Liberal principals

Reading the newspapers this week, one would be forgiven for thinking that the Liberal Democrats were a collection of unprincipled opportunists, or a gang of miscreants who happened onto the political stage last month, to scupper the old parties ‘battle of ideas.’ This has come from hacks on both sides of British politics and ignores a number of facts which are worth mentioning.

In the last general election the Lib-Dems got over a fifth of the vote. They have increased their share of the vote in every general election since 1997 and polling has consistently shown that there is a significant number of people, who given the opportunity of Lib-Dem success, say they would support them. So they have been a growing presence on the political landscape; albeit one hampered by a corrupt voting system, ignored largely by the press, and patronised by Labour and the Tories.

As for the charge of not having an ideology; it’s a bit rich coming from Labour commentators. If ‘new’ Labour has an ideology, it is a particularly muddled and contradictory one. The Conservatives represent what they have always held dear; featherbedding the wealthy, inwardly looking, with fear, loathing and contempt of the poor. ‘People in glass houses’ maybe springs to mind?

The press are clearly worried about this election and it would seem that its influence may be on the wane. We have changed a great deal in the last ten years and the establishment hasn’t kept pace with either technology or the zeitgeist. It doesn’t like what it sees, and it is terrified the old way of doing things may be at an end. We will see a concerted effort to scare the voters back into line next week and the headlines will be interesting on May 6th should the polls remain as they are; who knows whether they will succeed.

As for what the Lib-Dems believe in, I cannot put it any more succinctly than the preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution (below). Read it, and then tell me that they do not stand for anything, that they don’t believe in anything and that they have no ideological beliefs. It sounds pretty good to me.

Preamble to the Liberal Democrat Federal Constitution:


“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.


We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely. We believe that each generation is responsible for the fate of our planet and, by safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment, for the long term continuity of life in all its forms.


Upholding these values of individual and social justice, we reject all prejudice and discrimination based upon race, colour, religion, age, disability, sex or sexual orientation and oppose all forms of entrenched privilege and inequality. Recognising that the quest for freedom and justice can never end, we promote human rights and open government, a sustainable economy which serves genuine need, public services of the highest quality, international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world's peoples and responsible stewardship of the earth and its resources.


We believe that people should be involved in running their communities. We are determined to strengthen the democratic process and ensure that there is a just and representative system of government with effective Parliamentary institutions, freedom of information, decisions taken at the lowest practicable level and a fair voting system for all elections. We will at all times defend the right to speak, write, worship, associate and vote freely, and we will protect the right of citizens to enjoy privacy in their own lives and homes. We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs and commit ourselves to the promotion of a democratic federal framework within which as much power as feasible is exercised by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We similarly commit ourselves to the promotion of a flourishing system of democratic local government in which decisions are taken and services delivered at the most local level which is viable.


We will foster a strong and sustainable economy which encourages the necessary wealth creating processes, develops and uses the skills of the people and works to the benefit of all, with a just distribution of the rewards of success. We want to see democracy, participation and the co-operative principle in industry and commerce within a competitive environment in which the state allows the market to operate freely where possible but intervenes where necessary. We will promote scientific research and innovation and will harness technological change to human advantage.


We will work for a sense of partnership and community in all areas of life. We recognise that the independence of individuals is safeguarded by their personal ownership of property, but that the market alone does not distribute wealth or income fairly. We support the widest possible distribution of wealth and promote the rights of all citizens to social provision and cultural activity. We seek to make public services responsive to the people they serve, to encourage variety and innovation within them and to make them available on equal terms to all.


Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur and to promote the free movement of ideas, people, goods and services. Setting aside national sovereignty when necessary, we will work with other countries towards an equitable and peaceful international order and a durable system of common security. Within the European Community we affirm the values of federalism and integration and work for unity based on these principles. We will contribute to the process of peace and disarmament, the elimination of world poverty and the collective safeguarding of democracy by playing a full and constructive role in international organisations which share similar aims and objectives.


These are the conditions of liberty and social justice which it is the responsibility of each citizen and the duty of the state to protect and enlarge. The Liberal Democrats consist of women and men working together for the achievement of these aims.”

A very British revolution?

I’m a member of the Liberal-Democrats, my football team is Newcastle United and I’m a fan of Worcester Warriors in the rugby. I can speak with some authority on false dawns, raised expectations and ultimate disappointments; although on the flip-side it has also taught me to enjoy the good times along the way.

The second leaders’ debate seems to suggest that the increase in the Lib-Dem poll position would appear to have traction, leaving us in second place with Labour just behind and the Tories slightly ahead. But whether that will transfer into votes and how this national trend will play out locally, with all the vagaries of the ‘First Past the Post’ system appears to be quite unfathomable. It has at least been refreshing to see the political map shifted and the conservative press have a collective nervous breakdown.

