I tweeted the following tonight:
Disappointed by how many of my fellow Liberal Democrats are calling for the Army and water cannon. Property can be replaced: lives cannot.
It got a fair amount of reaction(!). So here are my reasons in a fuller form:
The army is not the police. They are trained to kill and not to use non-fatal force with due restraint.
The vast majority of the rioting is criminal and not political but there are political elements who would delight to see blood flowing in the streets of London due to the over-reaction of the State. They should not be given another Peterloo or Bloody Sunday.
The army on the streets of Northern
Ireland did not deter rioting nor succeed in keeping the peace.
The deployment of the army would increase the the chance of deaths and not decrease it.
Mobilise the police on a national basis to ensure that the Met has the manpower and resources necessary to regain control of the capital.
Monday, 8 August 2011
Monday, 9 May 2011
Straighten Up and Fly Right
Let’s give due credit. The SNP ran a good campaign. Labour on the other hand ran a shockingly bad one. Liberal Democrats worked hard, as usual, and Tavish Scott actually came across well to the public. I know this because that was the feedback I was getting on the doorstep.
During the general election of 2010, we Liberal Democrats campaigned on the grounds of “we’re different.” Tories and Labour were the “same two old tired parties.” Nick Clegg was simply brilliant in the televised debates. The media was in a frenzy; not just with our performance but with the possibility of a hung parliament. Lo! It duly arrived but not how the public thought it would be. Instead of a Labour / Libdem pact, the current Coalition emerged.
Labour, never shy when it comes to negative campaigning, turned their guns upon us. The press, both left and right-wing followed because hate sells. And their combined campaign has obviously succeeded. We have become hate figures, even among some of our own supporters.
Not only that, we were not shy in self-inflicted injuries. The tuition fees increase is a policy that we introduced, piloted by the trusted Vince Cable and championed by Nick Clegg. The two most high profile people we have therefore led it. As critics at the time pointed out, the headline was a tripling of tuition fees in England. As I pointed out at the time, if we went with this we would lose all credibility: it was a policy that we diametrically opposed during the election. Pretty well all of our Westminster candidates signed the National Union of Students pledge of no increase to student fees. It does not matter one jot that the majority of our backbenchers in the House of Commons voted against it. Nick and Vince backed it therefore we, as a party were seen to back it. In the most public and obvious fashion we Liberal Democrats broke our word.
From Thursday night’s results it is clear that the SNP, although not shy at breaking promises themselves, are the beneficiaries of the combination of the negative campaign against us and our own mistakes in government. Next time somebody says that Westminster politics has no bearing upon the Scottish parliamentary elections, kick them. Then kick them again on my behalf. The SNP succeeded at our expense (and at Labour's) because they are simply not tainted with the “same old politics” of Westminster. That is how we were in April 2010.
Okay, so here we are. Rock bottom. What can we do to turn this around?
We have to look at technical details. Perhaps our excellent campaigning techniques are designed for opposition politics and not for government? Just a thought to throw out there. The main thing we have to do is from now on, match words to deeds.
To this end I have come up with The Liberal Test for any policy. In my view, government is there to serve the people and allow them to make real, effective decisions as close to the issue as possible. In addition, we are here to enable people to better themselves, their families and their own communities.
Therefore there are four questions we have to ask of any policy:
Will it encourage a person to advance in life?
Does it reduce the burden of the state upon that person?
Will more power be devolved from central government?
In bringing forward this policy, are we keeping our word?
Failure of a positive answer for any of these questions does not necessarily mean that the policy falls. But alarm bells should ring if two or more results in negative answers. For instance, the tuition fees increase fails on at least three counts.
Why is this important? There is more at play here than the future of the Liberal Democrat party. In Scotland especially but in the UK in general, liberalism itself is under threat. Both the SNP and Labour are authoritarian in nature and wish to centralise power, whether in Edinburgh or Westminster. The Conservatives, while talking about being liberal, seldom are able to walk-the-walk. Witness David Cameron’s speech on immigration and freedom of association he made in Germany a few months ago. He thinks he is a liberal but he is not. To a Conservative, the only good liberal is a classical liberal economist.
I have mentioned honouring our word several times now. What does that mean for the Coalition? Simple: it means sticking with it. As a party, we backed this in a special conference. We enter it in good faith and we continue to act so because we gave our word and commitment to this. That does not mean however that we are not being able to seen to disagree with our partners. We have to not only to be liberal, we have to be seen to be liberal. And that means public disagreement; not for show but because it is sincerely meant. We should not be afraid to stand up for what we believe in.
I used to joke that we had to hard: “It’s going to be liberal whether they like it or not.” Now I am not joking. Politically we live or die by our beliefs and how our words match our actions. Both voice and deed have to be liberal, democratic and true to our word. Anything else will simply not do.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
And So The Tragedy Continues...
It has been a sad couple of weeks.
The events that unfolded in Japan following their 9.0 earthquake have been truly horrifying. Many terrible images were presented and repeated on global television screens. The death toll, in main due to the tsunami, continues to rise as hope evaporate for finding those missing. I have not yet been to Japan but my father was a frequent visitor who loved the country, so it is with deep emotion I view the horrors that have come to pass. This horror have only been compounded by the effects of the disaster on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. I am not an expert on power stations but have received training on handling radioactive material and the effects of radioactive particles on the human body. Any enhancement above natural levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs in particular is not a joke: people will die through cancer because of it but since the effects will only be evident in statistics, they can usually be ignored by those who continue to support the use of nuclear energy. I always viewed nuclear power as the source of last resort; now I have to come out totally against it’s usage for large-scale energy generation. We will always have nuclear reactors; for instance their products are often have medical applications but we should not design facilities that if they fail, the potential for catastrophe is simply too great.
