Does Rod Liddle have the right to offend the African-Caribbean community?

Type in Rod Liddle's name into Google news and the first headline that comes up is "Rod Liddle accused of racism". The reason? On Saturday he posted a short, but nonetheless explosive comment on the conviction of two African-Caribbean teenagers for the attempted murder of a pregnant schoolgirl who they believed threatened their music careers. In it, he described the two culprits as 'human filth', no argument there, but then he went on to say this:

"The overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community. Of course, in return, we have rap music, goat curry and a far more vibrant and diverse understanding of cultures which were once alien to us. For which, many thanks."

Those comments prompted outrage from all quarters with Diane Abbott and Bonnie Greer accusing him of twisting the figures and his colleague at the Spectator, Alex Massie, threatening to resign over Liddle's invocation of the "stale prejudice you can find in thousands of boozers across the country, or at any BNP meeting for that matter." However, Liddle was defended by his editor, Fraser Nelson, who said: "The Spectator stands up for the right to offend; our blogs often say things that people find offensive but that's part of our right of free expression."

So, who's right? In short, both are.

Bonnie Greer definitely had a point when she responded to Liddle's blog post by saying: "that the overwhelming majority of paedophiles, murderers, war-mongers and football hooligans are white males", althought she somewhat sullied her higher moral ground by adding: "and all we got in return was beans on toast and Top Gear." What she was getting at though is that if you cherry-pick your stats, it's possible to make them fit pretty much any argument.

Alex Massie was also right to expose what Liddle tried to defend as an attack on gang culture as nothing more than thinly veiled racism. If Liddle's prime target really was culture and not race, he would have gone to greater pains to explain how one transcends the other (for every African-Caribbean wannabe gangster-rapper, there is a white public school kid from Harrow attempting to emulate his wannabe gangster-rapper heroes). Instead, he held a single race solely responsible for the importation and spread of a culture that he claimed bred murderers and rapists. It does not take a great leap of logic to see what he was really trying to say.

So, how can Fraser Nelson also be right then? Because the only way I know I will always be free to write and say what I want is if I know that someone as extreme as Liddle is free to write and say what he wants. The only alternative is censorship, where we allow a government with a political agenda to decide what we can and cannot say, resulting in a bizarre and inconsistent application of the law that sees one man, Rowan Laxton whose crime was to make a racist remark while exercising in his local gym, arrested for inciting religious hatred, just as another, Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, runs for public office.

But be warned, Rod Liddle, for as long you reserve the right to be intolerant of fellow British citizens from the African-Caribbean community (or any community for that matter), I will reserve the right to be intolerant of you - and say so loudly. Just ask Jan Moir. To quote your esteemed colleague, Mr Massie: "This isn't a matter of being 'politically correct', it's just a matter of behaving in a decent fashion".

Is Harriet Harman the enemy of feminism?

Harriet Harman has had a distinguished career as one of this country’s most outspoken female MPs. She is well known across the land for her vigorous campaigns against the sex industry, for which she has my wholehearted support, and her open endorsement of positive discrimination in the workplace, for which she does not. Now she is calling on Angela Merkel and Hilary Clinton to join her in an international coalition to enable women to take a leading role in rebuilding the economy after the recession and “bring about change“. However, the Minister for women and equality, with all the Orwellian overtones her departmental title brings with it (think Animal Farm’s “some are more equal than others“), is in grave danger of undermining feminism in this country through her approach to women’s issues.

First things first; where do I, a man, get off lecturing Harriet Harman, one of this country’s most prominent female public figures, on women’s issues? To start with because I have a mother, a grandmother, aunts, cousins and friends, not to mention a girlfriend to whom I am very much devoted. Women’s issues are their issues which means I care a great deal about them too. Also, many issues singled out as being specific to women such as abortion, childcare, divorce and domestic violence actually affect men as well and as a result they have just as much right to be included in public discussions on such matters. Most importantly though, to determine an individual’s qualifications to talk about any given issue, or in Harman’s case to hold any given office, on the basis of their sex alone fundamentally misses the point.

For as long as feminism as an ideology and a movement has existed, its leading mantra (as like any belief there are of course many different strands) has always been that discrimination is not ok and that women will only be equal to men in both the private and public spheres of life when an individual’s sex becomes irrelvant to determining their place in society. Yet Harriet Harman’s position seems to be that discrimination is ok just as long as you’re discriminating against the right people i.e. men. The Equality Bill she introduced into Parliament this year says as much, formally legalising positive discrimination by granting employers “greater freedom to ‘fast-track’ or select recruits from under-represented groups, as long as they are equally suitable”. How the government would enforce this is beyond me, especially when an applicant’s sex suddenly becomes a legal criterion of their suitability for a role.

Discrimination is an ugly practice no matter who the offender is. Nobody benefits from it. Furthermore, it reinforces the stigma that women are the weaker sex who need protection and should be treated differently and as a result undermines the credibility of those who do feel themselves to be genuine victims of prejudice. Just ask Jordan Wimmer, a marketing executive who is suing her former employer, millionaire financier Mark Lowe, for sexual discrimination. She alleges that her ex boss placed her under impossible strain at work with his crude humour and objectification of women, citing his invitation of a scantily clad Malaysian woman, whom she described as an escort girl, to a formal business meeting. We cannot presume to know anything close to the full story, but consider Ms Wimmer’s claim that she was hired because of Lowe’s infatuation with girls who looked like Charlie’s Angels, suggesting she has no problem with sexual discrimination if it can land her a £577,000 a year job, and that said Malaysian woman turned out to be a qualified banker, and her case swiftly begins to evaporate.

Alternatively, consider the case of Conservative PPC for South West Norfolk, Elizabeth Truss. One of leader David Cameron’s preferred candidates, or ‘A-list’ member, Truss was targeted by members of the Conservative old guard railing against Cameron’s support for all women lists for selecting candidates in the run up to the next general election after she was exposed for having an affair with a Tory MP five years ago. In what can only be described as a shameless act of prejudice, party members lined up to call for her head saying they would not have supported her initial candidacy if they had known about her illict affair. To Cameron’s credit he has supported her through this turbulent time, but how many people will believe that his support stems from his faith in her ability to serve as an MP as opposed to her sex?

Women in this country and round the world still have many hurdles to overcome from patronising press coverage to an indefensible pay gap. However, as I no doubt expect the ever sensible German chancellor will inform the self-aggrandising UK minister for women and equality, the very fact that they hold such positions of power, voted in by men and women alike to resolve the issues that affect us all from unemployment to international terrorism, is a testament to the success of the sexual revolution. They don’t need to now huddle in a room plotting the overthrow of ‘man’-kind: they need to get on with their jobs and show their electorates that they made the right decision.

Is peace with Iran possible?

Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power and the subsequent potential to develop atomic weapons is a problem that just refuses to go away. In spite of President Obama’s attempts to normalise relations between the United States and Iran and the persistent activism of the United Nations and the EU to broker a deal, a viable solution remains far off. As we speak, the International Atomic Energy Agency is pressing the regime for access to inspect its nuclear sites.

