It was unsurprising this week that some inside the Vatican were privately saying the current pope has been a public relations disaster for the Catholic Church. But, his comments while on his tour of Africa could spell disaster in a very different way.
His quote "HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem" has potentially horrific consequences. This quote goes further than the normal line that "abstinence is best". It says that condoms can increase the problem; increase the spread of disease. This is so far from the truth it boarders on criminal negligence. In sub-Saharan Africa 22 million are infected with the disease and 17% of people are Catholics. Both figures are increasing by the day. For the Catholic Church Africa is a region where it has great influence. Therefore, it is breathtaking that the pope can make a such a scientifically naive comment while during his visit.
The scientific evidence is clear: the only workable way to prevent the spread of this disease is barrier contraception. Abstinence doesn't work, it never has. This is especially true in areas of great hardship and poverty. In making comments like the one above the Pope, and the Catholic Church as a whole, are making a grave mistake. A mistake that is likely to lead to the needless death of people who follow their advice.
Tuesday 24 March 2009
Wednesday 18 March 2009
Cameron - surprisingly ineffective
You have to give it to him, you really do. David Cameron during Prime Ministers Questions is an effective politician. His combination of theatrical timing, oratory pace and agility of thought are a dangerous combination. He is as good as Blair was in 1996 when he reduced Major to bumbling manikin. And, there are hints of the cutting tongue that Thatcher used to silent semi-inebriated backbenchers during her ascent to the top of the Conservative Party. However, with all of this Cameron, time after time, fails to land a crushing blow.
This may be in part because Brown has worked on his defence and now hits harder with more concise rebuttals. It may also be that when he speaks many in his party feel uncomfortable with what is said. Or, it could be that Cameron is not yet at his best. But I think, his failure to score hard hitting body shots is not because of any of these things. It is because hypocrisy is easy to sense and arguing what you know to be wrong is hard to do.
Today's toe-to-toe in the house of commons was a prime example: Cameron tries to highlight that services being provided by the government are ineffectual and functioning poorly. Brown points out that these services would be cut if the Torys had their way. Cameron moves on, saying that the UK is in the worst shape of any of the major economies. This is wrong, we are not. Cameron finds himself bogged down in a debate on when the recession started; he is off by 3 months and loosing his pace. And, finally he lashes out with a personal insult towards the PM and his rhythm is gone.
Elections can be won by pointing out the faults of an existing administraion. But that is clearly not working for Cameron. With 2 million unemployed and downturn continuing you would expect a government to being polling support in the low twenty's, but Labour isn't. The cabinet is still speaking with one voice and grassroot campaigning is still continuing. A poll in the Guardian today shows that a stabilisation of the economy would lead to a change in the fortunes of Brown and Labour. And what will Cameron do then. What will Cameron do when the bailout works, when spending during the downturn is shown to be the right thing and when hope returns. He will need more than oratory power and good PR, he will need practical solutions. Solutions he doesn't have.
This may be in part because Brown has worked on his defence and now hits harder with more concise rebuttals. It may also be that when he speaks many in his party feel uncomfortable with what is said. Or, it could be that Cameron is not yet at his best. But I think, his failure to score hard hitting body shots is not because of any of these things. It is because hypocrisy is easy to sense and arguing what you know to be wrong is hard to do.
Today's toe-to-toe in the house of commons was a prime example: Cameron tries to highlight that services being provided by the government are ineffectual and functioning poorly. Brown points out that these services would be cut if the Torys had their way. Cameron moves on, saying that the UK is in the worst shape of any of the major economies. This is wrong, we are not. Cameron finds himself bogged down in a debate on when the recession started; he is off by 3 months and loosing his pace. And, finally he lashes out with a personal insult towards the PM and his rhythm is gone.
Elections can be won by pointing out the faults of an existing administraion. But that is clearly not working for Cameron. With 2 million unemployed and downturn continuing you would expect a government to being polling support in the low twenty's, but Labour isn't. The cabinet is still speaking with one voice and grassroot campaigning is still continuing. A poll in the Guardian today shows that a stabilisation of the economy would lead to a change in the fortunes of Brown and Labour. And what will Cameron do then. What will Cameron do when the bailout works, when spending during the downturn is shown to be the right thing and when hope returns. He will need more than oratory power and good PR, he will need practical solutions. Solutions he doesn't have.
Monday 16 March 2009
50p a Unit
Throughout the UK this weekend alcohol will be the bringer of merriment after a long and increasingly hard week. Many, including myself, will use it to relax, wind down and allow the company of their colleagues to be vaguely tolerable. Others will use it to compliment a nice meal, and some to celebrate.
However, for others it will be the start of a week long, semi-conscious, binge. Tempers will be lost, fist and bottles thrown and streets will become no go areas. For some the results of this binge may mean a drunken husband looking to take his aggression out on someone. While for others a parent who is incapable of caring for them. And the cost of a weekend of heavy drinking in the UK - you can get change from £10.
With this in mind I find it surprising that the Prime Minister has positioned himself to quickly dismiss the report to be published on Tuesday by the chief medical officer recommending, among other things, a minimum price on a unit of alcohol. Brown has said that he doesn't want to punish the majority for the sins of a few; he doesn't want sensible drinkers to pay through the nose for pint. This is either a very thin veil of ignorance, or some ill thought political cover. A strong pint of premium ale would need to cost no more than £1.50 and a good bottle of wine £4.50. Now you tell me where can you get either of these at these prices these days.
However, this lower limit would mean that those aiming for a state of alcohol induced stupidity would have to spend a fair bit more getting there: the 2 litre of Lambrini would now cost considerably more and can of Stella would be £1. On the basis that most consumer behaviour can be explained on the balance of want vs cost, this would be set to have a powerful effect. But don't take my word for it - tomorrow the leading thinker in his field will say the same and the Prime Minister will canvass for votes by saying "no, not now".
However, for others it will be the start of a week long, semi-conscious, binge. Tempers will be lost, fist and bottles thrown and streets will become no go areas. For some the results of this binge may mean a drunken husband looking to take his aggression out on someone. While for others a parent who is incapable of caring for them. And the cost of a weekend of heavy drinking in the UK - you can get change from £10.
With this in mind I find it surprising that the Prime Minister has positioned himself to quickly dismiss the report to be published on Tuesday by the chief medical officer recommending, among other things, a minimum price on a unit of alcohol. Brown has said that he doesn't want to punish the majority for the sins of a few; he doesn't want sensible drinkers to pay through the nose for pint. This is either a very thin veil of ignorance, or some ill thought political cover. A strong pint of premium ale would need to cost no more than £1.50 and a good bottle of wine £4.50. Now you tell me where can you get either of these at these prices these days.
However, this lower limit would mean that those aiming for a state of alcohol induced stupidity would have to spend a fair bit more getting there: the 2 litre of Lambrini would now cost considerably more and can of Stella would be £1. On the basis that most consumer behaviour can be explained on the balance of want vs cost, this would be set to have a powerful effect. But don't take my word for it - tomorrow the leading thinker in his field will say the same and the Prime Minister will canvass for votes by saying "no, not now".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