Labour and the Tories are both clearly surprised and unsettled by the yellow surge, which begs the question why? Was it arrogance, a sense of entitlement or were they just hoping two party politics would always remain, even though we’ve had three party politics for thirty years? The position the old guard find themselves in, is not in itself merely an infatuation with Clegg –a honeymoon which the voters have foolishly foisted upon them caused by the leader’s debates. We may be witnessing something entirely different, a revolution in the grand old traditions of all British revolutions since our bloody civil war – simmering and gradual and bloodless ones being led by improbable characters.

There are many parallels in the 2010 election with the one in 1924 – Britain’s last gentle revolution - Lloyd George had destroyed the Liberal party seeking his own personal power at any cost, there was an amicable toff trying to recast the Tory party from a ‘nasty’ image which was still haunting it and a wily operator casting himself as outsider against ‘the two old parties’ and presenting himself as ‘real’ change. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

I’ve spent much of the last decade wondering what the point of Labour is (and to a lesser extent the Conservatives), in the 21st century. The Labour Party was a rational expression of the socialism that the then large and recently emancipated working classes justifiably demanded. They wanted reform more quickly and radically than the Liberals of the middle classes were offering, and by the 1924 general election they overtook the Liberals to become the dominant progressive force in British politics. The Liberal agenda of individual freedom was swallowed by ideas of collectivism, but have we not now come full circle?

Now that old the working class is now largely part of the middle there seems to not be so much desire for socialism anymore - social democracy maybe, but not socialism. This was in my opinion what accounted for the 1983 Alliance splitting the progressive vote causing Labour to have to redefine itself, and if the Falkland’s war hadn’t luckily changed the game for Thatcher, could have ended in a very different result.

The ‘new’ Labour rebrand promised so much, but I think history will remember it harshly for being nothing but a cynical mirage. Blair and Brown built a government which seems to have had only one driving ideological principle – namely to win power and then to cling to it at any cost. They shamelessly bought favour from the right wing press, and whilst promising change to liberal voters, their leadership leapt straight over their heads to the left wing of the Conservative party. They told their core vote to shut up, for they had ended Labour’s time in the wilderness, threw a few bribes to floating voters at elections and failed to deliver much in the way of the progressive policies that the British liberal majority clamours for.

The Conservatives – despite their laughable change rhetoric – are exactly the same old Tories they always have been and always will be. They are there for the wealthy, the traditional, the little Englander, the xenophobic and big business, dreaming dreams of non-existent golden yesteryears; in fact all that has changed is that Labour have become unpopular, so they have assumed that means power is theirs to claim again.

Whether the public really want a Liberal-Democratic government is questionable. What, however is crystal clear, is that over a third of the electorate are indicating that they don’t want either a Conservative or a Labour government. They want the Lib-Dems to be there when the next government are discussing cuts, or taxes, and most importantly on political reform – looking over their shoulders and interjecting on the public’s behalf. The First Past the Post system has been shown to be exactly what those of us outside of the duopoly have said it was for decades. It is undemocratic, unrepresentative, corrupt, and delivers this country five year tyrannies that only a fraction of the electorate have voted for. No British government has actually had a mandate since Atlee in 1945.

There needs to be huge and sweeping changes to our system of government. We need to have a stronger and fully elected second chamber. That there are still hereditary peers in the House of Lords is frankly disgusting. That our constitution is so vague and malleable, combined with a corrupt voting system which means that we live in only a notional democracy is utterly unacceptable. In fact we would not be able to join the EU if applying today, as we would fail its democracy criteria. Hooray I hear the right-wingers shout – but even they would have to admit that this is a sorry state of affairs that cannot continue indefinitely?

I can understand that the Conservatives and Labour (the consequence seemingly has only slowly dawned on Labour this week) want to protect this corrupt system, for strong third parties and proportional voting systems mean an end to them forming elected dictatorships. I passionately believe that a plurality of parties is far more democratic, if over half the electorate vote for a coalition, then it has a real mandate. We could work together, cooperating to get things done and the vested interests would have less influence in our governance. People could go and vote for what they believe in, not for what they dislike least.

A proportional system would ultimately result in a Labour split along the lines of the SDP and old Labour traditionalists. The Conservatives would split along their European divisions and would see the Greens entering parliament. It may well perversely split the Lib-Dems as well. We would see much higher turn out when every vote counts and everyone can potentially make a difference. If nothing else can be learnt from this election, let it be this: when people can see that they have a voice, they become engaged with the political process.

Surely even the most partisan and biased Tory or Labour supporter can see that the time for reform has come? Whether we get that reform this year or not – it will come sooner rather than later – the great British public always get their way in the end.

A week in politics

For a lifelong liberal, of both the small and capital L variety, the last week has been a very surprising one, to say the least. We all had thought that the long anticipated leader’s debate (sorry Scotland – Prime Minister’s Debate) would give us a bit of a bounce in the polls; but a ten point poll bounce, actually being in a poll lead for a while and ‘Cleggmania’ would be an utterly incredulous prediction. Yet here we are.


So it was with that on my mind last night, as I went to the Worcester News election debate. It was as entertaining (well for an anorak like me anyway) as it was un-informing; it essentially boils down to the fact that the three main party candidates are fairly bland and middling politicians.