Six years ago, then President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were successful in persuading Libya to abandon its nuclear programme, leading to a gradual thaw in relations between the three nations. So, why has striking a similar agreement with Iran proved so impossible? Simply put, Iran boasts far greater power and influence, in what is probably the most volatile region in the world, than Libya ever did. Specifically, the Iranians possess a weapon potentially just as devastating as the nuclear bombs they are accused of developing: oil. More to the point, they have the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf: their territorial waters through which, it is estimated, over 16m barrels of oil are transported every day.

Furthermore, Iran is not your typical adversary in the military sense. Its available arsenal doesn’t just include conventional weapons. Rather, it is their unprecedented influence in post-Saddam Iraq, their domination of the fragile Afghan economy and their support for Hezbollah in Lebanon that, combined with their nuclear programme, pose such a serious threat to the regional interests of the United States and perhaps most notably, Israel.

Much has been written on the potential for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear installations, and while American support for military action appears less likely under the Obama administration, it cannot be ruled out. Economic sanctions are the weapon of choice for now though; both a realistic alternative and more likely to secure wide international support. This has been compounded by regular joint American and Israeli war games in the Gulf, presumably to show the Iranians what they’re capable of.

Yet such sabre-rattling appears fruitless when compared with each country’s record on actual conflict with Iran, indirectly or otherwise. Israel’s war with Lebanon in 2006, largely seen as a dress rehearsal for a potential showdown with the Islamic Republic, as a well as a test-run for Israel’s US-made ‘bunker busting’ weapons, resulted in a humbling withdrawal. Similarly, the US invasion of Iraq was seen by many neo-cons in Washington as an ideal opportunity to topple the Ayatollah by establishing a secular democracy on the Iranians’ doorstep. However, if any country was infiltrated and re-modelled from the inside, it was Iraq. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), that swept the board in the country’s first federal and provincial elections after the invasion, was created by Ayatollah Khomeini himself in 1982.

Nevertheless, the Iranians have little cause for complacency. They are not invincible and there is only so much provocation the United States and Israel will tolerate before they conclude that military action is their only option. Iran’s ‘oil weapon’ may be potentially devastating to the US, but it would seriously hamper its own economy too. International opinion is not on their side either, with even their trusted Russian allies appearing more open to the idea of sanctions following Obama’s rapprochement with the old enemy.

Diplomacy is still an option, but there are many sticking points. According to Ephraim Kam of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, in order for a Libya-style deal to satisfy the West, Iran would have to give up its nuclear programme, end its involvement in terrorism, cease its disruption of the Arab-Israeli peace process and improve human rights in Iran. In turn, the Iranians want guarantees for their security, large-scale technological assistance and greater influence in the region.

The problem is that the United States have refused to put any of the other issues on the table until they secure a concession on the nuclear question, while the Iranians have been understandably reluctant to give away their biggest bargaining chip before any real negotiations begin. The Europeans have attempted to address this by proposing a ‘comprehensive dialogue’ agreement, but without an American commitment to talk, it is worthless.

However, there is another way. A bilateral agreement with Israel to halt all uranium enrichment in return for total nuclear disarmament (surely Iran’s biggest motivating factor for going nuclear in the first place), subject to the supervision of the IAEA could end the standoff and prevent the imminent proliferation of atomic weapons throughout the rest of the Middle East. There was even a fleeting report in the press last week of secret meetings taking place between Israeli and Iranian officials to this end. How accurate those reports are and how viable such a plan would be, however, remains to be seen.

Europe - the great missed opportunity

When the historians come to write the obituary of the outgoing Labour government what will they say was the greatest missed opportunity of their 13 year reign? According to the New Statesman, Tony Blair told his friends, upon leaving office, that the greatest regret of his premiership was abandoning what his one-time mentor Roy Jenkins called the “breaking the mould” options open to him in the wake of new Labour's landslide victory in 1997.

Several of these options still remain open to Labour in its final months under Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown, including: the introduction of proportional representation for the Commons, a fully elected second chamber and a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. However, the single greatest missed opportunity that may never come by again, and by far Blair’s biggest regret, is the failure to overturn decades of British hostility to the EU.

In 2001, Tony Blair appeared to have successfully cemented Britain’s position at the heart of Europe. The Kosovo war had brought with it a mutual recognition by leading EU member states of the need for a single European foreign and defence policy to prevent the horrors of ethnic cleansing on their doorstep from ever happening again. Britain’s entry into the new single currency also seemed highly probable, if not inevitable, while the euroscpetic Conservatives were in disarray and languishing in the polls. So what went wrong?

Blair’s hesitation over the Euro was initially stymied by a lack of support from his then chancellor, Gordon Brown, and a threat to withdraw public support altogether by the Sun newspaper. Nevertheless, he planned to force the issue in a speech to the Trades Union Congress on September 11th 2001. However, his speech was never delivered as two airplanes were flown into the Twin Towers in New York with dramatic ramifications for British foreign policy thereafter.

9/11 similarly affected plans for a single European foreign and defence policy as the invasion of Iraq that followed led to the biggest rift in transatlantic relations since the fall of the Soviet Union as Britain prioritised its alliance with America over its relationship with Europe. However, it was additionally hampered by, amongst other things, a chronic underinvestment in defence by the big EU 3, Britain, Germany and France, and concerns in Washington over a potential threat to the remit of NATO.

However, the election of a multilateralist President in the United States and the onset of the Great Recession have gone a long way to mending relations between Britain and Europe. Indeed, as the world faces up to the grim reality that the biggest challenges of the 21st century, such as climate change, regulating the global economy and tackling the proliferation of nuclear weapons, cannot be combated by any nation state alone, there has never been a more important time for the UK to take a leading role in European integration.

Yet just as the conditions for rapprochement fall into place, a Labour government that for so long took the European Union for granted looks set to be replaced by a Conservative one that wants little or nothing to do with it. As a result, Britain will be consigning itself to isolation at the very moment it cannot afford to stand alone. What’s more, the rest of Europe will not wait forever.

How important is the Prime Minister's health?

The blogosphere is alive with rumour of a new government conspiracy, that Gordon Brown is hiding a serious illness and is no longer fit to govern. Although the queue of people waiting to deride the Prime Minister as unfit to lead the country (most of them within his own party) grow longer by the day, this rumour, it would appear, has legs. What started as a random blog post by journalist John Ward has now escalated into widespread media speculation, drawing in the likes of Paul ‘Guido’ Staines, Matthew Norman of the Independent, Simon Heffer of the Telegraph, and even Andrew Marr.

The rumours started when an absent minded civil servant allegedly disclosed to Ward a long list of food items that the Prime Minister was strictly forbidden from eating on doctor’s orders. Ward ran a check on the list and quickly discovered that doctors commonly forbid their patients from eating such foods whenever they administer a certain type of anti-depressant known as Monoamine Oxide Inhibitors or MAOIs. These are among the strongest anti-depressants available and are so potent that if combined with the forbidden foods, they can be fatal. Ward also suggested that Brown was losing the sight in his right eye (he is already blind in the left).

As a result, Brown of late has found himself bombarded with questions on his health with many speculating –or hoping- that he might resign before the next election due to health reasons. Brown has promptly denied all charges, insisting that he is not depressed and not on any medication and also that the sight in his right eye is as good as ever. While his sight is unlikely to remain a big source of contention as, let’s face it, total blindness is neither an easy ailment to hide, nor a reasonable disqualification for office, media interest in his mental health is unlikely to go away.