This morning we awoke to the news of air-strikes against Libya. Yes Gaddafi has proved himself to be a killer and now must fall but I have to be critical of the way that Foreign Secretary William Hague has handled the situation. The purpose of the no-fly zone should have been to allow violence to stop and not to escalate further thus allowing politics to re-establish itself. Since Hague came out for full regime-change this was simply no longer an option. Europe might as well as declared war on Libya from that point onwards.
Let me explain why.
Some of you might recall a blog I wrote in September 2009, Lockerbie: Business as Usual. http://tinyurl.com/6bk6ore . That blog put the decision of the then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into context as I outlined the strategic nature of British and European links with Libya and why the Al Megrahi case wouldn’t, couldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of Europe’s quest for natural gas that does not originate in Russia.. That is still the case so how could Britain maintain relations once regime-change has been called for? It would also explain why France has been so quick of the mark on this occasion. Germany on the other hand has stood back. I wonder if this has anything to do with renewed exploration for small-scale gas-fields in Poland?
Gaddafi has proved himself to be a terrible ruler and in doing so encouraged those who wish to see him overthrown bring full military weight to bear. He had nothing to loose when turning to the Chinese and Russians as potential energy partners, as he did this week. My guess was any such offer would have been also an attempt to gain a veto from either or both in the UN Security Council.
As for the people of Libya, let me quote a friend of mine who was evacuated from there a few weeks back. To put it in context, he was responding to John Kerry’s call for sanctions against the Gaddafi regime.
“I am an American trying to get out of Tripoli. Your suggestion of sanctions against Libya will only create hardship for the good people of Libya. History has already shown sanctions of such only creates hardship for the wrong people. Please refrain from such suggestions until the crisis days are over and the dust settles. Such suggestions at a critical time is blowing smoke in the wrong direction.”
Owing of the trade implications for Europe and investment already made by BP, trade sanctions were never an option. The situation has to end now in the overthrow of Gaddafi.
The smoke is now blowing for real. My guess that the five nations involved in the attacks will be satisfied with an Egyptian-style military take-over. As long as the investments are protected.
I hope that it will be soon over and that the people of Libya will be in control of their own destiny and be free in their own country with minimum of casualties.
The events that unfolded in Japan following their 9.0 earthquake have been truly horrifying. Many terrible images were presented and repeated on global television screens. The death toll, in main due to the tsunami, continues to rise as hope evaporate for finding those missing. I have not yet been to Japan but my father was a frequent visitor who loved the country, so it is with deep emotion I view the horrors that have come to pass. This horror have only been compounded by the effects of the disaster on the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility. I am not an expert on power stations but have received training on handling radioactive material and the effects of radioactive particles on the human body. Any enhancement above natural levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs in particular is not a joke: people will die through cancer because of it but since the effects will only be evident in statistics, they can usually be ignored by those who continue to support the use of nuclear energy. I always viewed nuclear power as the source of last resort; now I have to come out totally against it’s usage for large-scale energy generation. We will always have nuclear reactors; for instance their products are often have medical applications but we should not design facilities that if they fail, the potential for catastrophe is simply too great.
This morning we awoke to the news of air-strikes against Libya. Yes Gaddafi has proved himself to be a killer and now must fall but I have to be critical of the way that Foreign Secretary William Hague has handled the situation. The purpose of the no-fly zone should have been to allow violence to stop and not to escalate further thus allowing politics to re-establish itself. Since Hague came out for full regime-change this was simply no longer an option. Europe might as well as declared war on Libya from that point onwards.
Let me explain why.
Some of you might recall a blog I wrote in September 2009, Lockerbie: Business as Usual. http://tinyurl.com/6bk6ore . That blog put the decision of the then Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill into context as I outlined the strategic nature of British and European links with Libya and why the Al Megrahi case wouldn’t, couldn’t be allowed to stand in the way of Europe’s quest for natural gas that does not originate in Russia.. That is still the case so how could Britain maintain relations once regime-change has been called for? It would also explain why France has been so quick of the mark on this occasion. Germany on the other hand has stood back. I wonder if this has anything to do with renewed exploration for small-scale gas-fields in Poland?
Gaddafi has proved himself to be a terrible ruler and in doing so encouraged those who wish to see him overthrown bring full military weight to bear. He had nothing to loose when turning to the Chinese and Russians as potential energy partners, as he did this week. My guess was any such offer would have been also an attempt to gain a veto from either or both in the UN Security Council.
As for the people of Libya, let me quote a friend of mine who was evacuated from there a few weeks back. To put it in context, he was responding to John Kerry’s call for sanctions against the Gaddafi regime.
“I am an American trying to get out of Tripoli. Your suggestion of sanctions against Libya will only create hardship for the good people of Libya. History has already shown sanctions of such only creates hardship for the wrong people. Please refrain from such suggestions until the crisis days are over and the dust settles. Such suggestions at a critical time is blowing smoke in the wrong direction.”
Owing of the trade implications for Europe and investment already made by BP, trade sanctions were never an option. The situation has to end now in the overthrow of Gaddafi.
The smoke is now blowing for real. My guess that the five nations involved in the attacks will be satisfied with an Egyptian-style military take-over. As long as the investments are protected.
I hope that it will be soon over and that the people of Libya will be in control of their own destiny and be free in their own country with minimum of casualties.
