My first and final word on the Greek deficit crisis

This is the first time I have been moved to write a blog post on the Greek debt crisis and for good reason. I have always refrained from commenting on the situation, unless directly asked to, as despite being ethnically Greek (half Greek to be precise), I have never lived there and cannot legitimately claim to be anything more than a 'plastic bubble'. However, my family does lives there, several of my friends do work there and I do follow the situation closely from the relative comfort of my laptop every day, so I definitely do have an opinion.

The reason I am choosing to express/vent that opinion now is that (a) I have taken about all the Greece bashing I can stand here in the UK from people who think they know what they're talking about because they buy only directly imported Feta cheese on their weekly visit to Waitrose; and (b) I am tired of people insisting I answer for "my people's profligacy" when they see my surname for the first time.

So, I'm only going to say this once.

Yes the chickens have come home to roost after decades of high public spending and unpaid taxes. That's not just the case in Greece, but also in California and to a degree almost every other country in Europe. This may well be a lesson that Greece could only ever learn the hard way, but they are not a special case. Virtually every western government has been guilty of spending beyond its means, so viewing Greece as some backwater whose fate could never befall them would be a massive mistake.

Yes, cuts clearly need to be made, but before you dismiss all Greeks as a bunch of lazy wasters in need of some tough love, consider the human cost that Greeks across the country are having to bear. Unemployment of 16% and rising, the deepest recession in years, increased VAT, increased income tax, and a new property tax with power cuts threatened for those who cannot pay. Suicide rates are spiralling, sick patients lie on camp beds in emergency rooms for up to 12 hours waiting to be treated, diabetic patients are on the verge of death because they cannot afford their insulin, while hospitals are ruuning out of almost all supplies.

As for the outpouring of rage over the Greek Prime Minister's decision to call a referendum on the latest round of budget cuts, I generally do view referendums with suspicion because of their tendency to empower heads of government at the expsense of their legislatures, often to pass ridiculously populist measures that wouldn't survive 10 minutes of parliamentary scrutiny (think Swiss minarets). In this case though, the need for a referendum is real and justified. The parliament has voted through successive budget cuts at the behest of the government in spite of large scale popular opposition. Greece is approaching the point at which its democracy has ceased to be representative and so must go direct. In any case, if Papandreou can't bring his people with him on this one, he has no remit to negotiate on their behalf.

Now, in the words of Forest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Still proud to be a Lib Dem

So, the Lib Dems are less popular than the BNP? In Barnsley, maybe. Otherwise, can the media please get a little perspective in the aftermath of Thursday's by-election?

I still remember the days when the Lib Dems swept all before them at almsot every parliamentary by-election, but no-one ever intimated that these victories were anything more than a protest vote against the government of the day, even though the unmatched quality of the MPs voted in at those elections, such as Sarah Teather, often had just as much to do with it.

If the significance of the Barnsley by-election is that a vote for the Lib Dems is no longer a protest vote, but a vote for a party in government to be carefully considered come the next general election when it matters most, then I'm fine with that. In the meantime, being dealt the occasional kick up the backside by an electorate determined to be heard, a custom that has been endured by successive Labour and Conservative governments long before the coalition, is a small price to pay and also a testament to democratic accountability.

The bigger threat to the party's long term electoral prospects is the risk of voters across the country as a whole concluding that they are no better off with the Liberal Democrats in the coalition and of the party's members concluding that they made a mistake in joining it in the first place.

Both are wrong. Even the government's most controversial decisions have not shaken by belief in this, including tuition fees. When I first joined the Liberal Democrats, tuition fees were one of my biggest issues and a large part of the reason I signed up over nine years ago. I remain just as certain I made the right decision now as I was then.

A unilateral Conservative (or Labour for that matter) government would have consented to limitless US-style tuition fees as recommended by the higher education review led by Lord Browne, which the latter commissioned and the former supported. The politically expedient thing for the Lib Dems to have done once faced with the responsibility of setting government policy on the matter would have been to implement their pledge to not vote in favour of raising fees (they never pledged to abolish them entirely during the election campaign as is often claimed). Instead, they forced the 'Browneites' to compromise by taking full responsibility for the policy and placing a cap on tuition fees, increasing access to financial support for part-time students, and raising the threshold for repaying student debt to protect graduates on lower incomes.