Only Gordon Brown’s doctor, and perhaps his family, knows whether he is genuinely suffering from an illness of any sort, mental or physical, and I don’t intend to join the ranks of bloggers and journalists who have decided they won’t let the absence of medical expert opinion stop them from making wild accusations of a government conspiracy to hide the true state of the PM’s health. However, the story has undoubtedly raised the question, and not for the first time in British politics, of whether democratic accountability should extend to the health of our elected representatives, even at the expense of doctor patient confidentiality.

David Owen, who was a neurologist before he became a Labour MP and eventually foreign secretary in the 1970s, recently published an intriguing book, ‘In Sickness and in Power’, in which he catalogued all the most notable cases of world leaders who have covered up their health problems over the last hundred years, from David Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson to Francois Mitterand and Tony Blair. He clearly identified many cases in which a leader’s failure to disclose the true state of their health had seriously affected their ability to govern, often with wide-ranging ramifications for international affairs too. The problem, he further argued, was that the absence of any law formally requiring them to undergo an independent medical assessment during their time in office, meant any decisions to disclose any illnesses were ultimately left down to the discretion of power-hungry politicians alone.

I couldn’t agree more with Owen and, while some may reasonably argue that the popular stigma associated with mental health issues in particular would mean that no politician would ever be fairly judged, I contend that the public interest (including national security) must ultimately outweigh any leader’s right to patient confidentiality. Moreover, I believe that the only way to counter the kind of stigmatisation that led Guido Fawkes to lead with the title ‘Is Brown Bonkers’ for his story, is for the detailed nature of such illnesses to be openly presented to the public for what they really are – treatable medical conditions. More importantly, a Prime Minister with nothing to hide will not hesitate to bring in the best medical professionals for treatment whenever necessary. One with a secret illness, fearful of drawing public attention, would be more likely to pretend nothing was wrong leading to the worst case scenario of their health deteriorating in the middle of a crisis.

Stop and Search - Are the Police too powerful?

Are the Police too powerful? Are the Police racist? Do they abuse their powers? These are the questions that immediately surface whenever the words "stop and search" are uttered, recalling memories of the infamous SUS laws and their application in Brixton prior to the explosion of the 1981 race riots. However, the issue has been re-ignited of late by the rise of Section 44 anti-terror powers which allow police officers to search anyone without the need for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Yet stop and search held no real significance for me until I too was searched by police under Section 44, three years ago.

It was a hot Summer day in July 2006 and I was waiting for a friend of mine to arrive at my local tube station so we could go on together to another friend's house for a barbecue. I planned to stay the night there so had come prepared with my sleeping bag stuffed into a big rucksack on my back. My friend was late, unsurprisingly, but as he was coming in by tube and only needed to cross platforms to begin the second leg of the journey, I went through the ticket barriers and waited for him just behind them in anticipation of what turned out to be his not so imminent arrival.

Suddenly, two burly men, both over 6ft and kitted out entirely in leather (in 30 degree heat), approached me and showed me their police ID. They asked to search me and the contents of my rucksack under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act - I say asked, but it's not like I really had the option of saying no. Next, they asked if there was anything in my bag that could harm them if they opened it, which sounds as ludicrous a question today as it did then. After going through my rucksack, they made me turn around and put my hands up against the wall as they 'comprehensively' frisked me in front of other passing passengers, which now included my friend who had turned up just in time to catch the show. I even distinctly remember a man with a shaved head and several tattoos, dressed like a Hell's Angel, tutting at me disapprovingly as he walked through the ticket barriers. They then filled out a form taking down all my details: white, male, early twenties etc. It was a long list that also included my height, eye colour, description of the clothes I was wearing along with my home address. Finally, they gave me a copy of the form and headed off, sweating profusely in their Knightrider-esque attire.

Most of my friends that day reacted with horror when I told them this story. I chose to take a different perspective, however, mainly because I was technically loitering just behind the ticket barriers for about half an hour with a big rucksack on my back, almost exactly a year after a major terrorist attack was carried out on London Underground by guys wearing big rucksacks on their backs. More importantly though, I actually felt heartened that the police had stopped me because they were genuinely suspicious I might be a member of a secret Hampstead enclave of Al Qaeda, as opposed to singling me out for the colour of my skin or the length of my beard (which was short, albeit a tad unkept). This surely was progress since the days of the SUS laws with plain clothed officers on every street corner in some parts of London, regularly searching vast swathes of the black community without warning and often without reason.

Alas, an independent review of terrorism legislation in the UK, carried out by Lord Carlile QC in June of this year, found that the police have been carrying out "self-evidently unmerited searches" on thousands of people simply to give "racial balance" to their own stop and search statistics. In other words, it was far more likely that the reason I was subjected to an embarrassing search in broad daylight was so the police could report they were at least now searching as many whites as ethnic minorities. Furthermore, according to Home Office figures, the number of Section 44 searches carried out by Police in 2007/08 increased to 124,687 from 41,924 the year before, with less than 1% resulting in an arrest. Almost 9 out of 10 of those searches were carried out in London, with the entire capital designated a blanket Section 44 zone by the Metropolitan Police.

Perhaps they haven't made that much progress after all.

Why drugs should stay illegal

More articles like this can be found at www.the-vibe.co.uk

I seem to be falling into the habit of writing whole articles purely in response to an article someone else wrote that I happened to find interesting. This time, it was the recent article “should we decriminalise drugs” that got me interested. The first point that is important to make is the de-criminalisation of drugs is often confused with legalisation. Under de-criminalisation, the law would not change, it would simply no longer be enforced, with the aim of reducing the burden on the criminal justice system by not forcing the police to arrest every guy they catch with a spliff. Only legalisation would lead to the wholesale reforms that advocates say would create a new regulated market, taking power away from drug dealers and curing the social ills normally associated with the use of narcotic substances.

So, why don’t we legalise drugs? I think one point that has been consistently missed in this debate is that drug habits cause crime because drugs cost money – not because they are illegal. Their addictive properties result in what economists call ‘inelastic’ demand. In other words people will pay through the nose to get hold of them regardless of how much money they actually have available to spend on them. Taking drugs out of the hands of gangsters working out of a crack den and placing them with the likes of Glaxo Smith Kline, therefore, would have next to no effect on the root cause of all their associated social problems, their price. This is because, legal or not, the laws of free market economics still apply.

This leads us on to the issue of supply. Most of the hard drugs feeding users’ habits over here come from somehwhere else; Cocaine from South America, for example, and Heroin from Afghanistan. The cultivation of poppy and coca bush fields is a violent business. Many innocent people are drawn into the industry as their only means of escaping poverty, fast becoming dependent on international drug trafficking gangs and paramilitary groups for their livelihoods. Drug farming also has a lot of nasty side effects including massive damage to the envirnoment, as acres of forests are demolished to make way for new farms, and the displacement of other farmers trying to make a living out of useful products…like food. Of course, the laws of economics apply just as readily here and as legalisation would have no effect on demand, it would do nothing to halt the supply of drugs, and all the devastating consequences that come with it, either.