Saturday, 11 December 2010
"Well, what would you do?" Vince Cable's question on Tuition Fees
There has indeed been much heart-wrung anguish among us Liberal Democrats on the issue of student tuition fees and plenty of opportunity for opponents to join in giving us a kicking. Hard for us, fun for them but I don’t hear many alternatives being put forward by either friend or foe.
Instead of flailing out in anger against party colleagues who support the rise in fees, truly I understand and salute the bravery of those being seen to be able to take a hard decision in the face of terrible abuse and opposition. I could not share that decision though.
It is still the policy of the Liberal Democrat party to abolish student tuition fees, not that many will believe that now. Now is it not my intention to keep this particular wound open but we need a mechanism to bring this about and what follows is my outline suggestion.
The current argument is that students should pay because they are the ones that benefit from the education. My point is that they are not the only ones. The businesses that hire graduates also benefit from their abilities and (tend to) pay graduates extra in recognition of this.
What if instead of taxing the graduates, the employers are taxed, say, one percent of the gross amount paid to their graduate employees?
This levy would be payable against all graduate employees and not just new graduates, therefore taking away the argument that those before are taking up the ladder behind them.
Because it is levied on all graduate employees, it doesn't matter where the person graduated from. So foreign graduates working in the UK would be contributing to our university system.
The levy would have to be a percentile of earnings because if it was a fixed amount, a librarian would end up paying the same as a hedge-fund manager.
Some would say that this is a hidden graduate tax and in a way it is as over time business would doubtless reduce graduate pay to cover the charge of the levy. But it is very rare that people emigrate for the sake of one percent and owing to the fact that the levy would not appear on pay slips, most people would know that it is there but it would not be strongly emotive about it.
Arguments against would be increased costs on business but over time pay would be adjusted to reflect this cost - as discussed above.
Another case would be those students who already are repaying their student tuition fees. Obviously upon introduction the repayments on student tuition would be frozen and probably the outstanding debt cancelled.
Because it is a percentile levy, some will undoubtedly end up paying more for their tuition than others owing to the predicted depression in wages. These will be the highest paid though so there is an element of wealth redistribution in the policy.
Some jobs would have to be exempt and these would be jobs which are not usually performed by graduates but in which individuals are employed. For instance, factory workers in non-graduate posts, catering and some agricultural work. This is perhaps the trickiest element as it provides loopholes for employers but it is necessary because not all graduates do end up in high-flying careers and they should be able to compete on an equal basis for non-graduate jobs.
The self-employed would have to pay the levy as there would be otherwise a loophole which would allow employers to contract work to the self-employed who are in reality employees in all but name.
So, to my mind a fair system that delivers on our promise of no student tuition fees and guarantees finance for a top-draw tertiary education and research system.
I would welcome discussion on this issue and have published the kernel of this argument on the relevent page of Lib Dem Act - just press on the title for the link.
Instead of flailing out in anger against party colleagues who support the rise in fees, truly I understand and salute the bravery of those being seen to be able to take a hard decision in the face of terrible abuse and opposition. I could not share that decision though.
It is still the policy of the Liberal Democrat party to abolish student tuition fees, not that many will believe that now. Now is it not my intention to keep this particular wound open but we need a mechanism to bring this about and what follows is my outline suggestion.
The current argument is that students should pay because they are the ones that benefit from the education. My point is that they are not the only ones. The businesses that hire graduates also benefit from their abilities and (tend to) pay graduates extra in recognition of this.
What if instead of taxing the graduates, the employers are taxed, say, one percent of the gross amount paid to their graduate employees?
This levy would be payable against all graduate employees and not just new graduates, therefore taking away the argument that those before are taking up the ladder behind them.
Because it is levied on all graduate employees, it doesn't matter where the person graduated from. So foreign graduates working in the UK would be contributing to our university system.
The levy would have to be a percentile of earnings because if it was a fixed amount, a librarian would end up paying the same as a hedge-fund manager.
Some would say that this is a hidden graduate tax and in a way it is as over time business would doubtless reduce graduate pay to cover the charge of the levy. But it is very rare that people emigrate for the sake of one percent and owing to the fact that the levy would not appear on pay slips, most people would know that it is there but it would not be strongly emotive about it.
Arguments against would be increased costs on business but over time pay would be adjusted to reflect this cost - as discussed above.
Another case would be those students who already are repaying their student tuition fees. Obviously upon introduction the repayments on student tuition would be frozen and probably the outstanding debt cancelled.
Because it is a percentile levy, some will undoubtedly end up paying more for their tuition than others owing to the predicted depression in wages. These will be the highest paid though so there is an element of wealth redistribution in the policy.
Some jobs would have to be exempt and these would be jobs which are not usually performed by graduates but in which individuals are employed. For instance, factory workers in non-graduate posts, catering and some agricultural work. This is perhaps the trickiest element as it provides loopholes for employers but it is necessary because not all graduates do end up in high-flying careers and they should be able to compete on an equal basis for non-graduate jobs.
The self-employed would have to pay the levy as there would be otherwise a loophole which would allow employers to contract work to the self-employed who are in reality employees in all but name.
So, to my mind a fair system that delivers on our promise of no student tuition fees and guarantees finance for a top-draw tertiary education and research system.
I would welcome discussion on this issue and have published the kernel of this argument on the relevent page of Lib Dem Act - just press on the title for the link.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
UNA NATO's New Strategic Concept and Global Zero.