Nick Clegg and Vince Cable could have sat on the sidelines their party had been restricted to for so long and pat themselves on the back for ticking off another promise kept on their manifesto, while students across the country were left to rue the consequences of their cowardice. They didn't and faced the consequences for their courage instead in the form of mass protests and the burning of effigies. I do not envy the daily dilemnas they must face, but am proud to still be a member of a party that is brave enough to confront them in the name of the national interest, rather than play duck and cover and be anihilated anyway.

The real tragedy of locked-in syndrome

Tony Nicklinson is 56 years old. He is married to Jane with whom he has two daughters: Beth and Lauren. He used to work as an engineering executive, a job that took him across the world, and before that he was a rugby player. Now he wants to die, after a severe stroke, while away on a business trip to Athens, left him paralysed, unable to move any part of his body except his head and eyes. He cannot walk. He cannot talk. He cannot feed or bathe himself. Mr Nicklinson is, to use the clinical term for his condition, locked-in. He is highly unlikely to ever recover.

Yet he cannot end his life by his own hand. So, unless he refuses food and water, dying of starvation and de-hydration, someone else must do it for him. His wife has agreed to do just that following what must have been the most agonising decision a loving spouse can possibly face. However, say her lawyers, if she does there is a real chance she will be tried for murder. After all, she is not being asked to assist a suicide. She is being asked to commit a mercy killing.

The debate that is set to follow is a predictable one of an individual’s right to die versus the collective’s right to be protected from a callous abuse of a law that may lead to their lives being ended against their will. Ultimately, this is a moral, not a legal question. It is a matter of conscience, not of right and wrong, and as such can only ever be resolved by an act of Parliament. Even then, the debate will continue for as long as two or more people hold different opinions on the issue. I know which side I stand on, but I will not seek to impose my views on you because that would obscure the wider point of this article.

There is no way anyone can possibly understand what it is like to live with locked-in syndrome without going through it themselves. In Tony Nicklinson’s own words – he communicates with the use of a perspex board and letters, looking, blinking and nodding to spell out words:

“I am fed up with my life and don’t want to spend the next 20 years or so like this. Am I grateful that the Athens doctors saved my life? No, I am not. If I had my time again, and knew then what I know now, I would not have called the ambulance but let nature take its course.”

However, there are some who might say that Mr Nicklinson is one of the luckier survivors of locked-in syndrome. Luckier because at least his condition was correctly diagnosed. As it turns out, an alarming number of people who live with the same condition, but are unable to even communicate their level awareness due to the severity of their disability, are routinely misdiagnosed as being in a vegetative state (awake but not aware). Two fates await such people: being cast off into a nursing home to a life of solitude and neglect; or having their feeding tubes removed at the behest of doctors and relatives, deaf to their silent pleas for life.

It is not known how many people in the UK live with locked-in syndrome: no one has ever bothered to count them. However, a study by a team of specialists in the field, published in the British Medical Journal, showed that 43% of patients brought before them over a three year period had been misdiagnosed as being in a vegetative state. While their levels of awareness varied, some were most certainly locked in, including one man who spent eight years in a nursing home before somebody finally realised his mind was still active. Eventually, he was sent to a rehabilitation centre where he could receive the specialist care he required and even learnt how to communicate with the outside world again. His first three words in eight years, “I love you”, were directed towards his wife who never gave up on him.

Some might say this makes no difference. They may ask: who could possibly want to live like this? Surely those who have been misdiagnosed and given the quick and painless end that Mr Nicklinson now seeks are the lucky ones? Yet surely that is their decision to make and no one else’s. If you’re looking for hard evidence though, you need look no further than across the Channel to France, the only country in the world that affords its approximately 500 locked-in citizens the dignity of being counted. A survey of 78 of them by the Association du Locked-in Syndrome (ALIS) reported that 71% had never thought of suicide, while only 8% demanded it. Another survey found that when asked how they rated their quality of life and specifically their own personal happiness on a scale of -5 to +5, most answered between +3 and +4.

