THE SCUM AT THE SUN

Marjorie Smith

           The Sun's squalid ambush of Gordon Brown, by surreptitiously taping a private conversation between the PM and the mother of the deceased Grenadier Guardsman Jamie Janes deserves the utmost condemnation.

             The exploitation of a mother's grief for political ends by the Sun is a new low in the conduct of the print media in the UK. This follows the disgraceful treatment of Gordon Brown's visual disability the day before in the Sun, when Gordon Brown had sent a handwritten letter to Mrs Janes. Poorly written, it may have been, but that's the very nature of his disability which has been so shamelessly exploited for nefarious political ends by the editorial scum at the Sun.

           This is an outrageous breach of privacy and it should be noted was obviously a set-up by journalists at the Sun, without doubt with the full knowledge of the Editor AND the Chief executive of Murdoch's News International. This has not beeen Mrs Janes acting alone.

            One future initiative the PM should introduce immediately, is that any private conversation between the PM and a member of the public, should be conducted only on a encrypted phone that is provided (for the duration of the call only) by the cabinet office to the person involved.

           This follows the dreadful coverage of the PM's "supposed" conduct at the rememberance service at the cenotaph, when he allegedly failed to bow his head in respect, no doubt  being more concerned, because of his very poor eyesight,  about not falling over when walking backwards downstairs

            The conduct of the right-wing tabloid press over the past few days has been utterly appalling in relation to the Prime Minister's disabilty and if it was anybody else in public life outside politics, the journalist involved wouldn't even have started putting pen to paper. This has been a deliberate attempt by editorial teams in each of the right-wing press dictating to their minions what they wanted to see in their papers.

            The Editor of the Sun, Dominic 'Bizarre' Mahon, whose only real experience of journalism seems to have been confined to celebrity tittle-tattle (which I suppose makes him a perfect choice as editor of a downmarket tabloid) seems not to care one jot about journalstic ethics generally and the ethics code of the ineffectual Press Complaints Commission in particular.

Why Alan Johnson is skating on thin ice

Marjorie Smith

Alan Johnson's justification for sacking Professor Nutt over his refusal to acquiesce with the Government's decision to reclassify cannabis from C to B under the Misuse of Drugs Act is spurious in the extreme.

The main reason that the Labour leadership seems to struggles over this issue is that there is a streak of Christian Socilalist thinking (Straw, Brown, Blair et al) that seems to rely more on the advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers rather than those more well-versed in what is actually happening on the streets. It is an ethos that top-down policy making based on moral certainties are appropriate for how society should govern itself.

The Government seem intent to keep on digging a gigantic hole over this issue and continues to flip flop like a startled fish in a Japanese sushi bar.

It was David Blunkett who declassified cannabis as a Class B to Class C in 2002. Taken on the advice of experts this seemed at the time a reasonable step, only opposed by the indignanti of the Mail and Telegraph brigade. This was shortly followed by the virtual de-criminalisation of canabis in Brixton, implicitly indulged by the Home Office who wanted to test public opinion on attitudes to cannabis.

The forces of reaction made sure that the public furore (mainly confined to the Op-Ed pieces and letters page of the said Mail and Telegraph) was blown-up into a media firestorm that intimidated the Home Secretary and the Home Office to beat a hasty retreat.

Then this was followed by a drip, drip, drip campaign about the dangers of drugs generally and their burgeoning effects on society as a whole. Often juxtaposes with the rare, but still tragic case, of individuals who had adverse reactions to taking drugs. The Government (and especially the Prime Minister) so often in thrall to the Daily Mail eventually caved in to the editorial line of Paul Dacre and performed a policy u-turn.

As Sue Blackmore in the Guradian, so elequently exposed Jacqui Smith's reasoning for reclassifying Cannabis to Class B . "In May 2008 Jacqui Smith announced that she wanted to reverse the decision and put cannabis back to Class B. She said she was concerned about the evidence linking cannabis smoking with schizophrenia, and with the increase in the supply of skunk and other strong forms of the drug.

There was indeed some evidence of a link with schizophrenia but the numbers of people affected are tiny, the risk small, and the reason for the correlation unknown (for example people who are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia may be more likely to smoke cannabis or to find it helpful). Some research even suggests that there is no link and that people diagnosed with "cannabis-induced psychosis" would have developed the symptoms anyway but blamed the drug. And interestingly, since the 1950s there has been a huge increase in cannabis smoking with no change in the rate of schizophrenia."

The other main reason for reclassification was that the stregth of skunk on the street had dramatically increased over the years and that the level of active ingridient (THC) in street level skunk was much higher than 30 years ago.