So, what about de-criminalisation? The case of Portugal who, de-criminalised drugs in 2001, is interesting, but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Much has been made of a recent Cato Institute study which sung the praises of the Portuguese government’s approach to drugs. Yet, as an outspoken libertarian think tank and proponent of liberalising drugs laws, their impartiality is questionable. Indeed, several critiques of the study have led to accusations that the institute ‘cherry picked’ the start and end years of the various age groups at the centre of their analysis in order to get more favourable results.

However, it is impossible to dismiss all their findings, especially those that clearly indicate a drop in drug related deaths and an increase in the number of people seeking treatment, since the introduction of the laws. In this respect, governments such as our own who go to the other extreme, throwing anyone with a drug problem in jail should take note; addicts need treatment, not jail time. Nevertheless, it is important that drugs remain illegal because the only way to reverse their ruinous effects on society is to take users off the streets until drugs are no longer a viable commercial product, depriving the dealers of their profits. This can only happen by making treatment compulsory under pain of prosecution. In the long term though, we will need more than simple domestic reforms to deal with the supply of drugs, but tackling demand is a good start.

The case against assisted suicide

The recent success of MS sufferer Debbie Purdy in persuading the country’s most senior judges to back her call for a clarification of the law regarding assisted suicide has prompted a new national debate on the issue. The pro-euthanasia lobby, buoyed by the news that approximately 75% of the population now also support the full legalisation of assisted suicide, are more confident now than ever of achieving this, their ultimate goal. So, is it time for Parliament to reverse its long held position?

If I were an MP, I would need to be convinced of three things to vote for a bill to legalise assisted suicide: 1) that there was a clear need for a change in the law; 2) that there was evidence of clear consent free from external pressure (unscrupulous families and financial difficulties) and unaffected by any internal disorders (clinical depression); 3) that the right to die is as important as the right to life.

1) Does the law need to be changed?

It certainly needs to be clarified as the Law Lords’ ruling pointed out. At present, although no charges for assisting suicide by accompanying a patient to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland have been brought against anyone, the consequences of doing so remained clouded in uncertainty. This is because the government is all too aware of the rising public support for assisted suicide and does not want the national debate that would surely result from an arrest. Were the polls to change, however, they may be more inclined to throw the book at ‘offenders’. In any case, not pressing charges amounts to a tacit endorsement of assisted suicide, so the government needs to explain its position once and for all.

2) Can clear consent to die ever really be provided?

Consent is a fluid concept. The idea that you can write into law a means of gaging the difference between someone who is 100% certain that they are ready to die and that they have not been pressured into the situation by unscrupulous relatives, their own inability to afford the standard of care they require, or by a serious bout of depression – an expected side effect of being terminally ill – is clearly fallacious. For example, in the U.S state of Oregon, often cited as a model for an assisted suicide law in the UK, last year almost a third of those who decided to end their lives prematurely cited the pressure of being a burden on their families as the main reason for doing so.

3) Is the right to die as important as the right to life?

A 2007 review of Euthanasia in the Netherlands, carried out by the Dutch government, revealed that out of the 3500 people who died through assisted suicide, 900 died by ‘involuntary’ euthanasia. The majority of these patients were either comatose, unable to communicate or suffering from dementia. The most common reasons for ending these patients’ lives given by the physicians responsible included: ‘no hope of recovery’, ‘the family couldn’t take it any more’ and ‘these patients have as much right to die as any other’. Furthermore, the extension of assisted suicide in Holland to include people with severe depression raises the question of how you stop the legalisation of assisted suicide for terminal patients from gradually expanding into assisted suicide on demand for anyone who simply feels they are no longer in control of their life. The answer is you can’t. The abortion laws in this country and the gradual erosion of every safeguard put in place to prevent it being used as a form of contraception as was feared by David Steel, the Liberal politician primarily responsible for its legalisation in 1967, demonstrate this clearly.

In summary, there are few causes more noble than those that aim to minimise or prevent the suffering of others. However, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions which is why the BMA continually refuses to support the calls for legalisation of assisted suicide. It is therefore imperative that Parliament resist these pressures too. Doctors already exercise considerable discretion in helping terminal patients to pass away peacefully and painlessly, while directing the bulk of their efforts to providing the high standard of palliative care our terminal patients enjoy today. One wonders how long the private and public investment that maintains that system would last if death became an alternative form of ‘treatment’ and how many terminal patients, desperate to live out what few years they had left in comfort, would suffer as a result.

Why we should return to the Moon

It is 40 years since Neil Armstrong took his giant leap for mankind after landing on the Moon on the 20th July 1969. Unfortunately, mankind has stood rather still since then as manned exploration of the unknown has significantly dwindled. It is not hard to see why; the capitulation of the Soviet Union in the race to the Moon eliminated the biggest incentive for going there, competition for national prestige. On top of that, spending cuts and high profile disasters such as the tragic loss of the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, and their respective crews, also took their toll, while NASA’s failure to impress anyone with repeated moon landings and the International Space Station led to a collapse of public support for space exploration altogether.

The last few years, however, have seen the rebirth of the ‘space race’ as China and India, determined to establish themselves as the world’s newest great powers, have aggressively pursued their own space programmes. It was, after all Lyndon Johnson who said, when the Apollo programme was still in its infancy, that “first in space means first in everything”. Indeed, both nations are acutely aware that they will be playing catch-up in everything until they match and then exceed all of America’s achievements in space. As a result, they are busily planning manned missions to the Moon, resurrecting the extra-terrestrial ambitions of the United States, and indeed the Russian Federation, for the first time in 40 years.

Is it worth all the effort though? Lunar-sceptic Gerard DeGroot argued earlier this year that all space travel is a waste of money in his book Dark Side of the Moon, claiming “If the Chinese want that worthless rock, so be it.” Yet the political implications of winning the space race are well documented and indeed quite daunting. The credibility of a nation’s political system has long been tied to its ability to project its power on the global stage and beyond. It was this obsession with international prestige that drove the space race during the Cold War and it is no less relevant now. The symbolism of China, an autocratic Communist regime, overtaking the West in space would not be lost on the public. Keeping pace with them, therefore, is not just essential to staying first in space, but also to defending the very values upon which liberal democracy itself relies.

However, if we are to justify the expense of travelling to the Moon again, we need to do more than just land on it. Under the Bush administration, NASA drew up plans to establish a base on the Moon by the mid 2020s, followed by a manned mission to Mars shortly after. How likely this remains under President Obama, whose attitude towards space travel appears distinctly cooler than that of his predecessor, is unclear. Nevertheless, if the exploration of outer space is to have any role in the future of humanity, a base – and eventually a human colony – on the Moon will prove essential.

Sending a man, or woman, to Mars and possibly even the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would require the ability to launch and maintain interstellar vessels on a regular basis. The weak gravity of the Moon and the absence of any weather to delay or derail such missions make it an ideal launch and landing pad. Also, the Moon’s resources are ripe for exploitation, presenting the potential for the development of alternative energy sources that could prove vital in man’s battle against climate change right here on Earth. More importantly, as long as the world’s leading nations are investing their time, effort and money in the colonisation of the Moon and beyond, they’re not investing them in state of the art weapons to be used against each other.