Needless to say, none of this will make any one of those 8% of people seeking to die now feel any better and I don’t expect it to. Nevertheless, although we can never be sure whether any one of the countless people who have had their feeding tubes removed and their lives ended, was actually locked-in, like Tony Nicklinson, but simply unable to communicate, what data is available tells us that the chances they were misdiagnosed and as such just as conscious of what was happening to them as you or me, but denied their right to choose and subsequently their right to life, were literally almost 50/50. Perhaps we should set about addressing this criminal injustice before we debate whether mercy killing amounts to one too.

The future of the Liberal Democrats: new dawn or false hope?

This article was written for the Vibe magazine (before the resignation of David Laws). Read more at www.the-vibe.co.uk

In the short history of the Liberal Democrats dating back to the alliance and eventual merger of the Liberals and the Social Democratic Party, leader after leader, from David Steel to Nick Clegg, has declared the realignment of British politics to be within reach, only for their hopes to be dashed again and again with each general election.

Thursday May 6 was no exception. The party endured a miserable night, losing five seats and several of its most well known MPs including Evan Harris, Susan Kramer, and of course Lembit Opik. Yet just ten days later, I along with over 1650 of my fellow Lib Dem members assembled in Birmingham to sign off on a coalition agreement with the Conservatives that would make Nick Clegg deputy Prime Minister.

Since then, speculation has been rife about the coalition’s chances of surviving a full five year term in government. However, much less has been said about how this landmark agreement will alter the British political landscape in the future, if at all.

Those who claim Britain was not a three party state before this election, cannot possible make the same claim now. Yet, when David Cameron and Nick Clegg call time on the coalition five years from now to call the next general election, the Liberal Democrats will still be entering the contest with just 57 parliamentary seats to their name. If this is the great Lib Dem breakthrough we have been waiting for, it must surely be one of the stealthiest breakthroughs in history.

So, what lies ahead for the heirs of Gladstone and Asquith? I’m no political soothsayer to be sure, but it seems three factors will prove critical in shaping the party’s future: first and most obviously, the status of the coalition; second, the unity of the party itself; and third, the outcome of Nick Clegg’s attempts to secure electoral and political reform.

Can the coalition stand the test of time?

So far the coalition government has managed to divide up cabinet posts and put together a sweeping legislative agenda for the Queen’s speech, which is a lot further than most people thought it would get when the deal was first announced.

However, coalitions are not as anathema to British politics as they may seem. Between 1885 and 1900, Britain was governed by a succession of coalition governments and again, intermittently, between the middle of the First World War and the end of the second. Similarly in the aftermath of the last election, the need to address the national deficit against the backdrop of a hung parliament left both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives with little choice but to enter into coalition with each other lest they incur the country’s wrath for leaving it with an unstable minority government.

Furthermore, both sides seem broadly happy with the full coalition agreement except for a few mumblings on key policy issues such as nuclear power and the Human Rights Act. The real test will come when the government is forced to respond to events it could not possibly have anticipated when drawing up the agreement, such as a foreign policy crisis.


United we stand, divided we fall…

Revisiting that Birmingham conference hall for a moment, even as person after person stood up to speak in favour of the new coalition agreement, the lingering doubts about the party’s future hung in the air like the last residue of an odour that refused to go away. Those doubts were best expressed by Charles Kennedy in an article for the Observer, published that very morning, in which he professed his desire for a progressive alliance with Labour.

Back in 1997, an alliance with anyone but Labour seemed unthinkable. Indeed, under Paddy Ashdown’s leadership, the very real possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition prior to Tony Blair’s landslide victory prompted the party to construct the Gordian triple lock, designed to prevent their leader from unilaterally making any deals that might compromise their independence. Of course a lot has changed since then. Labour’s record on the economy, civil liberties, social mobility – not to mention Iraq – over the last thirteen years made any claims that an alliance with them would be a progressive one frankly laughable.

Yet, as Kennedy’s article highlighted, the party’s diversity remains its Achilles’ heel. I once asked a councillor in my home borough of Camden which party he would choose to support if the Liberal Democrats did not exist, to which he deftly replied: “If the Lib Dems didn’t exist, I think I would have to invent them”. Many of our fellow members across the country, however, continue to identify themselves as anti-Labour or anti-Tory, creating obvious difficulties for any leader who ever chose to get in bed with one or the other.