The United Nations Association – Edinburgh , One Day Conference on NATO’s New Strategic Concept and Global Zero was held on 1st of November 2010 at the Scottish Parliament. It was a very enlightening day in many regards, sometimes not in the way that the speakers meant however.
After the introduction by Dr. Gari Donn, first speaker of the day was Lord David Hannay; chair of the United Nations Association and former ambassador to the UN. His broad scope were the challenges, past and present facing NATO. In terms of current nuclear threats, Hannay focused upon North Korea and Iran. It was clear from a paper provided with the conference papers that Iran has been doing their best to derail the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference held this year so there is something in what he says. In response to my later suggestion, that when it comes to nuclear-armed countries that are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, should not the regional aspects be considered and their own and their rivals security concerns be taken into account? Lord Hannay decided to talk exclusively about Iran and North Korea in this context. He would not even mention the state of Israel by name and assured the meeting that the only nuclear security concern that Iran had was the USA. A quite remarkable statement.
Lord Hannay did offer a nine step programme to forward multi-lateral disarmament however. In brief they were:
1. Ratification of the test-ban treaty by the US Senate
2. Negotiation of further reductions of strategic nuclear capacity between the USA and Russia, with the involvement of France, Britain and China (the P5 nations)
3. Start of talks over Russian sub-strategic nuclear missile capacity in Europe
4. Progression of de-alert doctrines. This refers to the state of readiness that nuclear weapons are held in.
5. Fissile cut-off treaty. This would the cutting back on nations’ capability to enrich uranium in exchange for non-enriched uranium to be readily available for the promotion of national civilian nuclear power projects. Hannay indicates that in recent years Pakistan has been the major stumbling block on this project.
6. The Fissile cut-off treaty is a necessary precursor to a global test ban treaty
7. Middle East nuclear-free zone, with the first conference taking place in 2012
8. Strengthening the monitoring of global production by the IAEA
9. Acceleration of Norway’s VERTIC verification project.
One would expect many of these points to be raised at NATO’s 10 year review conference of nuclear strategy to be held in Lisbon later this month.
Going back to Iran for a moment, it is my view that when it comes to the Middle East, Israel’s nuclear capacity is the elephant in the room. Naturally I do not in any way support the proliferation of nuclear weapons or Iranian attempts to further their capacity in this area. If one applies the logic of the Cold War though, it could be said that Israel and Iran are regional superpowers and rivals. If one side has nuclear weapons, it would be reasonable for the other to attempt to gain a similar capacity in order to bring about a status of MAD – mutually assured destruction. The fact that one side has nuclear weapons will only drive other nations to attempt to develop their own.
Now I am not going to provide a précis of every speaker as that really is the role of the UNA reportage. Another highlight for me though was the Russian delegation led by Vadim Mitrofanov, head of Foreign Policy at the Embassy of the Russian Federation. He expressed Russian disappointment that NATO was not disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact but, perhaps more pertinently, Russia’s commitment to further disarmament talks with the USA and working in partnership with NATO. On the matter of the sub-strategic nuclear capacity, Mr Mitrofanov said that talks had not started yet but they simply could not decide this matter bilaterally with the USA. The reason for this is clear. In Europe the US has stationed 200 B-61 free-fall nuclear bombs, deployed by US and other NATO (German, Dutch, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Turkish) air forces under burden-sharing agreements. (In military terms nuclear gravity weapons are obsolete although fair to say the use of a single bomb would spoil a lot of peoples’ day.) There were various numbers given for Russian capability but the minimum cited was 2000 short and medium-range nuclear weapons. I took the liberty of following up this Russian position in a round-table session and the Russian Consul General Sergey Krutikov was pleased to clarify the position. Russia desires to see a nuclear-free Europe. Therefore in order to achieve that, not only would the Russian and American weapons would have to go but also those of Britain and France.
On Russia in broader terms, it certainly felt like it is NATO 28 + 1. It is clear that a lot of effort is being put into bringing Russia into the fold, if not as full members but certainly as “super-partners” as the new American terminology has it. This concept was unfurled to us by Dana (pronounced “Daina”) M. Linnet of the US Consulate. She did have a lot of good things to say; on how the USA is working to increase transparency in nuclear issues, are working hard to broaden the concepts of deterrents away from being just nuclear-based and enlarging shared risks and commitments. Along with former defence secretary Lord Des Browne, other nations were berated for not working harder with President Obama in order to further these and other worthy ends. One has to say the effect was rather spoiled by one impertinent fellow sticking up his hand at question time and asking of Dana “What would President Palin do?” It led to some back-tracking and statements such as (from Browne) “even those Republicans who think would back this issue” but the point was well made. After Bush’s dismantling of international agreements in 2005 and the Senate’s unwillingness to ratify the test-ban treaty in front of them, the general intransigent nature of US politics is an international problem. In that respect both Linnet and Browne are correct: Obama does offer a window of opportunity.
The day was very useful in terms of answering the question raised on these pages as who actually controls Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Rebekah Grenowski reported she was summarily put down by Rebecca Johnson of ACRONYM when the former raised this issue. Johnson assured Rebekah that the ownership of Trident was the subject of a bilateral UK-US agreement. This statement is backed up by the response to our letter to Nick Harvey. However, the issue of NATO strategic control was not contradicted by others in round-table meetings. It seems to me therefore that it is not a question of which is right or wrong, rather there is a double-lock on nuclear deployment. Bilateral agreements with the USA backed up with NATO unanimity – which also involves the USA. I feel this matter requires further clarification. It is probably the case though that in reality UK defence spending is bound totally to NATO commitments, thus casting light upon Hillary Clinton's recent intervention on the UK's Strategic Defence and Security review.
