Moralitics

Should we have bin a little more humble?

2011-05-11T04:55:00.000-07:00

I apologise for infrequent bloggery, anyway:

In recent weeks, the big news has been the "compromising to a permanent end" of Osama Bin Laden. OBL as he is dubbed, was generally accepted to have been the mastermind behind the 9/11 terror attacks in the USA.

Upon the announcement of his death by President Obama, there was a burst of spontaneous celebration across the USA. Obama, not wanting to offend anyone or seem overly jubilant went and paid his respects (without delivering a speech) at ground zero. Leaders of other countries also gave measured responses to the news.

There was clearly a sense of relief in America that the mastermind of the most abominable terrorist acts had been neutralised. Moreover, there remains an indomitable sense of patriotism enjoyed by Americans - truth, justice etc. But for me, the celebrations were a little distasteful. Don't get me wrong- I have no sympathy for Bin Laden - but 'liking' his death on facebook seems rather crass.

In the Jewish tradition, there are lessons which set out how one should both hate evil, but not celebrate the death of enemies. Thus we can hate Bin Laden and all he stood for whilst not celebrating the death of another human. There are various pointers to this way of thought in Jewish prayer, including the restriction in prayers of thanks and joy when relating the demise of the Egyptians in the red sea.

So I would urge people away from revelling in the death of others - however evil they may have been. Rather, to follow the lead of those at ground zero who encouraged the chanting crowds to be silent and think of those that suffered because of Bin Laden. In demonstrating such thought and dignity we can perhaps show it is our humanity - rather than bloodlust - that will win out in the face of terrorism.

Figure It Out

2010-10-20T03:46:00.000-07:00

Today George Osborne will present the Comprehensive Spending Review. All day and most of last week people have been talking in numbers.

83 Billion in cuts, 490,000 jobs by 2015, spending cuts of 25%.

There has been a move recently in leader’s speeches as party conferences to include stories of ‘normal people’ epitomised in the US elections by ‘Joe the Plumber’.

On a day filled with so many numbers I think its important to remember that 490,000 people out of work means up to, if not more than, half a millions families. That’s Jane and her kids or Barry and his sister. Whilst I understand the rationale for addressing our public finances I support all those MPs that are challenging the Government to ensure things are done with the maximum care for individuals and their families. Thinking in numbers makes it easier to dissociate oneself from the pain being inflicted, thinking in terms of real people is keyto ensuring a heart over head approach.

Hope Over Hate

2010-10-14T13:49:00.000-07:00

It’s been a while since I blogged. My increasing tendency towards indignantly attacking politics and media was worrying me. It’s not that there wasn’t enough to write about! From the media’s sad, sneering, homophobic remarks given voice by David Davis MP (here I go again) about the brokeback coalition to child benefit cuts. I’m pleased to say though, that it was the joyous pictures of the Chilean miners and their rescue over the past three days that inspired me to blog again.

Over about 2 and half months, the story captivating Chile and the world was the loss and miracle find of 33 miners trapped underground. Their subsequent rescue from ‘camp hope’, counted off on 24 –hour news channels like goals in a football match, brought me to the brink of crying on more than one occasion.

And what of the moralitics?

...It is easy, what with expenses scandals, an age of austerity and - as Chris Mullin in his excellent second volume of diaries describes it – a media virus to become glum and sour. When in our globalised world, however, a story of hope manages to break through like a light in the darkness (or a capsule into a mine, as it were) the effect on people is remarkable. I like that the Chilean premier and his people took pride in their achievement. I like that tweets, blogs and articles talked of delight and elation. I also like that there will be serious reviews of mine safety as a result. I like that people came together in solidarity and i like that the Chilean Ministers did not seek glory from the event but played their part as fellow citizens of humanity. My point? If we can move from scandal and sadness to determination, solidarity and joy in our efforts to make the world a better place we might all be a little happier in the end. Let’s Hope.

The Thick Of It...

2010-04-28T05:37:00.001-07:00

In a moment of Hugh Abbotesque glory, the Prime Minister has got caught with his mic on courtesy of Sky. Getting into his car, he asked which aide was responsible for organising a meeting in Rochdale with a lady he later referred to as a ‘bigoted woman’. Brown has since apologised on the radio and reportedly called the lady in question. The press are reporting this as a low point for the Labour campaign – and I do agree, it’s certainly not the zenith. I wonder however, whether we can learn something from it?

Everyone will be getting gleefully excited that Brown was ‘caught out’ - and he was. Clearly, the language we use is important and we shall see what defence is put forward for GB’s. However, could it be that Cameron cursed out of earshot of the press when accosted by voters?...and do we believe that Clegg has never cussed?