Several commentators have also asserted that the history of Lib-Con coalitions does not bode well for the party. In an article for the Financial Times, author Peter Clarke wrote: “Historically, Liberals have learned that it is easier to walk into a coalition with the Conservatives than to walk out of it unscathed”. He was of course referring to the schisms within the Liberal Party in 1885 over Irish home rule and then again in 1931 over how to address the Great Depression. In each case, the party split into two or more factions, one of which would join the Conservatives in government leading ultimately to the permanent defection of its members.

However, I remain optimistic, primarily because defections have worked as much in the party’s favour as against it. For example, just as Salisbury’s Conservative government was reliant on the defection of Liberals to his party, the founding of the Liberal party itself in 1859 was a result of Conservative defectors, including William Gladstone, joining with the Whigs and the Radicals in response to the Corn Laws. Similarly, the Great Depression saw much of the party’s social democratic wing defect to Labour, only for them to return to the Liberal fold 50 years later.

More importantly, perhaps, the decision we took this month to enter into coalition with the Conservatives, was taken collectively by the party with near unanimous support across the parliamentary party, the federal executive, and the membership – only 12 people actually voted against the deal in Birmingham.

Furthermore, although there have certainly been some defections amongst the rank and file membership, especially to Labour, in the time since the coalition was announced, the party has received double as many new members as it has lost, according to leading Lib Dem blogger Mark Pack. Most of these people are young, open-minded, and enthusiastic about the new politics promoted by Nick Clegg during the election and are more likely to identify themselves in the same way as my councillor friend, who is incidentally one of the youngest councillors in Camden, than they are with those who grew up amidst the massive political polarisation of the Thatcher years.

Looking to the future: PR or not to PR, that is the question

In spite of all the upheaval of the last election, the biggest obstacle to long-term success for the Liberal Democrats remains the electoral system. The Queen’s speech went some way to rectifying this by promising a referendum on the Alternative Vote (AV) for elections to the House of Commons, while the coalition agreement went even further by promising pure Proportional Representation (PR) for the House of Lords.

The difference between the two in not immaterial: first off, AV is not a system of proportional representation, it’s just a watered down version of First Past the Post, our current system, where the winner still needs an absolute majority, but second, third, and fourth etc. preferences are counted too. However, if the study conducted by academic John Curtice from the University of Strathclyde is anything to go by, it could go some way to bringing the party’s share of seats in line with its share of the popular vote. His projections show that if each of the three main parties had secured as much of the popular vote as predicted by the polls in the last week before the election, the Liberal Democrats would have won an estimated 217 seats. Labour would have won the most seats with a total of 238, while the Tories would have finished a poor third with just 163 seats despite winning the most votes.

The reason for this outcome is that the Lib Dems tend to be most people’s second choice, whereas the positioning of constituency boundaries would have helped Labour secure more absolute majorities, albeit by smaller margins, than the Conservatives. So, as you can see, AV would be more proportional for some than for others, although you can bet your bottom dollar that David Cameron will take the opportunity to redraw those constituency boundaries to deny Labour their continued advantage.

The full democratisation of the House of Lords, meanwhile, may remain some way off, but a commitment has already been made to significantly alter its composition so that each party’s share of the popular vote is directly linked to their share of seats, resulting in the recent flurry in the number of newly appointed Lib Dem Peers: pure PR.


Conclusion

Amidst all the speculation, the underlying truth is that in spite of our previous dalliances with coalition governments, and the possibility of contesting the next general election under a brand new electoral system, it is impossible to accurately predict what lies ahead for the Liberal Democrats. However, as the coalition continues to buck expectations of its immediate demise, and the party membership continues to stand resolutely behind its leaders, with new people joining all the time, there is good reason to be optimistic.

Indeed, the only side of the coalition experiencing any difficulty placating its base is the Conservatives. David Cameron began an epic battle with his back-benchers for the soul of the Tory party with his attempted takeover of the 1922 committee. If the past has shown us anything, it is that divided Conservatives are just as prone to defecting as anyone else and historically, as in the case of both William Gladstone and Winston Churchill, they have turned to the Liberals. So, perhaps a bigger question is who will win that battle and how will it affect the coalition and in turn the country?

