Rob Shorrock

Government Office East Midlands has extended its debate about drinking. This has been a rather poorly publicised initiative, although I get the impression that it has been aimed more at young people and maybe I don't travel in their communication circles. I raise it as an example of one of the worst ways in which to engage people on an issue.

 Have a look at their webpage and you will see from the start that this is anti-alcohol campaign, with no room for debate. All you can do is fill in a multiple choice questionnaire that starts from the assumption there is a problem and you can then tick alternatives about how you think this prolem could be solved i.e restricting sales, banning public drinking etc.

All of this is underpinned by a set of selective stats with no sources. When I was being taught statistics I always recall my teacher telling me about false correllation. The example used was that your could draw a correlation between all sorts of non-relational data such as an increase in pay for Anglican minsisters corresponding with an increase in the sales of gin in the same period. Yet it a meaningless or false correlation, unless you know that Anglian ministers are buying gin. Which is why I worry about GOEM using the following "46% of victims of domestic violence believe that the offender was under the influence of alcohol". I can imagine that to be the case, but it doesn't necesarily follow that it is the alcohol that is the prime cause of the violence. Domestic violence and the way it is reported is a pitiful mix of dissonance and excuses, but what the figure really reveals is that the majority of perpertrators will commit abuse anyway. Alcohol can be blamed as a way of dealing with, or hiding from, a very harsh reality about a partner.

We often have a dualist notion about behaviour and alcohol. Court reports are filled with redemptive tales of defendants arguing that because of drinking their behaviour was 'out of character' or 'clouded their judgement' in mitigation. This concept that we absolve responsibility and become something else when we drink is a more thought-provoking trend. This is a dualist universe of being drunk and sober, mad and sane, or dumb and dumber if you like. Initiatives that seem to suggest that alcohol is to blame for social ills rather than the person who drinks the alcohol continue this bizarre Jekyll and Hyde dualism.

Back to the GOEM debate: All the old prohibitionist chestnuts are here, but there is absolutely no room for debate. You can't make any comments and there is no dicussion board which means it is not really a debate - more a biased survey.

Anyway, here is my addition to the list of options: People should take personal responsibility for their drinking at all times and support should be available to help them do this.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen produced a highly critical report of the tax credits system.

The key problem is that 1 in 3 awards are overpayed. If you know anyone who has young children the liklihood is that this has happened to them. HMRC who are responsible for dishing this award out are also responsible for clawing it back and it has been criticised for doing this insensitively and with little regard to the impact this may have for families, particulary on low incomes. HMRC argue that they have now managed to get control of the computer that used to spew out the claw back letters automatically. This is a good, albeit slightly disturbing, development.

The problem with the system is that it relies on people to tell the revenue about changes in income and changes in childcare costs. Adjustments are then made but only apply from a period some months ahead. This means that what you actually receive may not reflect your circumstances at the current time.

Also, the system uses a set of formulae that are incredibly hard to get hold off. The notice that you receive just includes the amount (or not) that you will receive. HMRC don't tell you how they work out the award figure from the info you have given them. This makes it almost impossible to challenge the validity of the final award figure. If you appeal, or make a request for information, you just get the information you provided in the first place. However, it is your responsibility 'to have a reasonable belief' that the award is right or wrong!

The complex administration of these tax credits must cost a fortune. I was thinking that there must be a simpler way of doing this and there is:

1) There should be a matrix that allows you to cross match income against childcare costs to give you a close estimate of the award you could receive. This would mean that some people would see they they are not eligible and not even apply and others would know what it is they should be receiving and can budget accordingly.

2) In most cases, changes in income can be identified by the revenue through PAYE and adjustments made in terms of receiving awards at this point. This adjustments should be recorded on the statements that claimants receive. This would mean that no overpayments should happen at all.

Early last week, Ken Murray died. Kenny was one of the architects of the Barlinnie Special Unit in Glasgow, a progressive and still controversial approach to dealing with prisoners that were often violent and highly disruptive. Jimmy Boyle, the most famous of its inmates described his incarceration before entering the special unit as a process of ‘animalisation'. By contrast, the special unit recognised these prisoners as human beings and worked through a mix of collective decision-making, the arts and other constructive techniques to get the prisoners to change their behaviour. Deeply resented by the prison establishment and the reactionary media, it was eventually closed in 1996 on the grounds that it was expensive.

Ken was also my uncle, and was influential in my political development. When I was in my early teens, he recommended Robert Tressall's, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists a book that inspired in me a passion to educate and empower and showed me the real power of collectivism to challenge arbitary power and the soporific qualities of tradition. If you read this book, you can't help but be dragged along by its lucid logic.

Ken was a socialist that believed the job of socialism was to be practical, to change things, to experiment and to take on blinkered and traditional thinking. He grappled with the hard issues many socialist thinkers struggle with: drug addiction, violent criminality, homelessness - the dispossessed.

Like his father before him, he was a life-long socialist, yet become disillusioned with the Labour Party and left in the late 90's. His socialism was incompatible with a party moving to a media-shaped middle ground, with reactionary and authoritarian leanings.

A brave and principled man. He will be missed by us all.

See also his Obituary in the Glasgow Herald.