this starting point. Where does Paul
>Ashton stand? Once that's clear, then we can move on to the
>responsibilities of the state and its government, and the appropriate
>methods which may then be used from one standpoint or another to achieve
>the clear objectives of an abolition of poverty -- if that is indeed a
>Conservative objective. This is where we came in .....
>
>.... so I'll go [unless provoked again!].
>
>Best wishes to all,
>
>John VW.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>From Professor J H Veit-Wilson
>School of GPS -- Sociology
>Newcastle University
>Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
>Telephones -- office: +44[0]191-222 7498
> -- home: +44[0]191-266 2428
>Fax -- office: +44[0]191-222 5241
> -- home: +44[0]191-215 1188
>email <[log in to unmask]>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Ashton
>Sent: 13 December 2006 16:44
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Families 'key to poverty fight'
>
>Flippancy='inappropriate levity' as in the amusing but really irrelevant
>Royal Family analogy. It rather reminded me of Richard Dawkins flippant
>comparision of a belief in Father Christmas and the belief in Jesus
>Christ. Ridicule is not yet an accepted form of academic debate is it?
>
>Paul Ashton
>[log in to unmask]
>2006-12-13
>
>
>>Sorry, but I must have missed something. What is 'flippant' about
>making the point that it is poverty, not family breakdown per se, that
>leads to poor outcomes?? Or was I the only one listening to Duncan-Smith
>and feeling like I was trapped in a time warp and listening to Charles
>Murray again....
>>
>>Kirstein
>>
>>
>>--
>>Dr Kirstein Rummery,
>>Senior Lecturer in Social Policy,
>>Politics, School of Social Sciences,
>>Dover Street, University of Manchester,
>>M13 9PL, United Kingdom.
>>Tel: 0161 275 4877 FAx: 0161 275 4925
>>Email: [log in to unmask]
>>www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/politics/about/staff_profiles/Kirst
>>ein_Rummery.htm
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Ashton
>>> Sent: 13 December 2006 11:33
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Families 'key to poverty fight'
>>>
>>> For those who want a rather less amusing or flippant analysis of the
>>> Tories' Social Justice Policy Group report on Breakdown Britain than
>>> that provided by John Veit-Wilson, the
>>> 100+ page study can be had at:
>>> http://povertydebate.typepad.com/home/files/csj_final_2.pdf
>>>
>
>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
>
>
>
>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
|