I only touched upon some of the matters raised on the day. When the UNA put up their full report I will post the link. It was a very worthwhile day and I am grateful for the chance to attend but sometimes the truth of any matter is deliberately obscure and the more I learn about nuclear weapons, the greater I have that feeling.
After the introduction by Dr. Gari Donn, first speaker of the day was Lord David Hannay; chair of the United Nations Association and former ambassador to the UN. His broad scope were the challenges, past and present facing NATO. In terms of current nuclear threats, Hannay focused upon North Korea and Iran. It was clear from a paper provided with the conference papers that Iran has been doing their best to derail the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty review conference held this year so there is something in what he says. In response to my later suggestion, that when it comes to nuclear-armed countries that are not signatories: India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, should not the regional aspects be considered and their own and their rivals security concerns be taken into account? Lord Hannay decided to talk exclusively about Iran and North Korea in this context. He would not even mention the state of Israel by name and assured the meeting that the only nuclear security concern that Iran had was the USA. A quite remarkable statement.
Lord Hannay did offer a nine step programme to forward multi-lateral disarmament however. In brief they were:
1. Ratification of the test-ban treaty by the US Senate
2. Negotiation of further reductions of strategic nuclear capacity between the USA and Russia, with the involvement of France, Britain and China (the P5 nations)
3. Start of talks over Russian sub-strategic nuclear missile capacity in Europe
4. Progression of de-alert doctrines. This refers to the state of readiness that nuclear weapons are held in.
5. Fissile cut-off treaty. This would the cutting back on nations’ capability to enrich uranium in exchange for non-enriched uranium to be readily available for the promotion of national civilian nuclear power projects. Hannay indicates that in recent years Pakistan has been the major stumbling block on this project.
6. The Fissile cut-off treaty is a necessary precursor to a global test ban treaty
7. Middle East nuclear-free zone, with the first conference taking place in 2012
8. Strengthening the monitoring of global production by the IAEA
9. Acceleration of Norway’s VERTIC verification project.
One would expect many of these points to be raised at NATO’s 10 year review conference of nuclear strategy to be held in Lisbon later this month.
Going back to Iran for a moment, it is my view that when it comes to the Middle East, Israel’s nuclear capacity is the elephant in the room. Naturally I do not in any way support the proliferation of nuclear weapons or Iranian attempts to further their capacity in this area. If one applies the logic of the Cold War though, it could be said that Israel and Iran are regional superpowers and rivals. If one side has nuclear weapons, it would be reasonable for the other to attempt to gain a similar capacity in order to bring about a status of MAD – mutually assured destruction. The fact that one side has nuclear weapons will only drive other nations to attempt to develop their own.
Now I am not going to provide a précis of every speaker as that really is the role of the UNA reportage. Another highlight for me though was the Russian delegation led by Vadim Mitrofanov, head of Foreign Policy at the Embassy of the Russian Federation. He expressed Russian disappointment that NATO was not disbanded at the same time as the Warsaw Pact but, perhaps more pertinently, Russia’s commitment to further disarmament talks with the USA and working in partnership with NATO. On the matter of the sub-strategic nuclear capacity, Mr Mitrofanov said that talks had not started yet but they simply could not decide this matter bilaterally with the USA. The reason for this is clear. In Europe the US has stationed 200 B-61 free-fall nuclear bombs, deployed by US and other NATO (German, Dutch, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Turkish) air forces under burden-sharing agreements. (In military terms nuclear gravity weapons are obsolete although fair to say the use of a single bomb would spoil a lot of peoples’ day.) There were various numbers given for Russian capability but the minimum cited was 2000 short and medium-range nuclear weapons. I took the liberty of following up this Russian position in a round-table session and the Russian Consul General Sergey Krutikov was pleased to clarify the position. Russia desires to see a nuclear-free Europe. Therefore in order to achieve that, not only would the Russian and American weapons would have to go but also those of Britain and France.
On Russia in broader terms, it certainly felt like it is NATO 28 + 1. It is clear that a lot of effort is being put into bringing Russia into the fold, if not as full members but certainly as “super-partners” as the new American terminology has it. This concept was unfurled to us by Dana (pronounced “Daina”) M. Linnet of the US Consulate. She did have a lot of good things to say; on how the USA is working to increase transparency in nuclear issues, are working hard to broaden the concepts of deterrents away from being just nuclear-based and enlarging shared risks and commitments. Along with former defence secretary Lord Des Browne, other nations were berated for not working harder with President Obama in order to further these and other worthy ends. One has to say the effect was rather spoiled by one impertinent fellow sticking up his hand at question time and asking of Dana “What would President Palin do?” It led to some back-tracking and statements such as (from Browne) “even those Republicans who think would back this issue” but the point was well made. After Bush’s dismantling of international agreements in 2005 and the Senate’s unwillingness to ratify the test-ban treaty in front of them, the general intransigent nature of US politics is an international problem. In that respect both Linnet and Browne are correct: Obama does offer a window of opportunity.
The day was very useful in terms of answering the question raised on these pages as who actually controls Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Rebekah Grenowski reported she was summarily put down by Rebecca Johnson of ACRONYM when the former raised this issue. Johnson assured Rebekah that the ownership of Trident was the subject of a bilateral UK-US agreement. This statement is backed up by the response to our letter to Nick Harvey. However, the issue of NATO strategic control was not contradicted by others in round-table meetings. It seems to me therefore that it is not a question of which is right or wrong, rather there is a double-lock on nuclear deployment. Bilateral agreements with the USA backed up with NATO unanimity – which also involves the USA. I feel this matter requires further clarification. It is probably the case though that in reality UK defence spending is bound totally to NATO commitments, thus casting light upon Hillary Clinton's recent intervention on the UK's Strategic Defence and Security review.