The modern political-celebrity role lends itself to showing people what you think they want, out-spinning the other and never apologising. Is it any wonder than that George Bush’s ‘Yo Blair’ moment got so many youtube hits? The fact that politicians occasionally show a human side might, rather than being a ‘gotcha’ moment for the press, empower ordinary folk to engage in politics. Let’s hope so.

Debate Night (2)

2010-04-22T04:14:00.000-07:00

It’s a big day for the big three. Cameron, Clegg and Brown are going back to the public today for a second round of reason or ridicule. So what’s my prediction? Well, looking at the facts, this should be Nick Clegg’s second bout of glory. An ex-MEP he will have a good grounding in the politics of Europe and if he sticks clear of getting in mess over trident, the press will no doubt have that cigar back in his mouth, fighting them on the beaches.

So what of Brown? Well, as the PM, he has the inside track. He has a strong track record on Africa and good relations with China. He has the advantage of having ‘saved the world’ in economic terms – well at least, leading the way at the G8. He should know the brief well, but if these debates are about the X-Factor, rather than ‘…Talent’, we will no doubt see Gordon cruelly sidestepped even if he’s the strongest.

As for Cameron, he’s got some serious ground to make up, his China-Iran fluff hurt him, bad. In addition, he hasn’t got the most progressive policy in Europe. Expect much talk of Antisemites and Homophobes in reference to his European bedfellows. This could get dirty.

And what of Israel – expect, perhaps, stock answers about reaching an agreement. Real statesmen want to make peace. None the less, there will be uncomfortable answers for some in the Jewish community.

Being our next global ambassador is a pretty big responsibility. Lets hope the focus isn’t on hairstyles and backdrops.

This is a cross-blog for the YJPN Website.

Eyeing Up The Leaders Debate

2010-04-15T03:04:00.000-07:00

Tonight marks a departure from traditional British electoral politics as we see the first in a series of debates to determine whom we like the most. I’ve chosen my words carefully. Sadly, I’m not the biggest fan of these types of debates. Let’s take Question Time as an example. In recent years, I have despaired as audiences clap themselves silly, contradicting themselves over the same point simply because panellists talk with passion. There is – to be fair – the odd question that gets to the heart of policy matters, but I would suggest time is mainly spent whooping as one politico cleverly dismisses the point of another. In addition, I think that tonight quite cruelly, the older, more dower Brown will be matched to the younger, shinier Clegg and Cameron in a quasi-beauty competition. So here’s my suggestion. We should have one TV, one Radio and One Internet debate. If that were to happen, we could get the best of them all and perhaps some meaty policy debate. I for one, shall be looking on with cynical eye.

Lady GaGa’s nose

2010-03-10T04:22:00.000-08:00

Well, not a typical moralitics post, but I have done a guest one for the CST at this address so thought Id reproduce here:

For a long time now I have been buying Q magazine. I saw it as an in-depth, broader publication than the NME which I also enjoy.

I had been saving it for some light reading before bed and finally got round to looking at this months issue before bed on Tuesday. I had been particularly keen to read the feature article on the pop sensation Lady GaGa, I didn’t know much about the story behind her eccentric appearance and was interested to learn more.

I was one column through the article when the author, Sylvia Patterson, started to describe the singer’s appearance:

She stares straight at you with enormous brown eyes, bewitchingly younger and prettier in the flesh, with a glorious Jewish nose.

I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest of the article and put it down in disgust, only picking it up the next morning to a) check that I had read it right and b) try and get past it and satisfy my original intention of learning about Lady GaGa.

There were certain questions I find I ask myself – rightly or wrongly – in these cases. So I consulted with colleagues on whether I was being over-sensitive – the general consensus was not – although it is fair to say there was some uneasiness with the level of my objection. So, on consideration, I decided to write to the magazine and was given the email of the editor-in-chief Paul Rees. I noted my concern, the offence I had taken and the laziness of the stereotyped description. There were two points I made which I felt were of particular concern:

It is irrelevant what Lady GaGa’s cultural or religious heritage is, the use of the word ‘Jewish’ to describe someone’s nose is classic ethnic antisemitism.
Would a similar description applied to any other ethnic minority have passed the edit? You can imagine the crass examples I might have cited?
My email finished by asking that Q prints an apology and avoids such careless stereotyping in the future.

To Paul Rees’ credit, he replied very quickly reassuring me that the comment ‘wasn’t meant in a derogatory way, but as something celebratory, hence the use of the word ‘glorious’’. He went on to explain ‘It is used in the same way as we’d use ‘glorious Roman nose’ as a description.’