The incumbent, Mike Foster, in the red corner seemed to be in a surprisingly redolent and conciliatory frame of mind; in answer to a question about what he’d say to enter the Pearly Gates, said that he wanted the people of Worcester to “remember him as putting their interests first” – not the “five more years!” one may have expected given the polls. He put in some fiery defences of New Labour’s policies and eloquently highlighted the inequity of some of the Tory’s proposals; he was certainly the most statesmanlike of those on show and deep down there somewhere, beats the heart of a social democrat.

The main contender, Robin ‘jobs tax’ Walker, fighting in the blue corner, was like the invisible man. He was there allright, his was the only head I could actually see through the crowded room; he just seemed to disappear like the vanishing point on a hazy, long and lonely road. In the opening exchanges we heard last week’s Tory mantra of “jobs’ tax”; I’m sorry – but yawn. Nearly every tax is a tax on jobs, what they really mean is that National Insurance is a tax on businesses, but it is framed in the way it is assumedly because “a-bit-of-a-tax-on-you, but-a-far-larger- tax-on-your-boss” probably didn’t play so well in the focus groups. It’s not a great tax rise, but when viewed against the ‘age of austerity’ the Tories promised us a few months ago, seems unavoidable. He shoe-horned the Tory catch phrase into a few more of his answers before (to my mind, in any case) seemingly disappearing from the debate. He was simply a well groomed and no doubt perfectly capable Tory, who’s keeping his head down, assuming that Labour discontent and apathy will see him and not Mike Foster returned to Westminster.

Jackie Alderson, who was representing the Lib-Dems did okay, but if you are standing for a political party, don’t refer to them as “they” all night long. Surely when you get to the point where you are a candidate, you can use “us” as your choice of pronoun? To be fair, Jackie is contesting a Labour/Tory marginal which she isn’t particularly likely to win, was selected without much time to prepare and she is working on a shoestring budget compared to the other two. She incidentally got the loudest cheer of the night when outlining the proposed abolition of tuition fees over six years – it would seem the policy’s dilution is still preferable when compared to those on offer from the other two parties.

Perhaps more enlightening than last night’s debate was seeing the full force of the Conservative attack press unleashed on Nick Clegg this morning, lined up like tin soldiers patrolling on the petrol station forecourt. If you want to see just how rattled the Conservatives and their establishment are by this election campaign, then today’s headlines are more telling than their words could ever convey. If they had followed one line of attack then it may have popped the bubble that is clearly troubling them. However when viewed next to each other they took on a slightly comical appearance; it was just a little too visceral, as cynical as it was predictable and as crass as it was inevitable. It is the wounded war cry of vested interests. The headlines will no doubt cheer up a few Conservative voters but I suspect they will not have as much effect on those who have flown to Clegg’s banner as these papers may think.

What will happen next in this general election is anyone’s bet. Much will depend on tonight’s TV debate and Clegg’s performance. He has taken advantage once, showing when he is able to talk to the nation without the lens of a partisan press filtering him out, (a former editor of the Sun admitted that it was the paper’s policy to deliberately ignore the Lib-Dems), and without Labour, Tory and SNP MP’s boorishly heckling him in the chamber, that he can connect with the British public. Whatever happens now, at least Cameron will have to earn them, if he still wants those keys to No 10 and that looks far less likely than any point since 2007.

And for the progressives out there; the prospect of a really fair and democratic nation seems at least more plausible than it has done in a very long time indeed.

The Door (ITV1 Friday 2 April)

Last night I watched the first of a two part celeb-challenge fest, imaginably titled ‘The Door’ (ITV1). Hosted by Chris Tarrant and the ever present Amanda Holden, the viewer is subjected to a rag-bag bunch of formerly and marginally famous individuals travelling through doors – hence the title – where they must crawl through slime, snakes, rats, rubbish, water and yet more slime, in order to tackle the sort of cranial tasks that wouldn’t usually trouble a Barbary ape.


This show is a mutated hybrid of The Crystal Maze, It’s a Knockout and Noel’s House Party, but with any of their respective charms removed; although I’d guess the programme makers probably pitched it to ITV as ‘I’m a Celebrity meets a Big Brother task.’  Perhaps a more accurate title would be 'I'm a Celebrity on the Cheap' as many of the components are lifted directly from ITV's diminishing ratings winner and placed on a cheap set, with cheap celebrities and no airline tickets.  The only contestant I recognised was Dean Gaffney, whose sole work these days is in the jaw droopingly abysmal Daz adverts. There was also, I was informed by my friend’s wife, a former Boyzone member, some guy off children’s ITV, some girl from the Saturdays, some girl off Eastenders and some woman off Corrie. We were as ever expected to believe that this was all for charity. However as we all well know, these folks aren’t in it for their local hospice, this is a last ditch attempt to resurrect their piss poor careers.

