Clearly, John VW is sure! 
 
I was responding to Adrian Sinfield's choice of JK Rowling's article 
in support of the Labour Party (to which she has contributed £2m) 
which Adrian thought "provides more social policy comment than most 
electoral coverage" he'd seen, by juxtaposing another current article 
which has been nominated for the Orwell Prize, and which provides 
even more social policy comment than most electoral coverage that I 
have seen, and perhaps than he has seen. There doesn't actually have 
to be a point beyond, as with Adrian, giving list members the 
opportunity of reading something they may not have come across. 
 
It has been interesting, however, to read John's response which 
contains much criticism of the failures of the political party 
which Rowling supports, even if he also doesn't think much of Smith's 
analyses or of the Conservatives' perceived social policies. 
 
Paul Ashton

--- On Sun, 18/4/10, Mel Bartley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: Mel Bartley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling - Times Online, and related matters
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, 18 April, 2010, 19:58








I was not actually too sure what point Paul Ashton was making?
Maybe he would elaborate?

--- On Sun, 18/4/10, John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: John Veit-Wilson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling - Times Online, and related matters
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, 18 April, 2010, 17:00



Paul Ashton offers us Winston Smith's blog as social policy evidence. Smith wrote there mainly about disturbed children, but in a context which presupposes the existence of an amoral 'underclass' in a 'broken society', from which they come. Apart from the difference between Rowling who was talking about her own lived experience and Smith who was telling us about his views about other people, perhaps the wider social environmental context would not look so bad if richer taxpayers were willing to pay their fair share so that Smith's and other social services and public housing were not so starved of resources, and if governments at national and local level concentrated on building a better
 foundation for family policy for instance by creating a demand for as much unskilled paid labour as is needed to offer work at a living wage to Smith's clients when they enter the labour market, and all like them, instead of demonising them. But the prospects do not look good if any of the tax- and public-expenditure cutting parties get into power, and even less so if they give powers to local electorates to cut local expenditures on such essential services. Prevention of a 'broken society', if that is what we are meant to read Smith as telling us about [have I misunderstood him?], is better than cure. 
 
The place where society is broken is not between Smith's characters [if we even accept that he gives an accurate account of his impressions, which may not be the case if he is writing for literary effect -- this isn't research] and the rest of the incompetent, irresponsible or even dishonest people all the way through society and including those who run banks and businesses and the country [no, I didn't say they all were]. It is between those who want all the benefits of the Big [inclusive?] Society but refuse to pay their fair share of the costs -- and when it is suggested that they should because that is what they demand when they talk about rights and responsibilties, they squeal that they will leave the country. So much for a mature adult acceptance of responsibility!
 Power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot -- isn't that the quotation? And by a Conservative politician, so it has to be true -- doesn't it?
 
When we see a good example of social and personal responsibility set by those rich and powerful enough to do so, then and only then have the preachers the moral right to demand similar standards from the poor and powerless clients of Smith, their families and those around them. Smith writes about 'a society that no longer enforces boundaries or instils discipline and respect'. That sounds as if it applies just as much to the Goldman Sachs mob and their likes as it does to Smith's clients. What's to choose morally between Ashcroft and them? [They all say 'I do it because I can do it' -- no sense of socially responsible boundaries to greed, no self-discipline about paying taxes, no respect for society and everyone's needs, not just their own wants.] 

Why this unceasing prurient obsession with wallowing in the sins of the poor and powerless without simultaneous and parallel consideration of the far larger sins of the rich and powerful? Some moral blindness to proportionality, surely? 
 
Of course it does help to sell the Daily Mail. Was Baldwin not referring to its then owner, among others?
 
John VW.
 
------------------------------------------------------------
From Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle University GPS -- Sociology
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, England.
Telephone -- office: +44[0]191-222 7498
email [log in to unmask]
www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/j.veit-wilson/
 
 



From: Social-Policy is run by SPA for all social policy specialists [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Ashton
Sent: 18 April 2010 11:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The single mother's manifesto | J.K. Rowling - Times Online







--- On Wed, 14/4/10, Adrian Sinfield <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
 
>This provides more social policy comment than most electoral coverage I have
>seen. Best wishes, Adrian Sinfield 

>token=null&offset=12&page=2" target=_blank >rel=nofollowhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?>token=null&offset=12&page=2 
 
and this one from the chalkface, nominated for the Orwell Prize, provides even more: 
 
http://tinyurl.com/y4nszz3 
 
Paul Ashton