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.”
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Wednesday, 15 July 2009
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?
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?
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
The Cyprus problem: Why British property owners should give up their villas
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.
Friday, 27 March 2009
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”.
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”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