I only touched upon some of the matters raised on the day. When the UNA put up their full report I will post the link. It was a very worthwhile day and I am grateful for the chance to attend but sometimes the truth of any matter is deliberately obscure and the more I learn about nuclear weapons, the greater I have that feeling.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Murder
It was such a sad little affair that I couldn’t even find it on Google this morning.
I got to know Bob Day at Aberystwyth University. In fact it was at the Cwrt Mawr bar we first met. Bob was in his forties, an ex-butcher who was studying International Affairs. Both being mature students and somewhat outsiders, we became friends. It wasn’t until a couple of years later, when Bob graduated that I got to meet his family. It is so long ago now that I can’t even remember everybody’s name but there was Jenny his wife, and their teenage children Jasclene (pronounced Jacqueline) and her slightly older brother, whose face I can still see. I spent weekends down in Cardigan with them and it was a great time. Jenny helped improved my cooking techniques; we all played badminton and board games together and shot pool when down the pub. As I recall, Jasclene was a little sweet on me but all was innocent.
As is usual with any Arcadia though, there was darkness beneath. I had noticed that over the past year Bob was becoming increasingly pedantic. He would take the time to explain in detail the most prosaic functions of daily life. Once Jenny got to know me, she started to express worries about him. Bob had a large vertical indent right in the middle of his forehead which Jenny told me had been put there in a car accident six years previously. Since that time, Jenny said, she had been married to a different man.
It was the autumn of 1995 when the cracks started to open. I usually called the family once a week but this time Bob called me. Jenny had started to have an affair with a neighbour. Although I was in my late twenties in many ways I was still pretty immature. Relationship management was certainly outside my remit at that point. I didn’t know what to say.
Two weeks went by. I called but no answer on their telephone. I tried again and again with the same result. It was my final year, I had no clue what was happening so it was with some surprise and upset that in December I received a letter from Jasclene that told of a road accident involving both Bob and Jenny. He was still in hospital but Jenny had died after six days in a coma. Naturally I wrote back; which hospital? Where can I visit Bob? How is everybody else? No reply.
It wasn’t until April 1996, just before my finals, that Bob himself got in contact. He was still in hospital in Haverfordwest. I added the cost of a hire car to my overdraft and hit the road south. Incidentally I think that was the drive I also started my hate-affair with GM cars. It was a green 1.7 diesel Astra with all the reactions of a startled sloth.
Bob was in hospital, either in bed or a wheelchair for in the accident his back had been broken, losing the ability to use his legs. He was also in police custody, charged with the murder of Jenny. To my face Bob said he simply could not believe it; it was such a vast misunderstanding. He had taken Jenny out for a drive and on a dangerous mountain bend above Cardigan had lost control, plunging them both over. A tragic accident. He asked me to help and the following week I gave a statement to his solicitor. That was the last time I saw him.
After graduation, I passed through Cardigan en route to Aberystwyth in order to say farewell to friends. I was starting my current career in Aberdeen that October. Between buses, I went into a pub in Cardigan. Naturally Bob and his family were high in my thoughts.
“Tragic about that accident last year.”
“What accident?” asked the young barman.
“The one where Jenny Day was killed.”
“That was no accident,” he stated with some anger.
“What?”
“If it was an accident, why did the bastard leave a note for her boss telling him what he meant to do?”
Bob, what have you done?
I was in training in Texas when the trial came up. The defence wanted me to testify. I agreed to have my statement read out in court. Robert Day was found guilty of murder and sentenced to three years on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Naturally the wheel-chair is a life sentence.
* * *
The murder of Jenny Day was the closest I have been involved in the killing of another person but I have known other victims. A colleague and friend lost his entire family at about the same time. A guest at my wedding subsequently lost his life and my mother-in-law lost other friends to violence. So it was with some interest I pricked up my ears this morning when changes where suggested to murder sentencing. In the brief debate I tended to support Lord Faulkner’s view that there should be one charge of murder and then it is up to the judge to decide the sentence. However, I would support a greater degree of flexibility on how the judge lays out the sentence. Perhaps there should be a grading at this point; from whole life term, down to first and second degree through to man-slaughter, each with its own minimum term before parole can be applied for. The jury could perhaps issue a private recommendation to the judge but the judge would have the final decision. Naturally the licence system, the power of the courts to recall any murderer to prison, would stay in place.
This structure would help those involved to understand that the current “life” sentence doesn’t mean life but the crime of murder always is held in the highest seriousness.
I got to know Bob Day at Aberystwyth University. In fact it was at the Cwrt Mawr bar we first met. Bob was in his forties, an ex-butcher who was studying International Affairs. Both being mature students and somewhat outsiders, we became friends. It wasn’t until a couple of years later, when Bob graduated that I got to meet his family. It is so long ago now that I can’t even remember everybody’s name but there was Jenny his wife, and their teenage children Jasclene (pronounced Jacqueline) and her slightly older brother, whose face I can still see. I spent weekends down in Cardigan with them and it was a great time. Jenny helped improved my cooking techniques; we all played badminton and board games together and shot pool when down the pub. As I recall, Jasclene was a little sweet on me but all was innocent.