Why I'm backing the Lib Dem - Conservative coalition (updated version)

This Sunday, I will be travelling to Birmingham to attend the special conference of Liberal Democrat members called by Nick Clegg to approve the formation of a coalition government with the Conservative party. I plan to vote in favour of this new alliance and having been chosen by my branch party to represent them to this conference, I feel compelled to explain why.

I should begin by clearly stating that ideally in a hung parliament scenario, I would always prefer my party to retain its independence and work with a minority government on a case by case basis in return for co-operation on passing the reforms expected of them by the voters. However, these are exceptional times and minority governments don't tend to last long in this country. Maintaining the tentative recovery of the economy is everyone’s top priority right now and I therefore agree that the decision to commit ourselves to a long-term agreement was the right one.

Despite the near unanimous approval of the coalition deal by Lib Dem MPs and the federal executive, thereby circumventing the formal need for a conference, Nick Clegg has wisely chosen to consult with the party’s membership nonetheless to ensure their views on his new ‘kind’ of government are heard. To be sure, there will be many who will echo the reluctance of several MPs to enter into coalition with the Conservatives at the expense of a ‘progressive alliance’ with the Labour party. I will not be one of them.

Ultimately, the numbers game alone made any possibility of such a pact unworkable in that even a full Lib-Lab coalition would have had to operate as a minority government, relying on the support of a wide range of other parties each with their own demands. However, my opposition to a partnership of any sort with the Labour party was more fundamental than that.

As hard as it is to admit, it cannot be denied that Labour and the Liberal Democrats were the losers of this election and the Conservatives the winners; they just didn't win by enough. As the party of proportional representation, a hung parliament presented the Liberal Democrats with a unique opportunity to sell the desirability of coalition government to the public. To use their new found power to freeze out the party that received the most votes and the most seats would have had precisely the opposite effect.

I am also bemused by the notion that an alliance with this Labour party would have been a progressive one. I still remember Glenda Jackson, the Labour MP for my home constituency, defending her party’s record on the economy by unashamedly admitting that Labour ‘courted’ the City to win election after election. I still remember Gordon Brown abolishing the 10p tax band, doubling the rate for some of Britain’s poorest earners. I still remember the attempts to allow 90 days of pre-charge detention. I still remember the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Instead, let us call a spade a spade and realise that there is no progressive alliance to be made, but rather a sensible compromise of campaign pledges. Let us also give credit to David Cameron’s Conservatives for the concessions they have made in return for our support. Liberal Democrat MPs now hold five cabinet posts, positions awarded at the expense of five Conservative shadow secretaries. In addition, we now have commitments to a referendum on the Alternative Vote, to our plan to lift low earners out of income tax and restore the earnings link of state pensions, to pupil premiums, financial reform, and perhaps most importantly fixed parliaments to ensure the long term survival of the coalition.

Finally I would urge any Liberal Democrat members who remain sceptical still to consider the alternative: a minority Conservative government. It is doubtful that such a government would last long on its own. It is certain that we would be blamed for forcing another election in which our opponents would have no problem convincing the public we could not be trusted with real power and in which the Conservatives would almost certainly achieve the sweeping majority they crave. In the meantime, the passage of any legislation would be dependent on the support of hard-right Tory backbenchers enthusiastic about tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for everyone else as well as hostile to gay rights and our continued membership of the EU.

So, while I will definitely heed the calls of my fellow members to demand that Nick Clegg think carefully when dealing with the issues that will inevitably arise as the new government gets to work such as deciding on a cap for non-EU immigration, consolidating the parties’ divergent positions on nuclear power, and realising the full implications of the proposed ‘sovereignty bill’, I also urge them to join me in offering their full support for the coalition deal as it is put before us on Sunday.

Why I'm backing a Lib Dem - Conservative coalition

Five days have passed since last Thursday's election in which the Conservatives won the most seats and the most votes of any party, but failed to obtain the necessary majority to form a government by themselves. The result of this was a hung parliament in which the Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power. The only question that remains now is with whom should they side; Labour or the Tories?