There are many valid arguments against expanding the space programme to be sure, the cost and the myriad of alternative problems that the money could be used to resolve chief amongst them. However, such issues should not dissuade us from reaching for the stars; after all, the decade of the Apollo programme was also the decade of the Great Society. Should sceptics remain unconvinced, they would be wise to recall the words of President John F Kennedy in defence of his ambitious plan to land a man on the Moon: “Why climb the highest mountain? Why, thirty five years ago, fly over the Atlantic? We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organise and measure the best of our energies and skills.”

Genetic testing and the corruption of science

Pre-implantation genetic testing or screening IVF embryos for signs of crippling disabilities, to use its sexier title, has been back in the papers again over the last few weeks. In little more than a year, the BBC tells us, a universal gene test, karyomapping, which can detect almost any inherited disease in a newly formed embryo, will go on sale to the masses for a paltry £2,500. Of course that is still dependent on the Bridge Centre Clinic, the developers of the technique, being granted a license to practice by the Human Fertilisation and Embryonic Authority, but then the public pressure generated from ‘good news’ stories like this should help to speed the process along nicely.

Naturally, the press has responded to the news with their trademark ‘slippery slope’ journalism bringing out all their greatest hits from previous debates including: designer babies, the annihilation of the disabled community etc. While genetic testing does carry very serious ethical implications, it always bothers me how we seem unable to debate it without resorting to such hysterics. However, what really bothers me is that nobody seems to have paid much attention to the most important question – does it even work?

The original aim of the technology, when it was first developed back in the 1980s by UK Professor Alan Handyside, was to improve the success rate of IVF by screening the chromosome counts of each newly created embryo before implanting it into the mother to be. An abnormal number of chromosomes automatically results in miscarriage –with the exception of Down’s Syndrome- so by ensuring only embryos with the right number of chromosomes were implanted, doctors hoped, the number of IVF babies successfully carried to term would dramatically increase.

However, a 2004 feature on the technique by New Scientist magazine revealed several problems. First, clinics in the U.S offering genetic tests to IVF patients did not have to report their findings to the government, so there was no impartial oversight of their effectiveness. Second, barely any clinical trials of the technology had been conducted, the most comprehensive one involving just 55 people, nowhere near enough to produce reliable results. Third, and most important, according to Professor Handyside himself, the accuracy of the tests was so questionable that as many as 1 in 10 of embryos discarded as ‘defective’ could actually have developed into healthy newborn babies. What’s more there was no evidence that the test helped more women to conceive using IVF than before.

What was wrong with the tests – aside from the absence of peer review and government oversight? Each screening, the results of which would determine whether to proceed with the IVF treatment in which countless parents had invested their savings, was carried out on just a single embryonic cell. This was problematic due to the fact that it is entirely possible for the extracted cell to possess abnormal numbers of chromosomes, or traces of any number of disabilities for that matter, while the embryo itself remains completely normal. Similarly, the reverse proved equally possible with at least one reported case of a baby being born with Down’s Syndrome after a genetic test failed to detect any problems with the original embryo.

So, what’s changed since then? The range of conditions detected by karyomapping has increased exponentially and the time taken to perform it substantially reduced. As a result, the number of IVF patients turning to genetic testing, and the number of embryos aborted, is likely to sky-rocket too. However the technique itself of testing a single cell for all these conditions remains exactly the same. As for independent oversight, the PHG Foundation, devoted to exploring the application of scientific research to healthcare complained last October that: “there have been no scientific publications describing the details of the new methodology, and no clear explanation of how exactly multiple genetic traits are identified.” To date, no clinical trials have been completed either. Preliminary tests boast a success rate of 100%, but that becomes less impressive upon realising they were carried out on just five embryos.

So, what does Professor Handyside have to say about the technique now? In an interview with the Times on July 1st, he was surprisingly on message, saying: “This is a truly universal test for genetic defects in embryos.” Is this because sometime after that previous interview in 2004, he had an epiphany and a sudden change of heart? Or could it be that as the Director of the Bridge Centre Clinic responsible for pioneering this universal test, he now stands to cash in on the fears and desperation of the IVF patients unable to conceive naturally? But then why let good science stand in the way of such a prime business opportunity?

Iran election: don't believe everything you read

The Iranian Presidential election, judging by the reaction of the mainstream media across America and Europe, appears to be an open and shut case with the victory of incumbent President Ahmadinejad being widely denounced as a fraud. I have no intention of wading into that debate as only time will tell what really happened in Iran. However, the quality of western reporting on the election has undoubtedly been a major cause for concern.

In America, the New York Times declared the result a massive shock after “unofficial” polls had given Ahmadinejad’s closest rival Mir-Hossein Moussavi a clear lead. In the UK, the Financial Times railed that the “election bears all the hallmarks of a stolen vote” with Germany’s Die Welt adding that: "it seems their real leaders decided that 95 percent control was not enough – they wanted it all".

This has placed western leaders, eager to avoid destroying tentative hopes of detente with Iran, under enormous pressure to condemn the very regime with whom they are seeking to build a relationship. U.S President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, wary of their countries’ past involvement in Iran, have wisely refrained from doing so. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, have openly cast doubt on the legitimacy of the result.

To be sure, accurate facts and figures in a world of 24 hour news and instant reaction are often hard to come by even at the best of times. Nevertheless, journalists have to write something and with little time to check their sources, they often resort to hearsay.

The unofficial polls cited by the New York Times and various other publications are a good example of this. Iran has no system for conducting independent polls of its people and the most reliable western poll was carried out three weeks before the election. As a result, the press, eager to be seen as the most authoritative source of public information, took to reporting speculation as news.

The effect of this was to create a narrative, widely accepted by many as fact, that a victory for Moussavi, was a near certainty. So, when the election was called for President Ahmadinejad, the media leapt on opposition claims of widespread fraud as this appeared to fit the story best.

That one reliable poll, however, carried out by American think tank ‘Terror Free Tomorrow’ who published their findings and methodology in full, gave President Ahmadinejad a clear lead of over 2:1. While almost a third of those surveyed had not yet decided who to vote for, an extrapolation of the likely result based on their answers to the remainder of the survey, according to foreign policy blog ‘Just Foreign Policy’, forecast Ahmadinejad winning at least 57% of the popular vote.

The coverage of the protests themselves, however, represents perhaps the most serious manipulation of information by the media. According to former CIA operative and Middle East expert, Robert Baer, the protests have so far been confined to northern Tehran where Mr Moussavi’s most avid supporters reside. Yet they have been depicted by the press as the tipping point of a popular revolution.

Baer claims that “for too many years now, the Western media have looked at Iran through the narrow prism of Iran's liberal middle class — an intelligentsia that is addicted to the Internet and American music and is more ready to talk to the Western press...” Undoubtedly, the Iranian regime has not helped itself though by restricting the movements of journalists, thereby increasing their dependence on the highly one-sided versions of events presented by Tehran’s ‘twitterers’. Moreover, its heavy handed response towards protesters has made it look more like an angry dictatorship than anything close to a democracy.

