The wound that just won't heel

The political response to the weekend's Suarez/Evra hand-jive has been dominated so far by Jeremy Hunt's claim that David Cameron does not want football to return to the "bad old days". This is an odd statement.

The bad old days, by which I take it he means the 1980s, were marked by a systemic disregard for racism by the footballing authorities and government. It took the launching of the Kick It Out campaign in 1993 by the CRE and the PFA to start to turn the tide. The FA and Premier League didn't fully get on board till 1997. Throughout the 80s and 90s, the government's attitude was dictated largely by hooliganism (seen as another manifestation of the "enemy within").

The bad old days were also dominated by crowd behaviour in the form of racist chants, banana lobbing, and making monkey noises (which I always found ironic as they made the perpetrator look like a grunting idiot). While there was plenty of racism on the pitch, this was usually a minor counterpoint to what was going on in the stands. The limits of TV and audio technology made it difficult for such acts to be picked up on.

So what does Cameron (or Hunt) mean by the bad old days?

Is he implying that the organised game has failed to address the problem? The demoting of John Terry indicates that the FA are certainly taking a robust stance on racism. The apologies from Liverpool FC may be prompted as much by a fear of tarnishing the brand as genuine contrition, but they're certainly nothing if not evidence that the EPL and clubs take the matter seriously.

I don't think he's implying that it's all kicking off in the stands either. The spate of racist verbal attacks by fans recently has been noticeable for their pathetic exceptionality, mainly lone nutters and opportunistic social media trolls. As Richard Williams points out, much of the noise around this incident isn't even driven by "genuine racism" so much as tribal anger. In other words, more people hate Patrice Evra for playing for Man Utd than for the colour of his skin, which is progress.

Williams also notes Sky Sports desire to invest every element of the game with significance, to the extent that the pre-match handshake has become an established warm-up bout. This is largely down to the pioneering work of John Terry, who seems to crop up a lot.

What this reminds me of is televised wrestling in the 70s, when mini epics of morality were acted out over 3 rounds by Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks. Refusing to shake a proffered hand, and general abuse of the rules by the "heel", was part of the show. The old ladies and kids in the audience wanted Manichean contests of good versus evil, in the confident expectation that the handshake-refuser would end up begging for mercy.

Luis Suarez has begged for mercy now, but we all suspect he's not wholly sincere. His role as a heel has been maintained, though I'm not sure he's really cut out for it. What the game needs is a "top top" heel, along the lines of the great Kendo Nagasaki.

We don't need no ICT education

I was amused a few weeks ago by the announcement that Michael Gove was advocating an "open source" curriculum for ICT in schools. This is the same Education Minister who wants a more prescriptive approach to history: our island story, with lots of kings and queens and biffing the French.

It's a fair bet that Gove doesn't actually know what open source is. He's just reading a script put together by a policy wonk with an Oxford PPE and some Beats headphones. The new policy is clearly intended to give business greater access to delivery of the curriculum, while apparently giving schools greater autonomy - i.e. they get to "choose" resources from multiple providers.

For the vast majority of the users of open source software, all the term means is that it's free. The percentage of the user community who participate in code development is tiny. Gove's vision of a "wiki, collaborative approach" to developing materials for the curriculum will ironically bump up against this reality. Most schools will simply adopt an off-the-shelf curriculum to ensure conformity and thus acceptable exam results.

Gove appears to have confused open source with "any willing provider". In other words, this is about privatising course design and delivery. His speech was delivered at BETT, the leading UK education technology trade show. It's safe to assume that no one there was equating open source with free.

Part of the criticism of the current ICT curriculum is that it focuses too much on learning how to use Microsoft Office, rather than understanding technology. But this complaint forgets that the current curriculum came about because of the perceived urgent need to train the future clerical class for the business world of the 90s.