I fully expect to be invited to a special conference, as a member of the Liberal Democrats, in the next few days to be asked to vote on this question and after giving it quite some thought, I have now decided on the answer I plan to give.

How much weight that answer carries depends on the reaction of the parliamentary party and the Federal Executive to whatever Nick Clegg proposes. This is due to the 'triple lock' mechanism drawn up at 1998 Southport conference which decrees that any coalition deal must be approved by at least 3/4 of the party's MPs and Federal Executive. If it is not, a special conference is called in which 2/3 of voting members (that's me) must give their support. If it is not given, a full ballot of the entire party membership must be called in which only a simple majority is required to approve the proposed deal.

Still with me? Good.

As for my answer: I am in favour of a partnership with the Conservatives. I am opposed to a partnership with the Labour party.

Ideally, I would prefer my party to retain its independence and work with a minority government on a case by case basis in return for co-operation on passing the reforms expected of it by the 23% of the electorate that voted Liberal Democrat at the election. However, minority governments don't tend to last long in the UK and at a time when stable government is crucial to maintaining this country's tentative economic recovery, a more long-term agreement is necessary.

Of course that's only half the question answered. The other half is what kind of partnership and under what conditions?

Naturally, the numbers game is a key consideration in assessing the viability of any prospective coalition and indeed one of my main reasons for opposing one with the Labour party is that even a full Lib-Lab coalition would have to operate as a minority government, relying on the support of a wide range of other parties each with their own demands. A Lib-Con calition, on the other hand, would not.

However, my opposition to a partnership of any sort with the Labour party is more fundamental than that. As hard as it is to admit, it cannot be denied that Labour and the Liberal Democrats were the losers of this election and the Conservatives the winners. They just didn't win by enough. If, as the party of proportional representation, the Liberal Democrats intend to use this opportunity to sell the desireability of coalition government in the UK to the electorate, I am certain that using their new found power to freeze out the party that received the most votes and seats would have precisely the opposite effect.

I am also bemused by those who suggest we have a moral imperative to join up with the Labour party in what is billed as a progressive alliance. How a party that used its 13 years in government to empower the banks that brought this country to its knees - just as it empowered the unions to do exactly the same over 30 years ago - to double the tax rate for some of this country's poorest earners with the abolition of the 10p tax band, and to launch the illegal invasion of Iraq can call itself progressive is beyond me.

Instead, let us call a spade a spade and work pro-actively in coalition with the Conservatives to deliver as many of our campaign pledges as possible and minimise what would otherwise be the sizeable influence of the right-wing Tory backbenchers whose support David Cameron would need to rely on to pass any legislation if ours was not available. After all, it would not take much for the Conservative press to convince the voters that our refusal to play ball was jeopardising the country's welfare, resulting in another election being called in which Cameron would almost certainly be awarded the majority he craves.

In other words: lose Labour, tame the Tories.

So, what would be the conditions of this tentative alliance? Needless to say, both parties are right to prioritise an agreement on tackling the defecit, but after that: proportional representation, the big society, fair taxes, national insurance? If any issue should take priority once the defecit is addressed, it should indeed be political reform. However, I'm not talking about people's petitions to sack their MPs, democratising the House of Lords, or even electoral reform. I'm talking about fixed parliaments.

The simple reason for this is that no coalition will ever stand the test of time as long as the Prime Minister is free to call an election, within the maximum five year period, whenever he likes. What purpose would David Cameron have to stick to a coalition if the polls consistently pointed to a Tory majority 6 months from now? What incentive would the Liberal Democrats have to work with the Conservatives if they suspected they were merely being used to spread the responsibility for the painful cuts on the way only to be ditched and blamed for the failure of the coalition when it came to implementing their key pledges?

The latest reports from the ongoing negotiations between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats suggest that an offer of fixed parliaments is very much on the table as one of the several concessions being made to Nick Clegg. If it is, he should take it and I would support him in doing so.

My conclusions on the campaign

Thursday 6th May marked the end of my first ever campaign for public office. On Saturday, a survey arrived in my post from the University of Plymouth, informing that I had been randomly selected to complete a questionnaire on my experience as a local council candidate. Here is an excerpt of my responses which hopefully will offer a concise insight into the last month of my life as a full time campaigner.

