Some things you have to read this weekend:

Gendergeek on the British public’s attitudes to rape laws. Puts me in mind of Jed Bartlet taking down Dr Jenna Jacobs…

Eric Lee with an insight into Israeli politics beyond security. (I know Jo linked to it first, but you really should read it - I was fascinated.)

In today’s Guardian Work section, there’s a diary of a teenage pregnancy worker - could be a week in the life of many of my field colleagues.

Less seriously, Tony has got the chaos that is Cornmarket St in Oxford on Saturday morning down in one. Having twenty minutes to kill today, I encountered all of the obstacles he notes, plus an Australian playing the bagpipes and a table of anti-abortion zealots. Oh, and, Tony, I shared your impulse to go and buy something from Vodafone just because the animal rights idiots were outside there; but on reflection I decided that a multi-national telecoms company probably didn’t need my solidarity. (!)

Update, Sunday morning: You could also go over to Natalie’s blog, Philobiblion, and enjoy this week’s Britblog roundup (on holiday from Tim’s), which to my surprise links to my post (rant?) about local government in Oxford.

It’s today, and after the news this week, could a campaign against violence against women be more needed? I’m wearing my white ribbon with pride.

Today’s Telegraph has an internal memo between David Miliband and John Prescott, which proposes scrapping two-tier district and county councils. The Torygraph, as it would, paints it as an attack on Conservative local councillors.

But, I ask you, if you were creating a system from scratch to govern locally, would you really create one where no-one except local reporters, councillors and council staff, really knew which authority was responsible for what? A system which put collecting waste in the hands of one council (Oxford city) but disposal of it in the hands of another (Oxfordshire county)? A system where collection of council tax is the responsibility of Oxford city, while Oxfordshire county is responsible for the majority of spending? And, on a more political point, a system where control of schools and social services in the city of Oxford, which elects no Tory councillors at all, belongs to Tories elected from the villages and market towns of Oxfordshire?

People from London, Wales and most other cities, where they have just one local council, generally can’t believe me when I tell them how stupid local government in Oxford is. (Yes, as you can tell, I’m a great pub conversationalist!)

The key to the reform would be the creation of all-purpose unitary authorities to replace either the counties or the districts in the 34 English shire counties [...] [David Milliband] is suggesting that instead of new arrangements being imposed from the top, local authorities themselves should propose the sort of unitary structure they want. [...] Mr Miliband indicates that if the Government decides to proceed with the plan, local authorities will have just three months to come up with a solution “in order to minimise argument and disruption”.

Thanks Mr M. We’ll take Oxford City district council boundaries, with a large urban extension south of Grenoble Road and if you must, you can add Botley and Kidlington in too, thank you very much.

PS: feel I have to say that this isn’t a party political point - Oxford city is by no means safe for any one party, let alone Labour, having been NOC with a minority administration for the past eighteen months.

I’m almost crying with rage as I write this. With a 15% reporting rate, and a 6% conviction rate, what is the major concern of 30% of the great British public about rape? That women are asking for it.

Update: it appears I’m going to be on ITV central news talking about this later.

Update 2: Central news have just recorded the segment with me: it’s at 6pm tonight on ITV1 in the Oxfordshire and south Midlands area. Meanwhile, if you’relooking for a more substantive post about the Amnesty survey and what I think about rape, have a look at this post I wrote a few months ago.

I enjoyed this post, called “Single issue campaigning is no substitute for party politics” by Tory Convert at Conservative group-blog Once More.

In particular, this first paragraph has the ring of recognition:

The other day a friend of mine asked what I’d been up to recently, and I couldn’t answer without mentioning various political activities. She said to me baldly: “I could never belong to a political party”. I noticed an insinuation in her response that this was a morally preferable position.

I’m not sure I agree with the entire thrust of the post: I think we (political parties) have more responsibility for the situation where young people are incredulous at the idea of joining a party than Tory Convert admits. I also think we have a very real responsibility for making ourselves attractive and relevant to them, and not just expect them to beat a path to our door: they won’t.

But in my heart I’m applauding this section:

My advice to any young person who has a passing interest in politics, but doesn’t like the idea of besmirching their conscience by committing to a party, is: hold your nose and get stuck in. You’ll learn how to be a team player, make loads of new friends and be challenged by ideas which may actually have consequences for the lives of people you know. Don’t imagine that firing off the odd activist postcard or email for Amnesty International is any substitute.

(although, of course, unlike Ms Convert, I’d like them to join Labour!)

It’s my last week in my current job and some sodding liberal has resigned from the city council, bestowing on us all a December by-election, so unless you want tales from the stump, there won’t be much coming from me until that bit of business is disposed of. And to think that I had thought I’d never have to tramp the mean streets of OxWAb again…

I try not to be the sort of blogger who puts up a link to the Guardian and says “read this great article”, but today, seriously, read this great article.