He apologised profusely and, given I thought his words to be genuine and that he had noted my concern (and was unlikely to let it go through again) I said I accepted but noted my continuing concern. He thanked me for my understanding.

This is one that will continue to eat away at me. Maybe I should have notified the Press Complaints Commission, or sent him an email back pushing for a printed apology but I don’t think, on this occasion, I would have succeeded. Ultimately, this is a music magazine where similar comments are unlikely to appear often, if ever, and they’ve said sorry…

What I find very hard to come to terms with is that in 2010, ‘glorious Jewish nose’ can pass the edit of a successful magazine article. Perhaps more sad is my (and others) lack of certainty on whether I should have felt offended and taken action.

Well, I cannot read such words as anything but derogatory and whilst I don’t want to be part of any language police, I do want to tackle such stereotyping which feeds a wider carelessness in our use of language about Jews. For all those that want to join, well, bless you.

Hard for us to say we’re sorry

2010-02-24T02:50:00.000-08:00

Today, Gordon Brown will be apologising for the UK’s role in sending more than 130,000 children to former colonies where many of that number suffered horrendous abuse.

In a statement to the House of Commons, The Prime Minister will express regret over the Child Migrants Programme. Ending 40 years ago it sent poor children to Australia or Canada – where rather than the better life they were promised, they ended up in institutions or as forced labourers.

Also, talking about apologies today will be the press. A Seminal report by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee outlines major suggested changes to press regulation and libel laws. Amongst the problems highlighted by the report is the coverage of Madeleine McCann's abduction. The committee is recommending - amongst others things - that the Press Complaints Commission should have the power to fine newspapers.

Whilst discussing the matter on BBC news this morning, Bob Satchwell of the Society of Editors was focusing on (read: trying to excuse) the way in which articles can be published and then subsequent apologies are often buried deep within a newspaper.

Why has it become so hard for us to say sorry?

We now goad our politicians into saying sorry – sometimes as if this landmark word – sorry – will totally change the political map. As a result, the game has become not to apologise.

Whilst some apologies might be seen as politically motivated (The Archbishop of Canterbury to the Gay Community) and others a PR stunt (Tiger Woods to his wife), I for one am in favour of more people fessing up and saying when things are wrong. So good on you Gordon, lets have it more often and quicker – it’s a small word but occasionally, when said with meaning, it can make a big difference.

Bully For You

2010-02-22T09:44:00.000-08:00

Well, I’ve been away moving home, getting married and changing jobs. I’m back though, and there is much worthy of comment. From assassinations to animal cruelty there are many moral dilemmas to discuss but for today I want to look at bullying.

Andrew Rawnsley from the Observer in trailing his new book has released news supposedly backed with hard evidence that there was bullying in Downing Street - particularly by our PM, Gordon Brown. Why these allegations were not articulated earlier, one can only guess. They are now being refuted by amongst others, Sir Gus O’Donnell

Not wanting to miss an opportunity to get a personal dig in on the PM the official opposition(s) have called for an inquiry

Meanwhile, the Anti-bullying hotline has revealed (much to the chagrin of one patron) that Downing Street officials have indeed called them in the past.

I think this has brought out the absolute worst in politics.

Firstly, bullying – as I well know – is horrendous. It makes you feel awful. Yet, the word is being thrown around with glee by political opponents on twitter and facebook. It totally undermines the real problem.

Secondly, Brown might be passionate, angry, frustrated – whatever you want to call it – but I doubt that he is a bully. I cannot see him consistently degrading and upsetting one person (or a number) over and over again in a targeted way.

Working for an MP certainly has its more difficult days – and I agree that in some cases people could and should be reminded of employment laws and codes of conduct. But the use of ‘bullying’ as a tool to play political games is pathetic, sinister and undermines the serious harm that bullying causes to people every

BNP PROTWEST

2009-10-20T04:04:00.001-07:00

This is a cross-guest post from the CST by the Young Jewish Political Network

JOIN YJPN ON A TWITTER PROTEST AGAINST THE BNP!!

This Thursday, the BNP will have their first ever appearance on Question Time.

To show your opposition to the BNP, the YJPN would like to invite you to join a mass movement of Twitterers by saying NO TO THE BNP AND ITS POLICIES!

BNPPROTWEST will be tweeting the best reasons why the BNP don’t stand for our Britain on Thursday all day.

What do you need to do to join the YJPN Twitter Protest?