1) Were you elected or not at the 2010 election?

Not elected

2) Overall, did you enjoy campaigning?

Yes

3) Approximately how many hours a week did you spend campaigning during the election period?

60

4) Would you be prepared to stand as a candidate for local election again?

Yes

5) In general, too few women come forward to be candidates:

Agree

6) In general, too few Black, Asian, and minority ethnic people come forward to be candidates:

Agree

7) In general, too few younger people come forward to be candidates:

Strongly Agree

8) Younger people are not interested in politics:

Strongly Disagree

9) In what areas do you think increased public engagement could be effective?

Increasing understanding of local government, identifying local problems, informing the council about residents' priorities, creating opportunities for residents to suggest alternative solutions, increasing trust in local government

10) Do you think recall elections, where councillors can be removed from office if a quarter of the local electorate petition for that to happen, are a good or bad idea?

Bad idea

Make of that what you will. As I've already said, I have no regrets and consider this campaign to have been a truly formative, if gruelling, experience. I highly recommend it to anyone who has something to say about the community they live in and something to offer to make it better. I feel I've achieved a lot and I'd do it again. I'd quite like a holiday first though.

On the campaign trail. Part 1

This year's local and General elections are now just weeks away and doubtless all parties are hitting the streets to find new supporters and remind the existing ones to vote on May 6. So, I bring you tales from the campaign trail, a series of regular installments baring all about what it's like to run for election (tough, but worth it) and how easy it is to actually make a difference when you put your mind to it.

For part one, I'll explain why I decided to get involved in the first place.

My tale begins with my first day as a wet behind the ears fresher at the University of Nottingham, getting hopelessly lost as I wandered round the vast campus for the first time. After stumbling upon the Freshers’ Fayre, I eventually came across the stalls of each political party lined up beside each other. Still seething at Tony Blair for depriving me of the right to vote the year I turned 18 by calling a surprise election in 2001, I decided to console myself by joining one of the parties instead. I looked left and thought ‘no’, looked right and thought ‘hell no’, and thus my love affair with the Liberal Democrats began as I signed over my allegiance to the party I disagreed with the least. The rest, as they say, is history.

Skipping forward four years, a by-election in Kentish Town marked my first encounter with the Camden Lib Dems, ultimately culminating in my decision to put myself forward to run as a Lib Dem candidate myself in Swiss Cottage ward. For those not so familiar with the minutiae of local elections, London is divided into boroughs which are in turn divided into wards, each of which is responsible for electing three representatives to the borough council. My home ward, Swiss Cottage, is a leafy suburb comprising three districts that each used to be part of three different wards before being cut and pasted together in a series of local boundary changes. One of the largest wards in the borough, it consists (roughly) of 1/3 council estate tenants, 1/3 middle income renters, and 1/3 super-rich mansion owners.

At the various training sessions the party offers to prospective candidates, chaired by the leader of the council himself, the first thing they tell you is that if you cannot afford to devote a minimum of 20 hours a week to the job, you needn’t bother apply. Considering the average councillor is unlikely to earn more that £10k per year from the role, it quickly becomes apparent that these 20 hours will be in addition to the 36 hours or so you already work just to pay the rent and (in my case) keep my monolithic student loan at bay (hats off to Labour for that one).

As a prospective candidate, I spend most of my evenings during the week and pretty much all day Saturdays campaigning, which amounts mostly to writing and delivering letters and leaflets to several thousand people and then knocking on their doors, asking for their support. Of course, it doesn’t stop there though. To know the area is to know its issues and to know its issues requires (in part) joining any number of community groups filled by local activists with their fingers firmly on the pulse. So, in addition to the delivering and the door knocking, I sit on the board of governors of a local school, a Metropolitan Police Safer Neighbourhoods Panel, and the committee of my local residents’ association. In other words, a lot of those 20 hours are spent sitting in meetings, lots and lots of meetings, the number, frequency and length of which only increase if you are actually elected. Full Council in the Town Hall, for example, lasts an average of 3 hours.