Politicians good at demonising boys in hoodies - who probably have won’t-pay fathers - say nothing much about derelict dads. Revolting fathers wearing outsize Batman pyjamas dangle off buildings for their supposed rights. (Many turn out to be deadbeat non-payers themselves.) But where is the protest against this shocking non-payment by fathers? It should be Mothers 4 Justice making the noise.

[...] From newsrooms packed with well-off divorced men resentful of paying maintenance, there came pages of tales of wicked mothers living the life of Riley on maintenance cheques.

[...] Single mothers were silent, as they always are, too busy surviving to organise rallies. (Yes, almost all “parents with care” are, of course, mothers.) Politicians have been paralysed ever since, just as they were by a handful of macho fuel protesters.

[...] Mothers keep the welfare state going in low-paid jobs and mothers suffer most from its deficits. So, 30 years on, where is the women’s campaign? Where is the ancient music of mothers clattering their saucepan lids down Whitehall for their rights?

It’s Polly, who else?

So, I was looking for information about the survey that said that young women wanted to be glamour models on www.thelab.tv, and I stumbled across this, about charity wristbands and teenagers…

Apparently,

75% of 15-19 British teenagers believe that the colour of the charity wristband is more important the charity.

So far, so unsurprising - glad I told work that this was one bandwagon we shouldn’t jump on. But then this creased me up:

Nearly 60% of 15-19 year olds use the bands as a way to identify the sexual preference and availability of a potential partner

What? WHAT? Yes, yes, it’s true! Older dykes and gayboys - remember the hanky code? You know, where you really didn’t want your nana’s floral affair she lent you when you had a cold hanging out your back pocket when you went cruising? Well, this is the modern equivalent, otherwise known as what your wrist says about you:

Pink = Straight female
Blue = Straight male
Yellow = Lost virginity
Red = Sexually available
White = Currently attached
Purple or Turquoise = Gay
Black = On the rebound (recently separated)
Pink + Blue = Bi male or female
Pink + Red = Straight female sexually available
Purple and white = Gay and attached

So then, what did it say about me that I spent the election campaign wearing both a MPH white band, and a Vote Labour red band? No wonder I got odd looks on the doorstep from teenagers - and there was me thinking that it was just because I wanted their vote…!

So, there I was, happily reading my Guardian at lunchtime, when I came across this on the women’s page:

A recent survey of 2,000 15-19-year-old girls found that 67% considered “glamour model” their ideal profession.

Well, leaving aside that it was 63%, and the survey, run by “mobile entertainment provider” www.thelab.tv in June, asked 1000 young women not 2000, and they picked from a list of occupations rather than choosing them unprompted, that’s still pretty shocking. (Although the term “glamour model” seems pretty quaint and archaic to me - surely that’s not still what it’s called?) How did we create a society where this is the highest calling to which young women aspire?

Reading the comment from Justin below, which asks:

So you didn’t fancy posting on Tony’s attempt to introduce periods of internment that would have appealed to Henrik Verwoerd?

I began to think about which thoughts do and which don’t get turned into blog posts.

At about the same time, Tim Worstall’s britblog round-up appeared in my RSS feed reader, and directed me to a post by a guy called Duncan about the preoccupations of the blogosphere, and the way that both the 90 days’ detention proposal and the ID cards proposal were/are opposed by vast majorities of bloggers, whilst gaining the support of the majority of the voting public.

At this point, I’ll be clear: despite my Labour membership, I wasn’t happy about the plan for 90 days’ detention, and at best I’m agnostic on ID cards. But I’m not going to write about them, because frankly, I find them boring. That’s not to say that they’re not important, or that I don’t give a shit, just that if you want to talk about the war / Iraq / terrorism / ID cards / security, and for that matter, Europe / PR / voting reform, go and find some other blogger.

On a related note, considering the list of exclusions I have made and also my favoured topics, you would think that I would have blogged about Sue Axom’s ridiculous challenge to the right of young people to receive confidential advice about and referrals for contraceptive and abortion services. Sorry I haven’t: Philobiblion says pretty much everything that I would have done.

I would only add:

1. This challenge isn’t about parents’ rights, it’s a Trojan horse to reduce all women’s rights to choose. We know from the States that the way to reduce the practical right to choose whilst theoretically still keeping it legal is to chip slowly away at the edges - parental notification, spousal notification, pressure to allow professionals to opt out of provision but not to have to refer on, reducing time limits, enforcing “counselling” before abortion - and that’s exactly the tactic at play here.

2. That her daughter is pregnant only adds to the drama. I’m sorry for the young woman herself, who as she became pregnant after her mother began the challenge clearly has no right to choose at all, and furious with the mother, who has made her daughter’s sex life open season.