The usual trick with these shows is to have a hate figure, someone we all would like to see covered in revolting gunk and thereby giving the viewer some form of cathartic pleasure, think Jordan or John Fashanu on I’m a Celebrity. However with these contestants the viewer is left only with apathy, as they run around like headless chickens, groping through the various types of goo and shrieking at the menagerie of creepy-crawlies and rodents. The only person on this show who I’d have liked to see terrorised was the expressionless Amanda Holden. I am always left at a loss as to why Ms Holden gets so much TV work (I could hazard a cynical guess though), she is such a talentless presenter, who as time goes by seems to be turning into a ventriloquist’s dummy – I jest not, her face seems to have become set in stone. It was far more entertaining to imagine Chris Tarrant was throwing his voice whenever she spoke.

The majority of these contestants seem to be amiably inept, the girl off Eastenders amazingly even managed to have a panic attack and be pulled from the task. It also seems clear that the males seem to be taking this show much more seriously than the women – perhaps inadvertently the programme makers have created a sociological experiment highlighting gender differentials.  The guy from Boyzone (Keith Duffy) is perhaps the most entertaining of the participants, as he clearly wants to win this show ever so much. He looks as pumped up as a soldier being sent ‘over the top’ as he bounds into the challenges. It brings to mind Tim Robbins’ character in ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ as he stoically crawls a mile through shit towards his freedom – this guy would crawl for any distance through any effluence in order to garner the limited accolades of victory in The Door.

That is perhaps the true metaphor of shows like this. They teach us the real value of low-level celebrity and modern society in general. You must crawl on your hands and knees through crap and vermin in order to tackle an arbitrary and meaningless set of tasks, stabbing your friends in the back along the way to secure a Pyrrhic victory. And your prize should you succeed is a bit part in a washing powder advert. It is sad that 21st century television seems utterly bereft of any originality. We instead have to watch x meets y, and then chuck in some ‘celebrities’ of breath taking marginality, with which to hold the mesmerised audiences’ attention. On reflection, I don’t think I’ll bother to watch part two of this terrible show.

Drugs: the missuse of law

So ‘the war drugs’ opened up a new front last week with the popular press turning its attention to legal highs and the strangely named meow-meow, following the sad deaths of two young men from Scunthorpe. Again the tabloids are chasing controversy with the Sun lambasting the government for having not banned the “lethal” substance and the Mail with its tales of teachers having to return it to school children in their classes – for it is legal you see. This seem s a little improbable, I doubt children are allowed to take paint thinners or bleach, or any other number of ‘legal’ yet dangerous substances to school, but the Mail rarely lets reality ever effect the construction of a good story. It has also yet to be proven that meow, or mephedrone as it is properly called, actually caused these deaths until the post-mortem of the two young men have been concluded. In so far as I have been able to research, there have been a handful of suspected deaths in Scandinavia and one confirmed fatality in the UK; by this rational the Sun would have to describe peanuts as the “lethal” bar snack.



The press and politicians have called for their only tool in tackling the misuse of drugs – a ban. This is symptomatic of the misguided war on drugs successive governments have been fighting for three decades now, at immense cost with little to no success. Prohibition has never worked; if someone has decided to take a potentially harmful drug for recreational purposes then I suspect the draconian laws of their elders aren’t going to change their minds. They are usually rebelling against the rules of their parents or authority and the illegality of it only serves to give it greater appeal. Banning Meow will not reduce the number of people taking it, this will only serve to put another substance into the unscrupulous hands of criminals, who will cut it with worming tablets to increase their profits, will force young and otherwise law abiding citizens to mix with the underworld and criminalise them in the process. The only winners in our enlightened war on drugs are the criminal gangs who control the black market, which is in many cases far more dangerous than the drugs we are seeking to control.


If we take heroin as a case study then we can see the futile and harmful prohibition of the war on drugs. Heroin was used as a field medicine during the First World War and a consequence of this was that following Armistice Day there were relatively large numbers of veterans who had become addicted, many for the rest of their lives. The medical handbooks and studies of these veterans from the 1920s tell us that heroin has no significant side effects.  Nausea and constipation are cited as the problematic harm caused; heroin was even injected into premature babies during this period with no adverse reactions recorded. For essentially political reasons, following a highly publicised case of a doctor selling heroin, it was made illegal in Britain. Following this change in the law, the supply of the drug is controlled by the dealers who mix it with any number of severely toxic and dangerous substances, which apart from their inherent dangers results in the purity of the heroin varying from 20 to 90%, leading to accidental lethal overdoses.


Portugal in 2001 changed their drugs laws, decriminalising the possession of street drugs, instead of chucking users into their criminal justice system they offered training and rehabilitation; dealers and traffickers are still jailed as before. The result of this was a reduction of street drug deaths from 400 per year in 2000 to 290 by 2005 and a reduction in HIV infections from 1,400 to about 400 over the same period.


So we have a choice, we can continue with our present system of prohibition; a system that helps no one except the criminals, causes many of the street drug deaths, does not serve our society, but a system that allows politicians to pretend that they're tough, with our newspapers who whip up fear with lies or disinformation and conveniently for them, sells their papers to a gullible public. On the other hand we could adopt a sensible and rational system like Portugal where society tries to help those trapped by drug use. Personally I’d go a step further than Portugal and take the supply of drugs into the control of the state, as in Holland, and thereby end the destructive black market once and for all.