Joining Twitter is very simple. A standard sign up process is well signposted when you join via twitter.com. From there, you can choose to follow other users and post your own comments. The YJPN will be posting from BNPPROTWEST. You can find us using the ‘find people’ button.

Once you have found us we ask that you copy our opening message:

Join the @BNPPROTWEST say #NOTOTHEBNP and explain why they dont stand for our Britain – take action this thursday see: www.hopenothate.org.uk

A ‘hashtag (#)’ as above, is a signpost for a subject. You will see if you use the hash, that you can click on the words that follow it.

Doing so, will take you through to a list of all of the ‘tweets’
(messages) about this campaign.

If you have yet to master how to use Twitter then you can also send us your messages via email at info[at]yjpn.co.uk or send us a text on
07977 476 769. We will then make sure that your comments are put up on the YJPN Twitter Protest.

Join the mass movement by telling others about this campaign so that they too can show their opposition to the BNP and what it stands for.

A Day in the Life of Moralitics...

2009-10-14T13:48:00.000-07:00

Some quickies for me on the week that was:

1. Smoking

After the long and fractious debate on the smoking ban in 2007, seemingly without anyone noticing, Parliament furthered the ban (which still needs to get through the Lords) to cigarette machines and public display of cigarettes.

In a bizarre but lovely political twist, opposition to the ban did not provide Parliamentary tellers (vote counters) and so it went through as an amendment to the Health Bill.

To me, a full publicity ban on smoking is not only welcome but necessary. I may seem right-wing or even draconian but I know as a young person I was tempted by the displays of packs behind newsagent counters and by machines in pubs - and that many continue to be drawn in to this day.

If people want to buy cigarettes and smoke them, fine. They should be allowed to do as they wish. But tobacco is a drug that needn’t enjoy the degree of free advertising it receives. As a long-time concert goer, I know only to well the benefits that the Labour Government’s smoking ban has brought me. I hope the Bill passes through the Lords amended, and we can see off the habit that leads to so many unnecessary deaths.

2. Airports
The airport operator BAA has today said business will face ‘disaster’ with Tory opposition to a third runway at Heathrow. Apparently the party ‘doesn’t get aviation policy’

This makes me sick. BAA does not get climate change policy, and they had better start trying to understand it.

The BAA argue we are losing 1 billion a year, that we will be less competitive etc etc. Well, when you look at climate predictions the alternative is rather more frightening I’m afraid. Climate Change campaigners will not want to scare people but the fact is that we need a global solution fast. Serious harm will be coming our way if the world’s average surface temperature rises to more 2°C above pre-industrial levels. A 0.7 - 0.8° rise has already occurred. Check the RSPB website for details of how to help…

3. Expenses

MPs have been asked to pay back expenses for various things after the investigation by independent auditor Sir Thomas Legg whom chose his own remit.

Some will refuse, I suppose, especially if they are standing down at the next election. Is it an unfair burden? should things be questioned retrospectively?

Let’s face it, being elected is a privilege, as are expenses. Whilst the rules may have permitted certain extravagances we all know what is morally right and wrong. I suggest everything earmarked by Sir Thomas be paid back so those under question are beyond reproach (unless they take issue with factual accuracy), such as Gordon Brown has done. In the case of uncertainty, apply the reasonable person test – this might help bring a sense of reason back to more extravagant Parliamentarians.

Meanwhile, lets move on and get back to policy – hardly the best start to the term, eh?

Reinin' In The Sun

2009-10-02T01:56:00.000-07:00

Well I’m back after a little party conference break. It’s been a pretty quiet summer vis-à-vis moralitics, apologies, but something has got my back up so I’m back on the case.

The press has a role to play in our political progress. Scrutiny, transparency, investigative journalism, championing the little and less well known causes - all good. But what an indictment of our country, that ‘The Sun’ should make itself the appointer to the throne of British politics and take itself seriously in so doing. I found the religious connotations (smoke over their offices a la papal appointment) particularly offensive and distasteful. First we have the BBC conferring legitimacy on the BNP (listen from 4 mins. on to this for how reporters are failing to take them on) and now the sun fiasco.

I can understand a political editorial, I can understand left-wing and right-wing papers, I may even have found the Sun’s announcement OK but doing it during a political party conference in the way they did was not only cynical but, I think, a dangerous precedent. Seeing the Sun bathing in their self-made glory makes it all the worse.

And to all those that think I am sore, that I just don’t want the Tories getting the glory, see my earlier posts about the press. This is a long held concern of mine regardless of the political outcomes.