At the time of writing, Barack Obama has stepped up his criticisms of the Iranian regime following the tragic death of 26 year old student, Neda Soltani. The media, now more than ever have a responsibility to resist the urge to make a bad situation even worse just for the chance to score a prize scoop. The real danger, however, is that instead their willingness to pass off rumours and guesswork as news may end up reaffirming Iranian suspicions of western meddling and fuelling their determination to develop their own nuclear deterrent in response.

Euro-sceptics pose a bigger threat to Britain than BNP

Written for the-vibe.co.uk

Last Sunday, a day after the free world celebrated the 65th anniversary of the defeat of Fascism, the British National Party won its first seats in the European Parliament. While the thought of Nick Griffin representing Britain in Brussels is admittedly horrifying, I found the Queen’s absence from the D-Day celebrations the day before far more disconcerting.

I take comfort in knowing that actually winning two seats in the European Parliament is just about the worst thing that could have happened to the BNP. Denied the freedom of being the in vogue black sheep of British politics (pardon the irony) and constrained by the responsibilities of office and the realities of accountability, their base incompetence and sheer racism will undoubtedly prove their undoing.

Britain’s remaining euro-sceptics, on the other hand, have a simple message. Led by the Conservative party, they say that close ties with the European Union will erode Britain’s sovereignty and undermine the national interest. As a result they have shunned the European People’s Party (EPP), the parliamentary grouping in which most centre-right MEPs sit, on the grounds that it is not euro-sceptic enough.

It is ultimately their overwhelming success in the European elections that will prove far more damaging to Britain’s standing in the world and harder to undo. Their approach to Europe threatens to widen the divide that underlined French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s snub of the Queen last weekend. He saw the D-Day celebrations as a Franco-American occasion. Gordon Brown was only there because he begged for an invitation and Prince Charles had to rely on American diplomacy for his ticket.

This unfortunate episode was symptomatic of a recent shift in global power that has seen France, led by its most pro-American President in years, become the new ‘special friend’ of the United States leaving the United Kingdom sidelined and irrelevant. Indeed, during Barack Obama’s first trip to Europe as President, he singled out as priorities of the transatlantic relationship, European integration and rapprochement with France, whom he hailed as America’s “oldest ally, our first ally”.

The reason for this shift is simple. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught America that there are limits to what they can do alone. So, they have sought to repair their relations with Europe. However, as the EU lacks a single foreign policy, a single partner who can maximise American influence in Europe is needed. This was traditionally a role played by the UK, but the Iraq war and the rise of euro-scepticism have since allowed France to take over.

It is true that many European countries, including France and Germany, leaned to the right in last week’s elections, albeit for mostly domestic reasons. However, there is no question over their commitment to the European project of ever-closer integration. While the policy of the UK Conservatives towards Europe though is predictably hazy, their intentions have been made clear by leader David Cameron’s appeasement of the Euro-sceptic wing of his party.

Along with withdrawing his party from the EPP and calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Cameron recently even described the EU as “completely unaccountable to the people of Britain.” During that same speech he also blamed the electorate’s disillusionment with politics on the EU and promised to negotiate the return of powers to Britain.

One can only hope that such promises were designed merely to outmanouver UKIP at the European elections and that in the event of a Conservative victory at the next general election, now a near certainty, he will take a more sensible approach advancing the national interest.

Why the Church was wrong to call for a boycott of the BNP

The latest poll for the European elections has put the Conservatives at the top with over 29% and the British National Party (BNP) at the bottom with just 5%. Yet following a recent call from the Archbishops Sentamu and Williams of York and Canterbury respectively to boycott the BNP, you’d think they were up there with the Conservatives. Consequently, much has been said of whether the nationalists are actually a threat to our democracy, but very little about what kind of threat is posed by the Church telling people who to vote for two weeks before an election.

It is one thing for a political organisation to take sides in an election, but as the officially recognised religion of the United Kingdom, the position of the Anglican Church is particularly tenuous. After all, its Archbishops are handpicked by the government, its Bishops sit in Parliament and, most importantly, the Head of the Church is also the Head of State, the Queen.

In the nineteenth century its power was so immense that anyone who refused to swear an oath to the faith itself was barred from holding any public office. In 1926, they attempted to intervene in the coal miners' strike, prompting then Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to ask how they would like it if he referred the revision of the Athanasian Creed to the trade unions. Even as recently as two years ago, they attempted to de-rail the Equality Act, outlawing the discrimination and harassment of homosexuals.

If the Church continues to undermine the sovereignty of the people by taking sides in political debates and challenging laws drawn up by their elected representatives, they will risk dividing the loyalties of their own followers, whose numbers are already dwindling. In the best case scenario, they will render themselves irrelevant and undo the funding and support for all their charitable works from which society derives a great benefit. In the worst case scenario, they will trigger a constitutional crisis normally only the stuff of die-hard republicans’ dreams.

Perhaps the single most important reason not to boycott the BNP, however, is that it doesn’t work, as Labour minister Margaret Hodge would surely testify. In 2006, she publicly declared that 8 out of 10 white voters in Barking might support BNP council candidates, after which 11 of them were duly elected. Rather, the way you beat the BNP is not by raising their public profile through needless scaremongering, but by giving the electorate a good reason to vote for somebody else instead.

The Cyprus problem: Why British property owners should give up their villas

If you have managed to tear yourself away from MPs expenses in the last few weeks, you may have read about British couple David and Linda Orams. In 2004, a Cypriot refugee expelled from northern Cyprus decades ago tried to come back only to find the Orams had built their dream villa over his family home. Last month, the European Court of Justice gave them an ultimatum: return the land or risk losing their home in the UK instead.

Over the last five years they have spent almost £1m fighting to keep a villa that cost £170,000 to build and have even enlisted the support of Cherie Blair on the way. The press have accused the Cypriot government of exploiting an innocent couple for political gain and Sarah Ludford, MEP for London has condemned the ruling for jeopardising the entire peace process. But are they right?

First, a little background: Cyprus as a legal entity is a single country known as the Republic of Cyprus and is a member of the EU and the UN. In reality, though the government only has sovereignty over the southern half of the island. Northern Cyprus is run by a de-facto administration that declared its independence after Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, forcing an estimated 200,000 Greek Cypriots to flee from their homes. However, to this day, it is recognised only by Turkey and the sale of properties seized from Greek Cypriots is considered illegal under international law.

As a result, when Meletis Apostolides, a Greek Cypriot refugee, discovered that his family home had been sold off to the Orams, he sued. After hearing his case, the Supreme Court in the Republic of Cyprus ordered the couple to demolish their villa, return the land and pay compensation. However, as the ruling could not be enforced in the north, he invoked an EU law that allows a judgement made in one member state to be enforced in any other. So, Apostolides sued the Orams in the UK and his case was eventually referred to the ECJ, culminating in last month’s ruling.

So, why the condemnation? The main argument is that the division of Cyprus is a political problem in need of a political solution, one that the Greek Cypriots squandered by rejecting the 2004 UN re-unification plan and by refusing to sign up to the North Cyprus Property Commission. To now seek retribution through the courts is disingenuous at best.