Don’t misunderstand me, I am not advocating drug use and believe they can in some circumstances cause a great deal of harm; however I believe that if an individual knows the risks of taking drugs, but still chooses to, then that is their right so long as they cause no harm to anyone else. I don’t see why we can’t have a system that actually reduces crime and makes people much safer than they are now, rather than this shameful drug policy created by the ignorant and self-interested supported by unthinking sheep?

Argentina's Folly.

Sequels have always been popular in Hollywood, as well as a recurring feature of modern warfare, but despite Argentina’s growing rhetoric, I believe the prospect of a Falkland’s War 2 is highly unlikely.

Argentina has greedily eyed the windswept islands since their independence from the Spanish Empire early in the Nineteenth century. After Britain recaptured the Falklands in order to guard the trade route around Cape Horn, the Argentines have laid claim to them and following their attempt to take them by force in 1982 ended with a humiliating defeat, we may have been forgiven for thinking that was the end of the matter; however a ruinous Argentine economy, a despised President and the little matter of a potential 60 billion barrels of oil have reignited this dispute.


Cristina Kirchner is the hugely inept Argentine premier who was swept to power in a landslide in 2007, and who is now deeply unpopular after overseeing the fragile recovery from the 2001 economic crisis stall. It seems to be that the standard response when right wing Argentine governments are in trouble is to whip up nationalist sentiment by raising the issue of Malvinas sovereignty again. Argentina has gathered support from fellow South American leaders, notably Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Lula da Silva of Brazil, the two old lefties, who never cease to rake up any imagery of colonialism as a matter of personal expediency. Sadly from Argentina’s point of view, all the diplomatic hot air in the world will never see the Falklands in their hands; on this matter the UK government will ignore the South Americans, the United Nations, and anyone else that Kirchner whines to for that matter.


‘Queen Cristina’ is not as stupid as she may appear though; she has been quick to rule out a military option - so why is she so keen to try diplomacy?  In 1982 the UK was caught with its trousers down over the Falklands, there was a negligible military presence and the Foreign Office did not anticipate what was coming. In the end, the war was a close run thing but it certainly would not be if fought today. The UK has a garrison of a thousand troops permanently based on the islands; the Mount Pleasant Air Base and a Falklands emergency response plan means that a British defense would take hours, not weeks as in 82. Make no mistake, a British government of either political persuasion would respond immediately with overwhelming military might. The vulnerability of the Eighties has been removed and a Falklands War 2 would lead to a resounding victory for the UK and a far more embarrassing defeat for the Argentines than the last time around.


Argentina’s claim to the Falklands can be charitably called tenuous. The islands history is one of imperial squabbling between Britain, France and Spain, none has any moral high ground in the matter; however as they were uninhabited islands the simple logic of dispelling a colonial power does not wash. It is uncertain who was the first to discover the Falkland Islands, they appear on sixteenth century Spanish and English maps, but it is widely believed to be a Dutch explorer who first sighted them; Britain and Spain both have claims from this time. Historically they have only ever been part of Argentina for five brief years and Spain for the thirty-five years previous to that, during an interlude in which Britain left the islands to save money to fight the American Revolutionary War and the British navy retook them in 1833. So the islands have been inhabited by Britons for nearly two hundred, out of two hundred and forty six years since European inhabitation.


The population of the Falkland Islands are British citizens, they have quite clearly expressed their desire to remain so and in the principal of self determination they have the right to remain so. If the Falkland Island government wishes to develop their natural resources, then that also is their right and has nothing whatsoever to do with any other state, the UN and it is none of Argentina’s business. Even if no oil had been discovered there, Britain would be right to defend this small outpost of our nation as fiercely as we would the Isles of Scilly or the Channel Islands, these British citizens have the right to exist without the constant threats from the banana republic on their door step.

European Coalescence

Europe is a contentious issue in Britain. In the papers it is seldom reported, unless there is a negative or euro-sceptical angle to be made – who knows who the Danish premiere is, or which party leads France? You won’t find the answer in the Sun or Mail - But we are all told Europe is something to be feared, if we were to discern Britain’s geographical position from the media, we would have to conclude we were anchored somewhere off the coast of Maine; not twenty miles away from France.



There seems to be a contradiction in the euro-sceptical argument. They are opposed to closer integration between the UK and our European neighbours, for they argue that it is a threat to British sovereignty; yet these are the same people who clamour for Britain to take the lead in foreign affairs, to exert ‘influence’ with an expectation of a seat at ‘The Big Table’. The fact that the public still seem to expect the UK to have this role is baffling. The Empire ended nearly seventy years ago now, and had been in sharp decline in the thirty years preceding that. Our global position has been maintained since the Second World War, primarily by developing an independent nuclear weapons program in the Fifties, the reason why we are part of the UN Security Council and secondly that the world was divided between just two superpowers after the war which meant that there was space at ‘The Big Table’ and as America’s most sycophantic ally, we were humoured. To quote Bob Dylan however, “the times they are a changing”.