I am wary of making too many rules and regulations in general, and particularly for the press. I believe in a free press, but with this recent campaign, I feel like our politics are being belittled and peoples choices diminished. Perhaps we need to introduce guidelines on political campaigning which include the limits to which the press can be used as a tool for electioneering.

To No Platform or Not....?

2009-09-07T12:46:00.001-07:00

Surprise Surprise. The BNP are being considered for the flagship BBC political show Question Time. Ive no doubt there are hands being rubbed behind the scenes about the excitement this has generated in the press and the controversy and increased viewing numbers the appearance of the despicable Nick Griffin might encourage...

So far parties have ridiculously been labelled cowards by the Telegraph, whilst the New Statesman goes to town on the apparent realisation that the BBC are not liberal after all...everyones excited...

Well, frankly, I am aggravated and sickened by the whole sorry affair.

I personally believe in a No Platform for Racists and Fascists. You heard it here first but this is the bare minimum of what will happen:

1. BNP will appear, give populist anti-mainstream political arguments and be cheered. Press will report that they didnt do so bad. Worst of all, they'll learn how to do it better for next time..

2. Anti-fascists will make some crazy interlude on TV forcing the debate to be disrupted/closed early etc. People will think BNP werent given a fair chance..

Plenty more too. Alas, this is a lose-lose. If one doesnt invite them, they may argue its illegal, they will cry lack of free speech and win favour. If they go on, they will no doubt win some favour. Meanwhile, everyone else is caught up arguing about should we-shouldnt we.

My preferred option is for people to stop treating them like a normal party. The BNP should not be invited to take part. We can take them on with leafleting and policies in the streets. We can expose them with clever journalism but why offer them a seat at the table with the grown ups - they dont deserve it. If however, they are invited and there is nothing I can do about it, perhaps David Dimbleby can explain that they have members with perverse views about the Holocaust , they have disgusting views on Islam and their political party conference plays host to burnings of black effigies and Nazi salutes. Sadly, I doubt he will. Elected and now Accepted? I hope not...

For those that have enjoyed my personal blogs, you'll notice Ive been apologising for infrequent updates. i am taking this in hand with a vow to blog at least weekly. Will strive to keep that vow unbroken..

Lessons from Lockerbie

2009-08-26T05:05:00.000-07:00

Apologies again- new job has meant little blog time - still looking to improve this.

The obvious story for me at the moment is that of the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

Now many people will and have made many accusations - it was for politics, intelligence, oil etc- read around the web and ye shall find.

I want to focus on the moral policy question. Surely we could and should look at compassionate release?...

For Scotland 23/30 applications for compassionate release have been granted since 2000. In England and Wales 48 prisoners in the last five years. Release is given if a prisoner is approaching death through terminal illness. There are other means to compassionate release such as looking after children that have no one else. In Scotland, a three-month life expectancy is the guide for release (hence controversy if Megrahi lives longer). In addition, the prisoner must not pose a threat to society.

I find this issue very difficult. Having been interested in and along to a couple of MOJUK events, I know that miscarriages of justice can happen. If someone is dying, how horrendous would it be to find out that compassion had been denied when the subject was innocent. I don’t think that Magrahi should have been set free as it goes - particularly given the celebratory and no doubt preferential treatment he (has and) will likely continue to receive.

However, I do think that in such cases, provision could be made to ensure that
a) surroundings are more comfortable and not (as seems to be the case here), below standard.

b) I wonder whether some form of help could be made available to assist immediate family to be with the sick or dying person.

I don’t think that convicts deserve special treatment, but I wouldn’t want to see families suffer terribly with no means of help. Punishment for the perpetrator is one thing - being heartless another.

The figures show that compassionate release is limited. In such highly political (and rare) cases such as Megrahi, perhaps we can think a bit differently, show heart and execute justice at the same time

MPs-NHS moralitics purge

2009-08-14T04:26:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the lack of posting of late. I was on holiday. Am now back and in thoughtful mood. I'll apologise for what follows, two quickies that deserve moral comment and I need to get off my chest:

1. I try to stay clear of too much party politics for that is not the purpose of my blog. That said, what on earth was Alan Duncan thinking... the man that negotiates for the Tories thinks that in excess of £64,000 a year is a bad deal.

I think actually, that a large number of thoroughly decent MPs work very hard and deserve perhaps increased pay equal to that of council leaders etc However, the suggestion that poorer quality candidates for Parliament will be attracted by such a salary is pathetic. It shows a total lack of connection with the abject poverty that many people live in and moreover gives a sense of entitlement which I for one find disgusting.