The current approach appears to be based on an already outdated vision in which the UK is a centre of excellence for programming. As any fule kno, programming is subject to the same historical forces as anything else. It has becoming increasingly commoditised, standardised and globalised. This is partly why there are now lots of "willing providers" who can rustle up a module on global variables or singletons. It's also why kids with a serious interest are already programming outside of school.

ICT has always been problematic in the UK because it straddles the normally clear boundary between the vocational and the academic. Gove's coincidental plan to scrap the GSCE equivalency of most vocational courses (and thus discount them from league tables) is clearly intended to redraw that boundary, this time with a ditch and rampart. This is as regressive as his Whig view of history.

I suspect that ICT may bifurcate as a result of this, between a vocational GCSE (get a sysadm job) and an academic one (go on to study computer science). Along the way, a lot of government money will be spent on educational systems and content, despite the fact that everything they provide will be freely available to those who look for it on the Web.

The new poor law

The economist Karl Smith published an interesting article recently on the dichotomy of the deserving and undeserving poor.

There is no reason to view emotional or mental deficiencies as different in kind from physical ones. To put it in the harshest of terms, if you think someone who is born blind is deserving of sympathy and support then you should think someone who is born lazy and stupid is deserving of sympathy and support.

Further once you concede that the lazy and stupid are deserving of sympathy then its difficult to construct a set of poor people who are not, since these are among the least sympathetic qualities that could cause someone to be poor.

Thus the vast majority of the poor are deserving of sympathy or support.

Laziness is not an unvarying or testable condition, like blindness or stupidity, so it is possible to fake it. In other words, rather than being lazy in the congenital sense (for which you are not to be blamed), you might simply be inconsiderate (others can do the work while I sit under this tree). Smith notes of the former that "we lack the technology to distinguish them from those faking laziness", so any attempt to discriminate between the two will fail.

Smith is a neoliberal (in the spirit of his namesake), so would be happy were we to invent technology that could accurately distinguish the fakers from the helplessly lazy, but purely for reasons of efficiency rather than morality. His proposal is provocative because it eschews morality.

Smith recognises that motives, and thus culpability, are not distinguishable when it comes to a person's lot. As well as circumstances beyond their control, we have to recognise that their choices are relative and subjective. There is no common scale that we can measure everyone against, thus we can never say that someone deserves what they got. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. It's a matter of opinion, not empirical fact.

Essentially, this is an argument for excluding morality ("just deserts") when discussing people's lot in life. This is attractive from a practical perspective. Morality is messy, costly to get agreement on and mistakes will be made. It is also helpful when applied at both ends of the spectrum. The better criticism of CEO pay and banker bonuses is that they indicate a systemic failure (inadequate regulation, a rigged market, the agency problem) rather than a moral shortcoming (individual greed).

However, there is a danger in taking this approach. The neolibreal view holds that "fair" is whatever the market decides, and is therefore essentially amoral. It also holds that individuals make rational choices to maximise their utility, hence choosing to live on benefits may be a perfectly rational preference. It is from this observation that neoliberals conclude that benefits must be low enough to be unattractive as a rational choice, i.e. the 'less eligibility' principle of the workhouse.

The logical sleight of hand in the conclusion rests on the assumption that working is better than not working, so the former should be encouraged and the latter discouraged. This view is also found on the left, e.g. "he who does not work, neither shall he eat" (though it's worth noting that the famous use of this phrase by Lenin was directed at the parasitical bourgeoisie, not the lazy lumpen proles). That said, there remains a strong tradition of anti-work on the left as well (I'd just like to say that I'm doing my bit).

The proposed £26k cap on benefits may sound like an attack on an exceptional anomaly, but it is significant that the rationale focuses on the absurdity (the unfairness) of benefits exceeding most workers' income, rather than a quirk in the maths. This moralistic argument, together with the claim that over-generous benefits dissuade people from working ("they" are inherently lazy), logically leads to the conclusion that even the deserving unemployed and disabled should not be better off than the lowest paid in work, i.e. our old friend 'less eligibility'.