This simple claim by the Home Secretary reveals the absolute paucity of rationality behing the decision. The reason why skunk is so uchmore popular than it was is precisely because it is stronger and crucially it is widely available due to widespread expert cultivation in the UK. In other words the skunk (then more widely know simply as grass) of 20-3o years ago was widely dislike because of its poor quality, it was viewed as the smoke of last resort.

The valid comparison should have been made between today's skunk and yesterdfay's hashish, such as Red Lebanese, Moroccan Gold etc etc that came in a block and was and probably still is stronger than today's street-level skunk. If you compare apples with oranges you get bizarre results.

Labours rush to heavily increase the criminalisation of today's youth reveals a nasty anti-libertarian streak within the current Government that does society no favours and does young people especially, no favours.

BROWN BURIES BLAIR, AS DO THE EU SOCIALIST GROUP

By Marjorie Smith

Gordon Brown's snub to other Socialist leaders in the EU is the final nail in Tony Blair's coffin. Gordon turned up at the traditional dinner with other Socialist party leaders from across the EU. However, he gave a short presentation and then left immediately. Thus, in reality, depriving Blair of the only voice of support he could expect in the discussion.

Gordon also, curiously, shunned the family photo of the gathering of the Party of European Socialist leaders.

Not only did he not enthusiastically press the flesh for Blair but by snubbing other leaders he ensured that there would be a PES backlash against Blair. Going off to a press conferecne rather than staying for a dinner with his fellow leaders said it all in their eyes. It was therefore seen by other Socialist leaders that Brown blatantly does not want Blair to get the job, in that if he couldn't even be bothered to lobby vigorously for Blair amongst his own political allies in the EU. The only conclusion they could reach is that Blair is seen as being defenstrated by Brown.

EU socialist leaders said Thursday they were therefore aiming to secure the post of foreign policy high representative, also implicitly opposing the appointment of Tony Blair as President. "We socialists aspire to the post of high representative," said Spanish Prime Minister Jose Louis Rodriguez Zapatero at a pre-summit meeting of European socialist leaders in Brussels. Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, head of the Party of European Socialists, said Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann and Zapatero were asked to negotiate a deal with their conservative counterparts over the coming weeks. European socialists have frequently referred to Blair's involvement in the Iraq war when explaining their opposition to the British politician.

One other major point for consideration is that the post of 'Foreign Minister of the EU' is a potentially much more influental position than a titular President with an undefined role. Hence the PES have their eyes on the real prize and not on what could he booby prize.

Even more damming for Blair was comments made by other members of the Socialist group. "We have a common position concerning Mr Blair: we don't consider him a member of the socialist family," said Ramon Jauregui, a socialist MEP from Spain. Brown later retorted that people should look "forwards, not backwards." But he also acknowledged that Blair would have to fend off rival bids. The president is elected by qualified majority for a term of two and a half years, renewable once.

Blair is seen by many in the EU (and especially amongst the Socialist group) as a charasmatic leader but one who is in reality a Christian Democrat and not a Socialist.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM: HOW TO FINISH THE JOB

By Marjorie Smith

Gordon Brown's conference pledge to finally abolish the remaining hereditary peers from the Lords should be one of the final nails in the coffin of hereditary privilege in the UK (save for the ultimate target, the monarchy).

Successive Labour Governments have 'talked the talk' over House of Lords Reform, yet very few have delivered. Besides the concerns over a competing chamber with democratic legitimacy and a democratic mandate to fall back on, the other main objection is the supposed loss of the experience and expertise of the current members of the House of Lords.

The Blair administration's reforms of the second chamber went some way to giving a veneer of respectability with many of the hereditary peers no longer able to vote, although there still remains the general anachronism that 100 hereditary peers can still vote down or amend UK legislation agreed by the directly elected House of Commons.

The one hundred hereditary peers are at present a self-serving cabal in that they are elected by the rump of hereditary that was defenestrated in the last reform. There are two simple words why the system of keeping any hereditary peers in the House of Lords is indefensible is Mark Thatcher or for Labour voters is the grotesque outcome that Clement Atlee's grandson is now a Tory peer.

Whilst a few of the hereditary peers work hard and contribute to the workings of the House of Lords, it is impossible to justify their continued membership of the second chamber in a democratic system, they should however, be allowed to stand for election to the second chamber, they are currently a historical anachronism that should be unacceptable in a modern democratic society. The same argument for throwing out the hereditary peers is not as clear-cut for life peers.

A simple changeover of life peers by democratically elected replacements would risk certain aspects of the House of Lords that are well worth retaining. The one core principle should be that those voting on legislation must be democratically elected. However, there is no reason why life peers cannot continue to give service as members of the House of Lords select committees. Many life peers are highly qualified and retain high quality legal, administrative or political expertise.
Many of the House of Lords Select Committee reports are very well thought of and authoritative with a specialised but highly influential audience. For example the reports produced by the various House of Lords Select Committees on the EU are very influential and help to frame debate in the European Commission and in the European Parliament.