So, why do it? Everyone has their own reasons, often stemming from the same desire to take a lead in protecting and improving the community they live in. Mine is the rush you get from actually seeing a real change take place before your very eyes, with real tangible benefits for many people, and knowing that you were the one who made it happen. My moment was seeing a petition campaign I started to fix the faulty street lights in my road result in the wholesale replacement of each and every lamp-post. It was hardly a sweeping change to be sure, but it was real and it made a lot of people feel that little bit safer walking along a road that had, in parts, once been shrouded in near total darkness. It felt good and it certainly made all the hours (far more than 20) of trauling door to door for signatures in the cold Winter nights worth it.

If there is one thing I have learnt so far from running for election it is that, with enough will, anyone can do it. And at a time when young people are one of the most under-represented groups in society (just look at the lack of political will to do anything about tuition fees) simply because so many of them fail to exercise their sacred right to vote, it has never been more important to stand up for what you believe in. Young people can bring an energy and idealism to public office that many councillors and MPs lack, as the expenses scandal has so clearly demonstrated. So, go join your local party now (whoever they are) and put your 20 hours where your mouth is.

If not, come help me instead.

Mystery candidate in Hampstead and Kilburn

Interesting story in Ham&High today about a mystery candidate entering the race on a direct democracy platform. Could the tea party movement be coming to London? Just hope they left Sarah Palin behind stateside.

Islam4UK should not be banned from marching in Wootton Bassett

It is a strange day when the defence of civil liberties in Britain is left to the police, but that is exactly what happened today. As government ministers, civic leaders and 400,000 facebook members combined to call for Islam4UK to be banned from carrying out their planned demonstration in Wootton Bassett to protest against the war in Afghanistan, only Sir Hugh Orde, President on the Association of Chief Police Officers, has stepped in to defend the group’s right to protest, however "unpleasant and offensive" their views.

Much has been written about the views of the organisation and its leader, Anjem Choudary, designed to emphasise their most controversial standpoints which many find to be extreme and abhorrent. I quite agree that even free speech must have its limits – the incitement of violence against a person or group of people being the best example of where to draw the line. However, I do not see how one’s views can be cited as a reason to deny them their right to free speech at all. This is the case with Islam4UK.

No one is saying that it is wrong to question the continued presence of UK soldiers in Afghanistan or that lamenting the human cost of the conflict, particularly to Muslim civilians in the region, is an illegitimate grievance. Indeed, only a few people complained when the BBC staged a Question Time debate on the war in Wootton Bassett just a few months ago. So, what the opponents of Islam4UK are essentially arguing is that it is not what you say that matters, but who you are.

If we take their argument to its logical conclusion, that those with ‘acceptable’ views should be allowed to speak freely while those who offend should be denied the same right, then we will surely find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of having to ban extremist organisations of all persuasions, including political parties such as the BNP, or effectively endorse their views with our silence. It is not hard to anticipate how the British Muslim community, whose co-operation in defending ourselves from violent extremists is so crucial, would respond to such a declaration.

So, does this mean that I actively support Islam4UK’s parade through Wootton Bassett? Absolutely not: the headlines the next day will not be dominated by stories of innocent men, women and children in Afghanistan dying for a war we may yet walk away from – stories that do need to be told. Rather, the newspapers will write about how the march has inflamed racial intentions in this country (even though I suspect you could count on one hand the number of British Muslims who had heard of Islam4UK before, let alone supported them). That is of course unless the English Defence League shows up, in which case we will have a quite different story on our hands.

Needless to say, the real victims of this whole debacle are the families of the soldiers whose bodies are passing through the town on a disturbingly regular basis. Not only do they have to deal with the heartbreaking loss of yet another husband, or another wife, or another son, but they have to endure these moving ceremonies being used as a political punch bag by anyone who has anything to say about Afghanistan. That didn’t start with the announcement of Islam4UK’s parade, nor even with the equally insensitive staging of a politically charged Question Time debate. It started when television cameras and photo journalists were allowed in to broadcast the ceremonies in the first place.

Incitement of violence and hatred aside, we can either have free speech for everyone or free speech for no one, but we cannot have it for some and not others without first passing judgement on their views.

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?