There is a new world order slowly emerging as this century takes shape, with new superpowers consisting of China, India and potentially Brazil; the US is by no means guaranteed to be in this club by the end of the century. States like Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain are of little geo-political consequence, we are both small and insignificant despite what our pride would like us to believe. Barack Obama realises that the next century will be defined by pan-Pacific treaties; not North Atlantic ones. He wouldn’t meet the Europeans at Copenhagen; instead he bypassed us, forming a policy with India, China and South Africa. Europe is at a pivotal point in its ancient history, for the first time since the Dark Ages we could become a global back water; rather than making and defining history, we will instead become history.


There is a solution to this, a Federal Europe – euro-sceptics may now vent their spleens.


In order to explore this, we must first face a couple of home truths; firstly Britain is not and never again will be a superpower; secondly the ‘Special Relationship’ is only special to the British and politically expedient to certain US presidents; thirdly a state is only a matter of representation, not identity. The only way Europeans can influence this new order is if the British, French and Germans stop their teary eyed reminiscences for the Nineteenth century, grow up and face the Twenty-first century together. The tinkering at the edges of the EU needs to end, it must be reformed radically and fundamentally to achieve this; I realise this difficult to implement and unpalatable to conservatives and xenophobes alike, however the consequences of not doing this are enormous and should at least be discussed in an open manner within our societies.

I should point out that I am far from happy with how the EU is currently constituted. There are four positions now that can be viewed as the head; EU council president (Von Rumpoy); council president; the rotating residual president (currently Spain) and finally speaker of the European parliament. Insanity is sure to ensue. The commission must be abolished, to be replaced by a senate; the parliament must be given far greater power; the executive must be directly elected. There must be an end to the turf wars between Britain, France and Germany; the behind closed door decisions made in smoke filled rooms must be stopped. The EU has to be open, democratic and fully accountable to all Europeans. A federal law and judiciary must be established. This is all achievable, let’s build a new republic based on the highest ideals of democracy and fairness, and recognise that we have far more in common than we have differences. United we stand, divided we fall etc, etc.


Whenever I have challenged anyone of a euro-sceptical bent to be specific about their disdain for the EU, they will mutter darkly about the attack on the Pound, or bureaucrats imposing silly rules on the shape of fruit, or if they are older, about having to use the accursed metric system. Naturally these are all such tremendously important issues; however the more honest amongst them will tell you that ‘they aint going to be ruled by no Frogs or no Krauts’. So can this aspect of opposition ever be overcome? I believe it could be; if we look at US history then there are parallels with Europe today. The thirteen founding states were largely suspicious of one another and made sure they each retained a large degree of autonomy from the federal government. America seems to have muddled along quite successfully in the intervening two hundred and forty years. For this to happen though, political capital from our governments would have to be expended and the media would have to change its outlook in Britain; neither of which seems probable today.


What most people don’t seem to realise is that in Britain we are governed by self serving elites, it is unlikely that you will ever be in a position of power or influence unless you have very wealthy parents, went to a private school, and followed up with a stint at Ox-bridge. Nearly all government decisions are London centric and usually self serving, benefiting the elites who placed them in power in the first place. In fact, if we view many European countries, they look after their populations far better than we are treated here in Britain. This is the heart of anti-EU sentiment within the governing classes and the press barons; they don’t want Britain to be dissolved into a European union as they might lose their influence – no longer able to exert their God given right play with Albion as though it was their own private little toy.


It seems to me that we have three potential paths ahead of us. If we are determined that we should remain as a sovereign British state, so be it; however we must also accept the consequences of that. We will become a second world nation, another Sweden or Poland, which isn’t such a terrible thing. We will have to stop poking our nose into the affairs of the superpowers, accept our influence is marginal and roll with the punches that are thrown our way. Britain will, without a shadow of doubt, lose its place on the Security Council. India and Brazil have far more right to be there than the UK or France. We will have created the modern world, only to be drowned by its consequences. Another option is to effectively become the Fifty-first state, to leave the EU and like the weak child on the playground, clinging to the big boy’s coat tails hoping to absorb some of his power and respect. Or we can put aside our few petty differences, forge a United Europe, and set aside the xenophobic and self-interested to put forward a European voice on the world stage.


Let us at the very least have a robust, thorough and most importantly honest debate about Britain’s and Europe’s future.


In case you were wondering: France is ruled by the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, a centre right party and Denmark’s prime minister is Lars Løkke Rasmussen from the Liberal party.

Criminal Injustice

Election campaigns tend to be an opportunity for our political representatives to posture themselves as the toughest on crime – who can forget Blair’s 1997 pledge of “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. In practice New Labour were neither, but at least they started with lofty aspirations to attack the root of criminality; however this soon descended to “zero tolerance” when David Blunkett cherry picked a report on crime prevention from New York and applied one narrow aspect of it, without adopting the vast majority of the techniques used by the New Yorkers. This ‘zero tolerance’ approach was cheer led from the sidelines by the conservative press, which is to say, in essence all the press; a policy which flew the face of decades of research which have shown this approach has never worked.