2. Our National Health Service is under attack not only from republican opponents of Obama's health plans but by our own Tory MEP. Yes there are problems with the NHS, modernisation is needed, but i find it difficult to fault the premise of an organisation which provides free care to those that need it all across the country. There are two many countries where a visit to the doctor is weighed up against buying a loaf of bread. What more moral approach can there be than sharing the cost of a system free for all to access.

More thoughts, hopefully more often in the coming weeks but I had to get those issues off my chest and into the blog....

Danny

Talking to Terrorists

2009-07-27T13:33:00.000-07:00

As most of you will have read today, the Foreign Secretary, Rt Hon David Miliband MP is urging the Afghan Government to talk to the Taliban.

I find the idea of negotiating with terrorists a very difficult one.

Lord Janner, my ex boss, used to recount the story of his visiting Margaret Thatcher. He had been to see her on an unrelated issue, when he asked what she was doing that day, she told him she was going to meet Archbishop Makarios. He was surprised and reminded her that she had branded him a terrorist not long before the meeting. Thatcher replied something like; "My dear boy, in order to make peace sometimes one has to talk to terrorists".

I know that negotiations probably happen in many regions of the world with very unpleasant regimes and non-state agitators. Indeed the former UK ambassador's then controversial suggestion of such a strategy seemed to indicate as much. This doesn’t make it any easier for me..

The reason I find it difficult is in relation to the conflict I know best. In Israel-Palestine, the thought that someone could negotiate with Hamas is very distressing to me. They may have been elected in some of the Palestinian elections but they are by no means Democrats. They kill, torture, kidnap and maim - not just Israelis but political adversaries and collaborators. For all of that ill though, if someone wasn’t talking to them, there would be no hope of return for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit and little hope of peace beyond.

I think therefore on balance, i am resigned to this happening, but in this case there needs to be a moral grey ground in which such operations take place. One needs to fight terrorism. People and groups cannot make demands using terrorist methods - that is black and white, an absolute moral certainty. However, as Paddy Ashdown on the Today Programme suggests, once you have the military upper hand, one needs dialogue to ensure an end to violence.

Talking to Terrorists is very unsavoury in my book, but if this morally grey activity can lead to peace, harmony and safer communities, perhaps there is some room for it (within strict boundaries and guidelines) in strategic considerations. I for one, am glad that I don’t have to do it.

Truth & Straight Talk: Who to believe?

2009-07-23T02:19:00.000-07:00

I have been watching with interest this week, the story develop over comments attributed to Lord Malloch Brown in the Telegraph. In short, the Foreign Minister was alleged to have said that there were insufficient helicopters in Afghanistan for British troops to discharge their duties. This feeds into a wider debate raging in the UK about military resources. A very short time later, the comments were clarified by the Foreign Office.

So we have a complete reversal, and I am left to work out whom I should believe. On the one hand, a traditionally right-wing paper perhaps out to make political mischief or a Minister who spoke out of turn and is trying to dump the trash as quickly as possible. I dont blame either of them really, its the product of an evolving culture. What is clear to me is that the situation is straightforward. Either the troops are sufficiently resourced or not. If they are not, well ok, say why not and explain what is being done about it. If they are, then fine, and make sure you have the details to prove it. This is straightforward stuff.

I enjoy politics and political activity – this seems more like the silly back and forth we are beginning to expect of all sides in politics. The worst thing is that whilst trust in politics is so low (despite the presence very many good, hard working people in the field) such antics only serve to keep that mistrust at large. Some straightforward speak is needed….

Remembrance

2009-07-07T12:56:00.000-07:00

In many ways today is prompting reflection and regret. Two very different incomparable tragedies. Obviously, the passing of Michael Jackson and the memorial for him in the US, but closer to home the 4th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings.

I want to focus on the latter. Today in Hyde Park a memorial was unveiled. An impressive 52-pillar tribute to those that lost their lives in the terror attacks. Indeed, it seems that our Parks often play an important role for remembrance. The example with which I am most familiar is again Hyde Park and the Holocaust Memorial Stone.

I may appear provocative, but I think we need Parliament to take a lead. There are a number of war memorials in Parliament: see here. The only other memorial that I know of is a shield dedicated to Airey Neave MP who was killed by a car bomb outside Parliament.

With all the recent talk about reform of politics and making the House more accessible - surely this would be one gesture that although small, could bring some modern meaning not just to politics but to the Parliamentary estate. I understand the political ramifications of choosing one thing over another for memorial, but surely a national tragedy like 7/7 would be high up on the list.