As is usual with any Arcadia though, there was darkness beneath. I had noticed that over the past year Bob was becoming increasingly pedantic. He would take the time to explain in detail the most prosaic functions of daily life. Once Jenny got to know me, she started to express worries about him. Bob had a large vertical indent right in the middle of his forehead which Jenny told me had been put there in a car accident six years previously. Since that time, Jenny said, she had been married to a different man.
It was the autumn of 1995 when the cracks started to open. I usually called the family once a week but this time Bob called me. Jenny had started to have an affair with a neighbour. Although I was in my late twenties in many ways I was still pretty immature. Relationship management was certainly outside my remit at that point. I didn’t know what to say.
Two weeks went by. I called but no answer on their telephone. I tried again and again with the same result. It was my final year, I had no clue what was happening so it was with some surprise and upset that in December I received a letter from Jasclene that told of a road accident involving both Bob and Jenny. He was still in hospital but Jenny had died after six days in a coma. Naturally I wrote back; which hospital? Where can I visit Bob? How is everybody else? No reply.
It wasn’t until April 1996, just before my finals, that Bob himself got in contact. He was still in hospital in Haverfordwest. I added the cost of a hire car to my overdraft and hit the road south. Incidentally I think that was the drive I also started my hate-affair with GM cars. It was a green 1.7 diesel Astra with all the reactions of a startled sloth.
Bob was in hospital, either in bed or a wheelchair for in the accident his back had been broken, losing the ability to use his legs. He was also in police custody, charged with the murder of Jenny. To my face Bob said he simply could not believe it; it was such a vast misunderstanding. He had taken Jenny out for a drive and on a dangerous mountain bend above Cardigan had lost control, plunging them both over. A tragic accident. He asked me to help and the following week I gave a statement to his solicitor. That was the last time I saw him.
After graduation, I passed through Cardigan en route to Aberystwyth in order to say farewell to friends. I was starting my current career in Aberdeen that October. Between buses, I went into a pub in Cardigan. Naturally Bob and his family were high in my thoughts.
“Tragic about that accident last year.”
“What accident?” asked the young barman.
“The one where Jenny Day was killed.”
“That was no accident,” he stated with some anger.
“What?”
“If it was an accident, why did the bastard leave a note for her boss telling him what he meant to do?”
Bob, what have you done?
I was in training in Texas when the trial came up. The defence wanted me to testify. I agreed to have my statement read out in court. Robert Day was found guilty of murder and sentenced to three years on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Naturally the wheel-chair is a life sentence.
* * *
The murder of Jenny Day was the closest I have been involved in the killing of another person but I have known other victims. A colleague and friend lost his entire family at about the same time. A guest at my wedding subsequently lost his life and my mother-in-law lost other friends to violence. So it was with some interest I pricked up my ears this morning when changes where suggested to murder sentencing. In the brief debate I tended to support Lord Faulkner’s view that there should be one charge of murder and then it is up to the judge to decide the sentence. However, I would support a greater degree of flexibility on how the judge lays out the sentence. Perhaps there should be a grading at this point; from whole life term, down to first and second degree through to man-slaughter, each with its own minimum term before parole can be applied for. The jury could perhaps issue a private recommendation to the judge but the judge would have the final decision. Naturally the licence system, the power of the courts to recall any murderer to prison, would stay in place.
This structure would help those involved to understand that the current “life” sentence doesn’t mean life but the crime of murder always is held in the highest seriousness.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Liberal Democrats and the Browne Report
We knew that things would not be easy being in coalition with the Conservatives but I really do not recall supporting American-style funding for universities. In fact, as I remember things the Liberal Democrats plan is as follows:
Year Action
1 Scrap fees for final year full-time students
2 Begin regulating part-time fees
3 Part time fees become regulated and fee loans become available to part time students
4 Expand free tuition to all full-time students apart from first year undergraduates
5 Expand free tuition to all part-time students apart from first year undergraduates
6 Scrap tuition fees for all first degree students
http://www.nickclegg.org.uk/education.aspx
Now I know what you are going to say. We don’t have a Liberal Democrat government, the financial crisis is a lot worse than we realised etc; all good and valid points. But where does it say that we have to support a policy that is diametrically opposite in philosophy and aim to our own? Dear Vince Cable has already softened the effect of the Browne Report on university funding and doubtless behind the scenes more work will continue to make university access as broad and as affordable as possible. On this point I expect such fudging to be ineffective. While speaking on PM (Radio 4, 12th of October), Higher Education Funding Council for England representative Mark Calder noted that since the introduction of tuition fees in England, university attendance for those coming from the poorest twenty percent of society has increased by thirty percent. So far so good but when asked whether this trend was reflected in the best universities in the country the answer is an emphatic “no”. There has been absolutely no change in the social profile of those going to the top one-third universities. The increase in the poor getting a degree has been restricted to those attending average and below average institutions.
My interpretation of this is that since market forces have been introduced into tertiary education more customers have been drawn in but standards have failed to improve. They may have even declined in order to attract new students who are being drawn in to generate cash for the institutions and for few other reasons. If we continue down this path we will indeed recreate the American system where a core of excellent and well-financed colleges are surround by a hinterland of the mediocre or frankly rubbish offering near worthless degrees. I thought we Liberal Democrats were good Europeans.
Does this mean that the state has to fund university study? No, it does not. When I lived in Norway during the late 1990s for example, in was usual for students to leave college with debts in the order of £30,000. But part of the Browne report expressly does away with subsidies on interest payments on student loans. Meanwhile in Norway it wasn’t just interest payments on student loans that was subsidised but all interest payments on personal debt. In fact if one was debt-free, a person was expected to pay a higher income tax rate because they obviously had more disposable income. The central point being is that debt, including student debt, is fully integrated into the social structure. In the current economic climate, I cannot see England making such provision. The belt is being tightened across all areas.