Enter David Cameron into the fray, with a pledge to stop the government's early release scheme. This rash promise has led to the Conservatives proposing the reintroduction of prison ships, which when last used were described by the then Chief Inspector of Prisons as unfit for purpose. Cameron has condemned the government's early release scheme, citing that since Gordon Brown’s premiership 75,000 prisoners have been released early, with 1,500 offences being committed by inmates on early release. So, that is a massive 2%; clearly this is a political decision attacking the policy in general, to whip up support from the True Blues and the media.


The question our politicians should be seeking an answer to is; why are British prisons so full that we have to release prisoners early in the first place?


Britain has the largest prison population in Europe. About 70% of the detainees have two or more diagnosed mental disorders; about 60% have a reading age of less than that of a six year old and conservative estimates show at least a quarter of inmates are heroin addicts. New Labour has been obsessed during its tenure to criminalise British society, creating over 3,000 new offences with about half warranting a custodial sentence. When analysed many seem incredibly minor, with the Home Office’s zeal for sending people to jail for bad driving, petty crimes such as shop lifting, or as part of the ill conceived war on drugs.


The simple truth is that tens of thousands of prisoners in British jails just simply shouldn’t be there; in the Eighties the Conservative's inspired policy of ‘care’ in the community dumped thousands of severely mentally ill patients in small unsecured units, although in reality on the streets. Many now find themselves part of the prison population. Drug addicts should be rehabilitated, as this has been shown repeatedly, over and over again by countless studies to reduce crime and re-offending rates; New Labour’s response was to reduce the number of treatment centres in the UK. The prisons are too full to have effective education programmes to equip inmates with the skills necessary to be a worthwhile participant in society and then everyone throws their hands up in the air when the latest re-offender figures are released as though it is a mystery; then our intrepid political masters suggest being tougher or buying a couple of boats to solve the problem.


In British society an unvirtuous circle has evolved between politicians, the media and public opinion; which has taken us down a path where the best interests of our society are seldom served. It starts with a populist conservative sentiment based on ignorance and prejudice; the right-wing media then feeds on this sentiment, criticising the politicians for not immediately bowing down to it in the most reactionary way possible; the weak politicians then make policies to get applause from the press, and so we descend. Once when journalism was about reporting the truth, and politicians made their decisions based upon facts, public opinion could be changed and society improved. Capital punishment was abolished in the face of overwhelming public opposition, such a thing could not happen today, due to the debasement of our politics and press; maybe the Enlightenment has finally ended?


If petty criminals, the addicted and the insane were taken out of the prisons then those convicted of serious crimes could receive the punishments that they deserve and serve sentences that reflect the harm they have caused. The vast sums of money saved could be used to fund secure hospitals where the mentally ill could receive suitable treatment and drug rehabilitation centres could be built to help the helplessly addicted, as well as developing effective prevention programmes.


Our current justice system is a thing of deep collective shame, an indictment on our society where we lock up the deranged, the weak, and the feeble and offer them no realistic chance to redeem themselves after our retribution. We all feel good because justice has been seen to be done, we have reinforced our prejudiced opinion and the fact is we have not made society one jot safer.

No to nuclear: not so clear

I have often been left somewhat confused by the contradictory messages from environmentalists regarding the use of nuclear power. In one breath we are told that climate change will destroy us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels immediately; yet we are then told that the low carbon energy source of nuclear power is not even an option, for it is dangerous, dirty and terrorists will blow us all up. Instead we are told that we should move to renewables as these are safe, clean and it will probably make you your tea if you ask it nicely.



Fine, but is this really true, is this what science tells us, or is there something else driving this debate?


If we look at renewable energy as it stands, then there is an immediate problem with the green lobby message. It cannot meet our energy needs; even if Britain was bristling with wind turbines, like the spines on a hedgehog’s back, lights would still go out, factories would have to reduce production and shock-horror, we might even have to turn our televisions off! I expect as time goes by, given enough financial backing, renewable technology will improve to bridge this energy gap; technology usually does, my x-box makes my eighties Sinclair look positively prehistoric. However “you can’t put the cart before the horse” as my Dad is fond of saying, so until renewables are in a position to meet our energy needs, why not use nuclear?


The argument against nuclear is a flawed one. Firstly nuclear power does not equate to a nuclear bomb; this seems to be a fairly obvious point, however in this debate the obvious and rational have too often been forced into the background. Those against nuclear power will also point you towards Chernobyl, usually in semi-hysterical tones. Let’s be absolutely clear, in terms of technology, Chernobyl is to power stations what the Trabant was to the automotive industry. It was shamefully underfunded by the USSR and safety was non-existent; the disaster was an indictment of the people who ran the plant – not nuclear power. Returning to my x-box metaphor from earlier, the technology of today’s nuclear power plants has massively advanced; the plants of the eighties are arcane in comparison with those being built today.