As a counterbalance to such sombre thinking, we could look to the USA. In the states, under the houses of congress, they have a display of children's artwork. Two items from each state - the winners of a competition get to display there.

I do not mean to belittle or demean such an awful day in any way - but I wonder if we might think ahead to the 5 year anniversary and see whether we might twin appropriate remembrance with a modern, ethical political system reflected in its Parliamentary home.

I wish strength to all those that lost someone on that day - my thoughts are with you today.

Press Panic

2009-07-02T12:37:00.000-07:00

Would you believe it - the Government is buying enough swine flu treatment for the nation, but guess the headline on aol?.... it tells us how many cases we should expect. Is anyone else fed up of the consistent barrage of daily fear stories. Perhaps more accurate factual reporting is now a distant memory...?

Moral Hazard

2009-06-25T03:19:00.000-07:00

This week i have been reading the mighty Vince Cable's book, 'The Storm'. It is good because it gives a basic, understandable overview of the current economic situation. It got me thinking about our money systems.

There is a term used in economics to describe a particular situation, known as 'Moral Hazard'. This has many applications but, in short, is the equivalent of letting yourself be hit in the face because you know you have health cover. But the moral question in financing and economy is deep and complex and perhaps too often a secondary consideration.

I would like to suggest that moral hazard should be looked at in a different way. At present, we have a market flux at best and serious failure at worst. The question is whether we let the market fail, or whether we intervene. In addition, whether we regulate or not. Do we effectively reward bad decisions by keeping certain markets afloat, or let them crash and in doing so affect many others.

I would suggest that the moral hazard in these times of instability is entirely about the questions above. About greed, poverty, punishment and reward. As with all things I would suggest that the answer is a balance -and for me, one on ethical terms.

So, i dont want a failure and crash in the housing market. Obviously not. That said, I want the guarantees of Government support and lending to be stronger with a focus on morality of institutional lending - dont saddle those who clearly cannot repay with ever increasing debt. For me those guarantees are not yet strong enough. I want to see punishment by way of fines and other punitive action taken against those who were indebting the poor. Encouragement for sensible lending to those on low incomes with, for example, measures that give relief to those that miss a payment. Sensible borrowing and lending. I want to see regulation, to stop this happening in the future but I would like to see healthy competition. A balance, with the Government holding the moral strings.

What Id really like though, is an end to the humiliating greed which allows the wealthiest to feed off the poorest. Perhaps in these gloomy times, we have the perfect opportunity to redress the balance. 'The Storm' continues making political space for such action and I hope Government will continue to use it for good ends.

Pay a Fiver, Save a Life

2009-06-16T02:54:00.000-07:00

How could I not blog again today after spending an amazing morning with Director of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation (TBFF) 'Faiths Act' programme, Dr. Ian Linden.

If you didnt know, since leaving office our former PM (whilst trying to bring peace to the Middle East and more) is setting out to prevent deaths from malaria in Africa.

The focus is on following up the year 2000 UN Millennium Development Goals (of which there are eight). These aim to tackle global poverty before 2015. One of the goals includes the target of eliminating deaths from malaria. Tragically, there are up to a million deaths each year, with the majority occurring in sub-Saharan Africa and totally unnecessary.

TBFF is highlighting the role, and strengthening the hand of Faith groups, that are helping to deliver progress on the ground. The foundation is ensuring faiths act together to secure the achievement of these goals.

It costs £5 to buy a bed net to keep a family covered at night, money also goes to helping spray homes with insecticides/anti-bacterials or on educational programmes. Surely this campaign is at the heart of what moral/ethical politics is all about. If we can prevent a child or a pregnant mother from dieing, by using our money or political will and power, we must. I am supporting the campaign, and I hope that you will consider forgoing starbux today or a smoothie tomorrow in order to donate.

For more info click here.

Far Right Exposed, Granted Access

2009-06-11T05:56:00.001-07:00

2 random bits of concern and amusement.

1. The new mayor of Doncaster (English Democrats) taken to task at the BBC here. I hope that more of this policy-proofing will highlight to voters the results of electing the far right.

2. The BNP as part of their Euro-benefits get access to Parliament. Please encourage your MP to sign this EDM to stop this happening.

Blog over.

Not In My Name

2009-06-08T00:06:00.000-07:00

Well, it happened. Last night in 2 regions of the UK we elected Nazis to represent us. Having just commemorated D-Day, we have sent Fascists into Europe.