Unfortunately, this merely serves to make the poor poorer for the simple reason that the minimum wage is inadequate. The report this week on pay rates among the big four supermarkets highlights a consequence of this. Increasing numbers of workers require in-work benefits (tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit etc) to achieve a living income.

The systemic failure here is that the state (i.e. the taxpayer) is subsidising private business, and privileging low-pay sectors to boot. One could argue that this is the quid pro quo for low prices at the till (leaving the question of profit margins to one side for a moment), though the logical argument for a neoliberal should be that the decision on expenditure is one for the individual consumer to make, not the state - i.e. if food were more expensive, one can choose what to buy and where, but one cannot choose to withhold that portion of tax that ends up subsidising supermarket staff.

Coming back to profit margins, the irony is that low-paid staff in Tesco and Sainsbury tend to shop at Aldi and Lidl because they are cheaper, despite having company discount cards. (See page 39 of the above report). This inconvenient fact gives the lie to claims that the supermarkets must push down on wages to remain competitive. The income subsidy by the taxpayer is thus transformed into corporate profit.

What seems to have emerged in the UK supermarket sector (and elsewhere) is an updated version of the Speenhamland system. This fell into disrepute because it interfered with the operation of supply and demand, i.e. unscrupulous employers could push down wages and thus shift greater cost onto the parish.  The consequence was the Whig Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, which gave us the Victorian workhouse.

Have we advanced sufficiently as a society to consider the obvious solution, which is to provide everyone with an unconditional basic income, with other non-universal support (disability, housing) being determined on needs and means? While the debate continues to be framed in moralistic terms, the answer has to be no.

The not so faithful border bin liner

The black bin bag protest forecast for Arsenal's game against Blackburn Rovers last Saturday turned out be a non-event, which seems to be par for the course for the slightly fascistic-sounding Black Scarf Movement. I had been looking forward to this, due to fond memories of the surreal Viz cartoon, Black Bag, The Faithful Border Bin Liner. The idea was to drape the bags over empty seats (an unconscious echo of Greyfriars Bobby, perhaps) to highlight falling attendances at The Emirates and protest that the 6% ticket price rise this season didn't lead to a splurge on new players in the summer (sort of).

Is there a flaw in an argument that hitches these two points together? Surely if attendances (i.e. seats sold) are falling, then the price rise will largely have gone to offset a drop in income. The explanation, of course, is that attendance (bums on seats) no longer reflects sales (seats bought), which is why Arsenal have stopped announcing the "attendance" figure during the game. In terms of seats sold, Arsenal continues to hit around 99%. 8 out of 12 home league games this season have sold over 60,000 (the capacity is 60,361), with the lowest sales being 59,671 for the the thing of beauty that is Stoke City on a Sunday.

The point is that any protest should be directed not at the club but at those supporters (presumably season ticket holders) who choose to skip a game and don't make use of the Ticket Exchange. I know from personal experience that not everyone is able to arrange a sub for every absence, and thus empty seats have become more common for all bar the most glamorous ties. Mind you, I also know from experience that standing season ticket holders would skip games in the past, though this was less obvious due to the fungibility of the crowd (I've been looking for an opportunity to use that phrase). Empty seats in a sell-out stadium are not a stay-away protest.

This casual attitude extends to taking your seats, with many drifting in from the concourses during the first 10 minutes and many (often the same people) popping out 5 minutes before half-time to beat the rush for drinks/pies/toilets. Some have criticised Arsenal for attracting a crowd more suited to the theatre or opera, which is an odd claim given that such venues wouldn't allow you to wander in and out at will. (The related Highbury Library charge is of course a case of rhyme trumping reason).

I suspect the truth is that these habits are largely unchanged over the decades. You simply didn't notice them when most people were standing (and not pissing down the back of your legs), and I recall bobbing up and down to let others pass just as frequently in the North Bank stand at Highbury.