The second complaint is that the waste produced is too expensive to dispose of, and it remains dangerous for thousands of years. If handled responsibly, nuclear waste can be safely stored. France generates over 75% of its energy from nuclear power and by using ‘the closed fuel cycle’, where the waste is reprocessed to be used again, the amount to be disposed of is greatly reduced. In fact, extrapolating from Department of Trade and Industry figures, an average household would produce a teacup full of high level waste over a seventy year period, indeed all of the high level waste produced over the last fifty years would fit inside the Albert Hall, leaving enough room for another thirty years worth at current production. So, we are hardly swamped with the stuff.


We are also told that terrorists could somehow target a nuclear plant, although how this scenario would play out is never expanded. If they flew a plane into a reactor, they would kill those on board, as well as any plant workers on the ground; however this would NEVER cause a containment breach. They could steal some fuel, however as I have already pointed out, a nuclear power station is not a bomb, if they stole the fuel it would still need to be enriched to be weapons grade. So this argument is perhaps the weakest of all, why go to all that trouble when they could attack a soft target for less effort and greater effect.


So if nuclear is not as dirty or dangerous as the propaganda tells us (if you don't believe me, ask a physicist), renewables cannot possibly meet our current energy needs and we accept that climate change is putting us in peril – why on earth are environmentalists opposing it. From a rational and scientific stand point, their position just doesn’t make any sense. This is the problem with green politics; it isn’t just about saving the environment, it is riddled with politicking, even when this leaves them supporting a view which whilst perhaps well meaning, is contradictory, naive and they are left looking like fools; my suspicion is that as the green movement evolved out of CND and the far left during the seventies; the ‘ban the bomb’ and ‘no to nuclear’ rhetoric has proven just too hard to give up, so hard in fact, they cannot differentiate between a power plant and a bomb.

Disrespect or Dystopia?

It came as no surprise today that the lunatic organisation of Islam4UK announced that they won’t be holding their inflammatory march in Wootton Bassett after all. What a bombshell it was to hear that swivel eyed moron, Anjem Choudary, after creating a storm of publicity, decided that trampling on the grief of the bereaved; as well as the wishes of a quiet little community was no longer necessary.



Let me share a little secret with you all – They were never going to hold a march.


Their only motivation was desperate publicity seeking: to gather as many of the conspiracy theorists; religious zealots; Islamist right-wingers; and misfits to their tawdry little club. Islam4UK is a pathetic organisation, full of grandiose plans to destroy Britain’s secular society, install Sharia Law and create a fundamentalist Islamic state. It is like an amalgamation of the BNP’s politics, spiced up with bible-belt faith creationist values, being ran by schizophrenic ex-pats.


"His (Choudary’s) attempt to demonstrate at Wootton Bassett was set out to provoke hatred between communities and is not welcomed in the Muslim communities," Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation is reported by the BBC to have said, before adding "He and his cronies have no support in the British Muslim communities."


In much the same way that Nick Griffin and Sarah Palin do not represent mine, or majority British opinion; Choudary and his band of bigots do not represent the views of British Muslims.


The problem for them now, is that they have boxed themselves into a corner after reaching publicity-stunt-critical-mass (as it were); for Islam4UK have played the “we are going to hold a controversial march” card before, to muted media attention. However after the furore this time, they in future will have to actually carry their threatened crassness through to its end in order to garner so much press attention.


As David Mitchell rightly pointed out in the Observer, the winners of this debacle are the press, who got to be outraged, whilst confirming the views of the little-Englanders; that Britain is going to hell in a Muslim hand cart. At the same time Islam4UK and their ilk get unfounded publicity and are able to claim confirmation that Britain is repressive towards Islam.


The loser in all this is free speech, for the general public reaction was to call for the proposed march to be banned. Whilst I totally sympathise with the sentiment, I don’t agree this would be the appropriate or desirable course of action. We, in theory at least, live in a free society, the foundation stone of which is freedom of expression and free speech. If we lose this right, then we are separated from the essence of being human and take another step towards an Orwellian dystopia.


The price of our freedom is that anyone can express their view, however ludicrous, unpleasant or disrespectful that view may be; it is their right. If someone wants to hold a march supporting the notion that the Moon is blue, so be it. I would think they were insane and it is my right to tell them they are idiots; or to ignore them; or as David Mitchell suggests, tell them to “fuck off”. The argument that ‘they wouldn’t allow you to do that in a Muslim country’ as is often spouted by right-wing bods is not really a particularly intelligent one - You can be stoned to death for adultery in some states, should we adopt that one too?


The next time Islam4UK threatens to march, (through the Normandy War Cemeteries or pissing on the Cenotaph are about the only options to up the ante I guess?), we could collectively ignore them and then the fuel of publicity would be extinguished. If we’d said “let the morons march then”, with no one acknowledging them, free speech and liberty could be served. If our 24 hour news media could control its desperate need for hype and controversy; see Islam4UK for what it is, and tell them to fuck off; then this whole episode could avoid being repeated. 

 I'm not going to hold my breath though.