Now Griffin and Brons get a platform from which to spread their racist virus, up to half a million quid in expenses (if you think youve seen a scandal, just wait) and legitimacy to keep pushing for a Westminster seat. Not to mention the scary thought of the committee appointments and speaking engagements they will now use their status to exploit. And its not like the Anti-racist campaigners in their seats didnt work hard.

But we now have more work to do.
1. We must engender a grown up and sensible debate about asylum and immigration - its been too long coming

2. We must fight to get them out, from today and not stop so that we are on the front foot next time round

3. We must ensure they do not get away with anything whilst in post - such as misusing expenses, not turning up to debates etc

4. We need to encourage a higher level of national debate, encouraging serious policies that speak to people, enhance equality and address the reasons that moved them to vote BNP in the first place.

5. ..and all sign http://action.hopenothate.org.uk/page/s/notinmyname

This will be a start, unfortunately, we're playing catch up

Houses R Us

2009-05-20T10:08:00.000-07:00

I just bought a house. Well, actually, I've not really bought a house but am on the way to indebting myself to a mortgage lender for a large period of my life like most of the rest of the UK (those that are privileged enough to obtain or afford a mortgage at all).

The huge prices associated with house buying have put in perspective for me (again, as Polly Toynbee already had) the continued and growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. I think Labour have a great deal to be proud of as regards their legacy - but the poverty gap has not been reduced and so sorely needs to be. How can it be fair for so many people to have to bankrupt themselves with mortgage entry charges, interest only repayments not to mention lawyer's fees and other associated costs. Surely, a fair society would mean we can all live with a roof over our heads and enough in our accounts to feed our families. If there is one challenge that remains for Labour and should be met by any other parties, it is bringing forward policies to create a more equal society where money doesn't bring superiority.

Until recently, I had lost sight of value - its now all about must have, must get, need and want. I'm starting to think about my personal approach not only to money, but to the climate too. I value fairness and the more i think about it, the more i want to fight for it.

Politics, Money and Press

2009-05-15T04:20:00.000-07:00

'There is a bloody limit', a phrase engrained into my being along with a host of others by my former boss, Lord Janner. I dont know about you, but I am sick of the whole Telegraph affair.

True, there has been some immoral, disgraceful and frankly dirty behaviour by some of our top elected reps. True, there has been severe lack of judgement from those signing the expenses off in the Commons but if this goes on we're all heading for a fall.

The June 4 elections are now in danger of becoming a no-show protest. The BNP and others are pitching themselves as anti-sleaze ambassadors, and amongst it all, opposition parties and plotting Labour MPs are using the whole mess to try to oust the speaker, Michael Martin (which will clearly do a lot of good for public perceptions of politics!)

This is my take:

It is a shame that a number of MPs flipped their homes and filled them with unnecessary and extravagant gifts. It showed some of them to be seriously out of touch and greedy. That said,

1. MPs work hard - staying until 10 most nights, constantly trying to do right by your constituents is not easy. Look at the number of broken families resulting from tough political careers.
2. If you live up North or Down South, coming to London can be long and tiresome. Having a house to go to at night is fair - and many many businesses help people in similar situations. (I also dont buy the argument that one Government owned hotel would suffice).
3. Limited business expenses when running a political operation for constituents are perfectly reasonable.
4. Mistakes happen, those that made them, have apologised and repaid (despite the obvious light shining on them to do so) could and perhaps should be forgiven.
5. In some cases, staff members (speaking as an alumnus) may be to blame - not the MPs

Expenses are a privilege - having been abused, they should now be totally changed. Brown did indeed refer expenses matters to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and then brought forward proposals for an earlier change opposed by the opposition parties (who suggested the proposals were worst than the existing set-up).

Surely, our attention and effort could now be better spent providing solutions and suggestions rather than getting whipped up into attacking our MPs every time a toilet duck receipt surfaces. Im sure the people of Sri Lanka could do with our Foreign Secretarys attention more than his chair.

Moreover, party attention at this time could be better spent focussed on
a) the economy and
b) engendering support for serious policies for Europe.

I hope constructive and serious political debate can overtake this frustratingly long, drawn out publicity stunt by the Telegraph. Fair play to them for breaking it, but this is getting ridiculous. If public policy debate is ever going to move on, it has to be taken out of the gutter first

All that said - you need to have a sense of humour, so at least the traditional party lines have been re-drawn, the Tories spending on Moats and Tennis courts, Labour on bathplugs and porn...

Hmm - commenting on my own blog, based on some facebook reactions:
1. 'Telegraph Affair' may be the wrong title for this mess
2. Agree that MPs are in some cases silly for not owning up and stopping the saga going
3. Whilst there is a duty to report, hysteria is not reporting