Another benefit of the current life peers is the expertise they can bring to bear when scrutinising Government. One of the most beneficial roles that a second chamber can deliver in a democratic society is to offer alternative scrutiny of Government. We shouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The proposed reform also presents the opportunity to immediately adopt proportional representation (without the need for a constitutional referendum) as a further way of democratising the second chamber. The balance to be struck is to retain the House of Commons as the primary chamber even if the second chamber achieves democratic legitimacy.

Gordon Brown should adopt a timetable of elections that differs from the general election for a House of Commons so as to build in an element of extra democratic accountability. National elections for a second chamber should take place between eighteen months and twenty four months after a general election.

In addition, the PR system for the second chamber should be based on regional lists with voters having the choice between parties and individuals on the list, rather than the appalling D'Hondt system. Jack Straw's choice of the D'Hondt system for European Parliament elections was the worst choice of all PR systems, with voters only able to vote for pre-selected lists for an individual party. It centralised power in party HQ and completely undermined regional and local constituencies.

The only other alternative is to have individual constituencies (similar in size to the old European Parliament constituencies), and use the Alternative Vote system, which would be more proportional than first-past-the-post and would have the extra benefit of making it highly unlikely that the BNP would have any electoral success under this system.

Regional lists for the second chamber have a dual benefit, not only being based on PR and anchoring democratic legitimacy in the nine regions of England as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But also the regional members should also have a dual responsibility of, in each region in England, being members of a Regional Assembly responsible for all regional bodies and quangos in their area.

It is a damming indictment of democratic accountability that there are countless agencies and quangos in the regions (e.g. Regional Development Agencies) and sub-regions (e.g. Merseyside or Greater Manchester) that have strategic powers and responsibilities, yet have no regional accountability or scrutiny. Thus members of the second chamber would have the direct responsibility of legislative power in the second chamber and of scrutiny in their region. Of course, with differing models of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, variable structures should be designed.

To ensure the primacy of the House of Commons, with its legitimacy dependent on general elections, the basic inter-relationship between both chambers should apply, i.e. anything forming part of a party's manifesto cannot be overturned or blocked by the second chamber. In other words the Parliament Act would still apply.

One final benefit of pledging to finally finish the reform of the House of Lords is that it places the Tories in an invidious position, they can either oppose it and be denounced as the defenders of privilege or agree to reform and risk civil war breaking out in their party, especially if the commitment by Labour is to make Parliamentary sovereignty deriving solely from the people and not from the Queen in Parliament.

A letter from Brussels looking at the UK political scene from an outsider's point of view.

THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN TRIBUNE MAGAZINE 30/10/11

Following the UK's annual conference season, the political outlook for 2010 appears to be a little more opaque than before.

What many thought would be a depressing experience for those attending the Labour conference was inaccurate once the conference had started in earnest. The mood was more upbeat and united than expected and has given some short-term encouragement to party activists.

Whist the Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot, the Tories treated champagne as if it was cocaine (not to be consumed in front of the servants or dogs).

Whilst Labour had received a very temporary boost in the opinion polls it is still doubtful if there has been any major shift so far, in how the Government is currently perceived. What has helped Gordon Brown was that there were no signs whatsoever of a leadership challenge, so a united front was shown to the public (party conferences in the UK are the subject of intense and unrelenting scrutiny by all forms of the media). Mainly as a result of the approaching general election which has served to make all aspects of the Labour party more disciplined and more focussed.

As the general election draws closer (on or before 3 June 2010), the comparisons between the Government and opposition will become more and more searching and the scrutiny of the Conservatives will increase exponentially. However, the Conservatives large lead in the polls has (at present) an air of permanency.

Following Labour’s Conference it is quite clear that Labour will hammer a few key themes as part of its electoral campaign;
Stewardship of the economy with an unrelenting attack on the Conservatives economic policies and their experience and competence.
That the Conservatives cannot be trusted to continue to deliver high-quality public services even if a Labour Government will have to reduce levels of public expenditure.
Attitudes to the EU will undoubtedly be used by Labour in an attempt to demonstrate that the Conservatives are still the same old ‘reactionary’ political force that they were seen to be in the latter days of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership.

Labour also has to persuade voters that they are still relevant and have policies to take the country forward (e.g. its proposals for a National Care service). However, this is an area where the Brown leadership has singularly failed over the past two years.

As the general election approaches, whilst some parts of the media will become much more partisan (e.g. The Daily Mail and The Sun) many others will want to be seen as more neutral and therefore Labour will have more opportunity to get its message across to voters than it has done so recently.