If there has been an increase in this "in-play" faffing about, the cause would certainly be the increase and improvement in the pie and piss facilities. I remember attending a baseball game in Philadelphia in the late 80s and being bemused by the number of "spectators" who spent the entire game pigging out down in the concourse where there were mini-bowling alleys and banks of Space Invaders machines. Mind you, the sport was shit.

The media hype was reheated on MOTD when the ever-perceptive Motty noted that there were lots of empty seats as Titi slotted in the seventh Arsenal goal. What anyone at the stadium would have pointed out is that the goal came on 90 minutes, at which point the rush to the exits had already started, partly because there's always a rush before the end due to the queues for the Tube, partly because we felt confident we couldn't (surely) let a 5-goal lead slip, and partly because it was bloody freezing.

The 7-1 victory has put an end to the "club in crisis" stories in the media, and the accompanying cacophony of sack the board / manager / coaching staff / physio / tea-lady comments online, however this will only be temporary. Though the majority of fans have their grumbles, it's only a small minority that believe we're going to hell in a handcart. Unfortunately, they are over-represented by a media that feeds off confected controversy, and they are over-visible online where blog trolling appears to have become the modern equivalent of scratching your team's initials (or the phone number of a girl who dumped you) on a bog door.

One of the features of the modern game is the way that the cost of being an informed fan (i.e. being in the stadium to get a full view of the game and understand what's happening away from the ball) has sky-rocketed, while simultaneously the cost of entry to fandom has dropped. By the latter I mean that most people can become a semi-informed spectator through live games on TV or via Internet feeds, while the ability to observe and participate in conversations has expanded from the homely confines of the pub to the multiverse of the net.

This is not an elitist argument. It's worth bearing in mind that more people see Arsenal in the flesh these days than ever did in the past.

Unfortunately, intelligent comment remains as rare as Ju Young Park, so where once the angry men of your acquaintance would limit themselves to chuntering about the bus timetable or how the beer tasted funny, now they howl at the moon that "somebody must do something, now!"

Right-wingers are easier to wind-up, says study

Last week brought the priceless news that the Daily Mail had published an article entitled: "Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study".

The quoted Canadian study does not in fact make this claim. It does not even say that the Tory party has a near monopoly on the stupid vote. What it does say is that people with low intelligence are more likely to adopt conservative beliefs, which is hardly earth-shattering.

The study looks at the correlation of low cognitive ability and social manifestations, such as racism and homophobia, defined as prejudice against out-groups (feel free to substitute gypsies or catholics). In a nutshell:

Thus, individuals with lower cognitive ability may be more attracted to right-wing ideologies that promote coherence and order, and because such ideologies emphasize the maintenance of the status quo, they may foster greater out-group prejudice.

The article also includes this amusing little explanation: "Crucially, people's educational level is not what determines whether they are racist or not. Social status also appears to play no part."

In fact, what the study said was that its analysis was controlled for education and socioeconomic status. In other words, they neutralised these as influential factors in the data, in order to better gauge the impact of cognitive ability. They weren't saying that these aren't factors at all. Education tends to reduce prejudice through the simple mechanism of social contact, i.e. once you've met a few "out-groupers" during freshers' week you tend to have less suspicion of them. Until they nick your sausages.

To cap it all, the article states: "The authors also claim that conservative politics is part of a complex relationship that leads people to become prejudices" [sic]. Your eye may have been caught by the closing typo, but the real meat in this air sandwich is the suggestion that prejudice may be the result of a complex relationship rather than just formal membership of the Young Conservatives.

This is an almost textbook example of shoddy journalism, or perhaps (if you prefer conspiracy to cock-up) a brilliant windup. The outraged comments on the Daily Mail site are a joy to behold.

For the footballistically inclined, here's another windup, this time targeting Spurs fans. According to a study I have just invented, most of them read the Daily Mail.