The problem with this argument is that it rests on one crucial misconception: that Cyprus is a divided island whose two constituent parts can’t resolve their differences. This is not the case. As the UN and EU have consistently noted, Cyprus is a single country, half of which has been under occupation since the Turkish invasion in 1974. While it is true that the invasion was prompted by a Greek inspired coup d’etat, that coup failed after just seven days. Yet 35 years on, the Turkish occupation remains.

Skipping forward to 2004 and the UN ‘reunification’ plan; two of its core tenets were that Turkey would maintain an indefinite military presence in Cyprus and that most Greek Cypriot properties would not be handed back. So, unsurprisingly the plan was supported by the Turkish Cypriot community and rejected by the Greek Cypriots, to whom the plan signified the mere formalisation of their dispossession.

As for the North Cyprus Property Commission, here is what an advice website for people looking at property in northern Cyprus said about it: “Under the current system, any compensation will be limited and capped, esdeger or ‘exchange’ land [land seized after the invasion] is immune from restitution (i.e., it cannot be given back)... and what’s more, the TRNC Immovable Property Commission has no Greek Cypriot control or membership... This means it is now safer than ever to buy property in North Cyprus.” So, a great deal for a potential buyer, like the Orams, but not so much for the original owners of the land it was meant to help.

Those people need a way to exercise their rights and if this is not a job for a court of law, then I don’t know what is. Furthermore, the same Cypriot court that ordered the Orams to demolish their villa has also forced Greek Cypriots to allow their Turkish counter-parts to reclaim their old homes in the South.

The harsh reality of the situation is that neither side has any incentive to embrace a political solution right now. Anyone who expects this to change spontaneously will end up waiting for a very long time while the ordinary citizens caught up in the middle do all the suffering. If you don’t believe me, just ask the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Glenda Jackson lets the cat out of the bag in public debate

Last night saw the parliamentary candidates of the newly formed Hampstead and Kilburn constituency battle it out in their first public debate. But what did we hear?

We heard Glenda Jackson admit that New Labour only courted the City to win an election and Chris Philp demand that any MP found to be breaching Parliamentary rules on expenses be expelled by their party. Ed Fordham’s speeches suggested a more appropriate slogan for his campaign would be ‘vote Fordham, get Cable’ and Magnus Nielsen of UKIP’s strategy was to blame everything from the Great Plague to the sinking of the Titanic on the European Union.

So, to start with Labour’s Glenda Jackson. She was clear and confident and even managed to use attacks on Labour’s economic record as an opportunity to outline how her party’s policies would help people in need now. However, when taken to task by a member of the audience about New Labour’s relationship with the banks that plunged the country into today’s recession, she replied “of course we cosied up to the City, we wanted to win an election”. In other words, ‘we may have turned a blind eye to corrupt business practices, wasteful lending and the eradication of most of this country’s wealth with knighthoods, peerages and government jobs for the worst offenders, but it was all worth it because we won.’ It went downhill from there as she was forced to attack her own party for fostering greed in society and voting against the proposed reform of the Parliamentary expenses system. She then went on to champion the creation of the Healthcare Commission, which recently exposed the tragic case of Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, even though the government long ago decided to abolish it by 31st March.

As for the opposition, Chris Philp of the Conservative party would have been more impressive had he not been reading from his notes every time he stood up to speak. He seemed incredibly nervous, but nevertheless managed to deliver all his attacks on Labour which sounded eerily like something you might expect to read in a Conservative party press release. All of David Cameron’s greatest hits were in there: “Gordon Brown is to blame for the recession...we would scrap ID cards and use the money to drive down public debt...Labour ministers are corrupt”. Then he said something which ‘Dave’ may not have been all too happy about. While desperately trying to feign an air righteous indignation, he insisted that if he had things his way any Member of Parliament found guilty of fiddling their expenses would automatically be ejected from their political party. Does this mean we can look forward to the expulsion of Derek Conway and Caroline Spelman from the Tory party if Mr Philp gets elected?

Ed Fordham, the Liberal Democrat’s candidate, stood his ground well, effectively laying down the gauntlet to the Conservatives and Labour who would like people to think that there are only two parties in this election. However, he could have used somebody pointing out he had three opponents last night and not just Chris Philp. That said he was at his best when talking about the NHS and his biggest attack of the night was on the lack of accountability of foundation trusts which he angrily denounced as a sham. However, when taking on his opponents over the economy, he relied a touch too heavily on his reverence for the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable (not that it was at all misplaced) when the audience was literally crying out for clear examples of how he would do things better.

In the event the debate ever got too serious – and there were some heated moments – Magnus Nielsen of UKIP was on hand to provide some light entertainment. His solution to the recession was to stop regulating banks all together and leave it to the shareholders to sort out the recession in accordance with the principles of freedom and democracy (because they’ve done such a bang up job already no doubt). I tried to ask him what the government should do when shareholders start exercising their democratic right to sell, sell, sell as share prices continue to tumble, but alas the Chairman never got around to calling on me. Indeed it seemed there was only one thing he wanted the government to do: withdraw from the European Union. However, the next steps after that were slightly sketchier. Perhaps they are outlined in the book he was very unsubtly trying to plug throughout the debate. Any chance the author was a one Magnus Nielsen? That said, he was still eloquent, personable and oddly likeable, even though I am about as likely to vote for him as I am to score the winning goal in this year’s FA Cup final.

So, an eventful night all in all, but no clear winner. However, the candidates still have plenty of time to capture the affections of the voters before the next election, but possibly not the guy who stormed out halfway through shouting “you’re all f***ing boring”.

Lib Dem councillor in Camden resigns over mental health problems

Camden is facing yet another by-election following the resignation of Belsize councillor Chris Basson. The Lib Dem member, elected in 2006, announced his decision in a frank statement to the Ham and High newspaper after being made aware of an investigation into his elements of his private life by the paper.

I have no idea what the issues relating to Mr Basson's private life were and, as long as they relate only to his private life, see no reason why I or anyone else should know. I am particularly sympathetic as Mr Basson suffers from bi-polar disorder, otherwise known as manic depression and, according to his statement in the Ham &High, had been hospitalised several times following a series of nervous breakdowns over the last 3 years.

It is unclear whether it was the investigation or the councillor's persistent mental health problems that led him to conclude that he could not longer carry on in his position. I agree that serving as an elected representative while suffering from an illness serious enough to warrant frequent hospitilisation is untenable. However, if it transpires that the stress caused by Ham & High's investigation into his private life was the straw that broke the camel's back, then they will have far more to answer for than Mr Basson.

The only question that remains is whether or not councillor Basson, having been diagnosed way back in 1996, should have told his constituents about his illness when running for election 10 years later. I believe that a politician's private life only stops being private when it begins to clearly and directly affect their performance or conduct as a public official. I very much doubt that Mr Basson would have run for election if he even had an inkling that his illness would force him to resign just three years in. So, if the sufferer himself had no idea what effect his condition would have on his performance as councillor, how could his constituents have been reasonably expected to make such a judgement?

I think the councillor has done the right thing by his constituents as while it would have far more convenient for each of the rival political parties if he simply announced that he would not stand again next year, he decided that if his constituents were to be effectively represented in the town hall, he would need to be replaced now. I just hope that the residents of Belsize remember that when they go to the polls. I also hope they remember that the policies and ideals that earned councillor Basson their vote in the first place will only again be found in the Liberal Democrat candidate in the impending by-election.