Furthermore Labour has to shore up its vote on its left with it needing to win back support from the Nationalists in Wales and Scotland, hence an energetic campaign claiming that a vote for nationalism is a vote for a Conservative Government.

The Labour party’s fortunes are still in a parlous state, whilst the Conservatives have access to large funds and have spent a lot of resources on targeting the key parliamentary seats that will decide the outcome of the next election. However, the Trade Unions will subsidise Labour and should ensure that that the Labour party has access to substantial amount of funds and other resources, although not any comparative level that the Conservatives will still enjoy.

It is undoubtedly true that the main opposition party, the Conservatives remain favourites to win the next general election, but the situation is not yet set in stone. Unlike in 1997, when Labour came to power, although the governing party is unpopular, the opposition have not yet persuaded the electorate that they are a credible AND reliable alternative.

However, Labour face the problem that David Cameron and his leadership group have been extremely successful in re-inventing the brand image of the Conservatives and it will be much more difficult for Labour to paint the Conservatives as unreconstructed free-market fanatics who will slash and burn public expenditure in all areas.
Cameron has already pledged to keep spending levels on Health and International Development at the same level as the current Labour Government plans in order not to be exposed to head-on attacks about wanting to slash public spending across the board.

Like most previous elections in the UK, the support for the incumbent Government will increase as polling day approaches and consequently the Conservative’s lead in the polls will narrow. It depends on how much the Labour party can either revitalise itself in the coming months (which is unlikely to be significant) OR it can persuade the electorate that the Conservatives are unsuitable for Government and undeserving of voters’ unqualified support.

The Conservatives have a large lead in the level of funding available to them compared to the Labour party. The have already outspent the Labour party in the key seats they need to win over the past three years and this investment in the key seats will undoubtedly produce some positive returns for the party regardless of what the national mood will be.
Despite Conservative protestations that they have an electoral mountain to clim, the reality is somewhat different. The Conservatives quietly made major advances at the last general election and hollowed out a large number of Labour MPs majorities. Allied with the tax-dodging Michael Ashcroft's donations from the tax haven of Belize targeting of all marginal seats, the mountain is more of a hill.

The relatively poor performance of the Liberal Democrats at their annual conference the previous week to Labour’s has also muddied the waters as voters will be less persuaded that voting Lib Dem is more of an attractive choice than what’s on offer from the main parties. However, a poor Lib Dem performance is a double-edged sword as Labour expects more of disillusioned Lib Dems to switch to them rather than the Conservatives. However, at previous elections it was the Lib Dems ability to take more seats from the Conservatives than Labour that helped Labour achieve comfortable majorities in Parliament.

However, in recent years voters disillusioned with Labour have switched their support to the Lib Dems (as well as to the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales) in many Labour-held constituencies. Labour can therefore expect some benefit from the perceived poor performance of the Lib Dems, but may yet continue to lose votes to the Nationalists.

If the Lib Dems were to hold the balance of power in a Westminster Parliament, then an accommodation with the Conservatives cannot be ruled out. However, it is more likely to be with the Labour Party, especially with Gordon Brown offering a vote on the Alternative Vote (AV) system after the 2010. The Lib Dems have long been campaigning for Proportional Representation and although the AV system is not their preferred option (STV is), the prospect of a referendum on PR would be enough for them to prefer to support the Labour party.

If Labour wins (unlikely) or there is a Labour/Lib Dem coalition (a possibility), then UK policy as regards the EU will continue very much as before (constructive engagement). However, if the Conservatives win outright (currently quite likely), then the mood music will change dramatically. However, a vocal aggressive pragmatism is likely to emerge, with Ministers sounding far more belligerent in public than they would be around a negotiating table.

The modern-day Conservative party is a far more Eurosceptic party than that under Thatcher or Major. Whilst the number of influential pro-EU Conservative politicians has decline dramatically, the number of eurosceptics within the parliamentary party has been strengthened greatly. In fact, euroscepticism is now one of the few defining political positions shared by a large majority of the party. A Conservative UK Government will have to be seen (domestically) to be pandering to the prejudices over the EU, whilst still trying to find an accommodation on most issues with other Member States in the Council of Ministers.

It looks like the UK, if a Conservative Government is returned, will return to its bellicose nationalism for domestic purposes (e.g. Major's Beef wars) whilst marginalising any influence it will have because of its overt behaviour and because of the highly questionable allies it has in the European Parliament.

Be prepared for the British national interest to be sacrificed in the pursuit of a scarcely veiled xenophobia towards the EU whilst trying to become more and more Atlanticist (as if George Bush was still in the White House). What Cameron, Hague and their neo-con supporters seemingly fail to realise is that Obama wants a UK fully engaged in the EU, so it can act as a respected partner rather than a marginalised and angry island on the periphery of the continent reduced to little more than George Orwell's Airstrip one.