There is only one logical conclusion; we must accept that for the next decade ahead at least, fewer people can attend university. Other provisions, such as a return to apprenticeships, have to be given consideration. This is very painful as since the 1990s the one way that a young person really can get ahead in life is by getting that degree. If we were to cut back the number of places in order to maintain excellence, this does not necessarily mean we are depriving the current generation forever. I myself was a mature student.
What of we Liberal Democrats? Dear M.P.s, you signed a pledge, all of you. In public. There are photographs. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? I assure you it does to the British people. If you go ahead and support the Browne Report we will not be forgiven. Nothing that we will say subsequently will be believed. Support this report and wave goodbye not just to your own but to our entire party’s credibility.
It’s not all bad; there is a solution. We are part of a coalition government so one cannot expect ministers and PPCs to go into open rebellion. So my advice would be to abstain. This is allowed for under the coalition agreement. Back-benchers, you are free to oppose this or at the very least also choose to abstain.
Last night I discussed this issue with Mrs Veart. Having lived for a time in the USA, she was frankly appalled with the Browne Report. This isn’t the way forward for Britain but nor is the way that she suggested for me. This is very painful but she suggested... I can barely take myself to write this... she suggested that I join Labour. Harsh words ensued. I’ll say no more but I still feel sullied.
The Liberal Democrat party is my party. I’m here to stay. Being in this party is like being in a marriage; I love you but don’t expect me to like you all the time. Frankly at the moment I’m pretty pissed off with you.
Year Action
1 Scrap fees for final year full-time students
2 Begin regulating part-time fees
3 Part time fees become regulated and fee loans become available to part time students
4 Expand free tuition to all full-time students apart from first year undergraduates
5 Expand free tuition to all part-time students apart from first year undergraduates
6 Scrap tuition fees for all first degree students
http://www.nickclegg.org.uk/education.aspx
Now I know what you are going to say. We don’t have a Liberal Democrat government, the financial crisis is a lot worse than we realised etc; all good and valid points. But where does it say that we have to support a policy that is diametrically opposite in philosophy and aim to our own? Dear Vince Cable has already softened the effect of the Browne Report on university funding and doubtless behind the scenes more work will continue to make university access as broad and as affordable as possible. On this point I expect such fudging to be ineffective. While speaking on PM (Radio 4, 12th of October), Higher Education Funding Council for England representative Mark Calder noted that since the introduction of tuition fees in England, university attendance for those coming from the poorest twenty percent of society has increased by thirty percent. So far so good but when asked whether this trend was reflected in the best universities in the country the answer is an emphatic “no”. There has been absolutely no change in the social profile of those going to the top one-third universities. The increase in the poor getting a degree has been restricted to those attending average and below average institutions.
My interpretation of this is that since market forces have been introduced into tertiary education more customers have been drawn in but standards have failed to improve. They may have even declined in order to attract new students who are being drawn in to generate cash for the institutions and for few other reasons. If we continue down this path we will indeed recreate the American system where a core of excellent and well-financed colleges are surround by a hinterland of the mediocre or frankly rubbish offering near worthless degrees. I thought we Liberal Democrats were good Europeans.
Does this mean that the state has to fund university study? No, it does not. When I lived in Norway during the late 1990s for example, in was usual for students to leave college with debts in the order of £30,000. But part of the Browne report expressly does away with subsidies on interest payments on student loans. Meanwhile in Norway it wasn’t just interest payments on student loans that was subsidised but all interest payments on personal debt. In fact if one was debt-free, a person was expected to pay a higher income tax rate because they obviously had more disposable income. The central point being is that debt, including student debt, is fully integrated into the social structure. In the current economic climate, I cannot see England making such provision. The belt is being tightened across all areas.
There is only one logical conclusion; we must accept that for the next decade ahead at least, fewer people can attend university. Other provisions, such as a return to apprenticeships, have to be given consideration. This is very painful as since the 1990s the one way that a young person really can get ahead in life is by getting that degree. If we were to cut back the number of places in order to maintain excellence, this does not necessarily mean we are depriving the current generation forever. I myself was a mature student.
What of we Liberal Democrats? Dear M.P.s, you signed a pledge, all of you. In public. There are photographs. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? I assure you it does to the British people. If you go ahead and support the Browne Report we will not be forgiven. Nothing that we will say subsequently will be believed. Support this report and wave goodbye not just to your own but to our entire party’s credibility.
It’s not all bad; there is a solution. We are part of a coalition government so one cannot expect ministers and PPCs to go into open rebellion. So my advice would be to abstain. This is allowed for under the coalition agreement. Back-benchers, you are free to oppose this or at the very least also choose to abstain.
Last night I discussed this issue with Mrs Veart. Having lived for a time in the USA, she was frankly appalled with the Browne Report. This isn’t the way forward for Britain but nor is the way that she suggested for me. This is very painful but she suggested... I can barely take myself to write this... she suggested that I join Labour. Harsh words ensued. I’ll say no more but I still feel sullied.
The Liberal Democrat party is my party. I’m here to stay. Being in this party is like being in a marriage; I love you but don’t expect me to like you all the time. Frankly at the moment I’m pretty pissed off with you.
 |
| Nick Clegg MP with Julian Huppert MP signing the pledge not to raise tuition fees. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