Street lights petition success

I am delighted to announce that the petition to improve street lighting on Goldhurst Terrace and Aberdare Gardens has been successful and that we will have new and improved lights by May this year.

The council's community safety team responded recently after viewing the petition at a recent Safer Neighbourhoods meeting and emailed me to confirm the decision.

The petition will still be formally submitted at the next full council meeting in March in order to secure a public confirmation and to address several outstanding issues that have not yet been addressed.

May I just say a heart-felt thank you to all those who supported the petition and made it possible including local residents' association CRASH and the Hampstead and Kilburn Liberal Democrats in particular.

My biggest thanks though go out to all the residents who took the time to talk to me on their doorsteps and sign the petition. My faith in community activism has very much been reinforced by their crucial support.

It is only a shame that the petition could not gain support from both major parties in Camden with the local Conservative councillors refusing to add their support to the petition which they deemed an "inefficient" use of their resources.

Thank you all.

What Turkish PM really meant at Davos

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been hailed as a hero in his home country after he exploded at Shimon Peres during the recent World Economic Forum at Davos over the number of Palestinian casualties following the recent Israeli incursion into Gaza. Before storming off stage in protest at not being given enough time to talk by the moderator, he said to the Israeli President: "When it comes to killing - you know killing very well. I know how you hit, kill children on the beaches."

While many people across the world naturally disagree over whether the Israeli offensive was justified or not, what I find hardest to believe is that Erdogan in any way shape or form meant what he said. Even more surprisingly perhaps though is that Shimon Peres later appeared to forgive the Turkish PM for his very public onslaught, insisting that relations between Turkey and Israel had not been affected, despite never even receiving an apology.

Why do I find it so difficult to believe Erdogan meant what he said? Predominantly because his outburst ran contrary to the role Turkey seems to be carving for itself as the neutral moderator of all Middle East conflicts, but also because he has not one leg to stand on when it comes to illegal occupations and the killing of innocent civillians.

How can Prime Minister Erdogan come out with such a tirade against Israel and then invite the leader of Sudan round for tea while he is being investigated by the UN for genocide in Darfur? How can he castigate President Peres for his country's reliance on the use of force while launching incursions into Iraq to take out Kurdish separatists? And how can he condemn the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and simulataneously defend his own country's illegal occupation of Cyprus - the closest international parallel there is to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

The answer is that far from being a loose cannon, Mr Erdogan is in fact a masterful strategist, calculating his tone, his target and his timing perfectly. In short, by launching into a full blown attack on Shimon Peres, he managed to take advantage of the crisis in Gaza to align his country's strategic priorities with those of his electorate.

Desperate to confer further public legitimacy on his premiership, and see off the secular elements of the Turkish political and military establishment who fear and suspect the Islamic credentials of him and his party, Erdogan knows how important the upcoming local elections are. A poll taken of Turkish public opinion for a global survey in July last year on Israeli-Palestinian relations showed Turkey to be one of only three countries, out of the 18 surveyed across the West and the Middle East, who heavily favoured the Palestinians. Once the invasion of Gaza began to dominate the headlines, he doubtless saw an opportunity to score big points with the voters.

Taking a closer look at Turkey's relationship with its neighbours, it also became clear that Erdogan had nothing to lose in taking a swipe at Israel, once its stalwart ally against the surrounding Arab countries, hence President Peres's subsequent insistence that there were no hard feelings between the two countries. Since Iran, with its nuclear weapons programme, re-emerged as the biggest threat in the Middle East, Turkey has exploited its cordial relationship with both Iran and the United States to establish itself as the peacemaker of the region upon whom eveyone, including Israel, is now pinning their hopes on peacefully resolving the brewing cold war with Iran.

Turkey has made itself invaluable to the United States and Iran, desperate to avoid a war, invaluable to its Arab neighbours desperate to avoid the regional instability that another war in the Middle East would cause, and also invaluable to Israel who are vulnerable to Iranian funded rocket and terrorist attacks, yet powerless (in spite of their posturing) to do anything about it. Thus Erdogan has been freed to open his arms to the Palestinians as so many of his people demand, even offering Hamas a state reception following their election victory in 2006.

In other words, that's what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan really meant at Davos.

A layman's perspective on the economic crisis

Following the spew of recent recovery plans presented by the Conservatives and Labour, there are just a couple of things that strike me, as a layman whose 'expertise' are limited to a B in AS level economics several years ago, as slightly ill-conceived. Indeed, a cynical individual might even think each party's plans had more to do with winning the next election than solving the current economic crisis.

It seems to me that any viable recovery plan must address the following two issues: How to get banks lending and people spending without indulging the wreckless behaviour that got us into this mess in the first place; and how to minimise the number of jobs and houses lost in the meantime.

To start with the Conservatives, they want to protect banks who have lost billions of pounds over the last year through their dodgy dealings by giving them £50bn more through an unconditional taxpayer funded national loan guarantee scheme. Then, when they inevitably bankrupt themselves again, they want to let them and all the businesses and jobs they will take with them go to the wall. Furthermore, they want to do this in spite of the fact that the government tried almost exactly the same thing last year by offering banks the oppportunity to swap their debts for £50bn worth of government bonds. It didn't work then, why should it work now?

At the same time, they want to scrap all taxes on savings so that savers, like me, aren't punished by the rest of the nation's profligacy, and they want to pay for it by curtailing public spending which could well be essential to creating new jobs. Question: what am I meant to save if I'm unemployed? Also, do the Conservatives really think the reason that more people don't save their money and more savers don't spend theirs is because of the tax burden? What I look out for as a saver are interest rates and they day they were slashed, so were my future savings. The Conservatives incidentally supported those interest rate cuts in order to get more people spending, so can someone explain to me how they can now claim to be friends of the saver? In the meantime, someone else needs to explain to David Cameron what an ISA is.

As for Labour, I would be more encouraged by their bold new plans for saving the world -ahem- the economy, if everything they had tried so far hadn't failed so catastrophically. Their plan to kick-start lending was to prop up banks with taxpayers money and then stand idly by while they resumed business as usual by making a mockery of interest rate cuts, dutifully passing them on to savers and treacherously denying them to mortgage holders. Their plan to get people spending was to combine a meaningless cut in VAT with a substantial increase in National Insurance contributions and taxes. Now, they have come up with another grand plan to create a hundred thousand new jobs whilst presiding over the loss of several hundred thousand more. All the while, their leader is looking as happy as Larry as he is probably the only person (aside from debt collectors) whose job has become safer since the recession started.

Another thing that strikes me as odd for a Prime Minister who loves farming things out to committees to report on, so he can avoid having to take a firm stand on any of them, is that he has yet to assemble a cross-party parliamentary committee to focus purely on the economic crisis; it's causes and how best to get out of it. Instead, all we see are these two parties, one of which will be chosen to form a new government by next year at the latest, competing to come up with the most popular solution yet. How about they each put a few of their best people in a room and not let them out until they come up with a solution that actually works? Failing that, Vince Cable, the only person making any sense at the moment, should just be made Chancellor and be done with it.