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.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
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. |
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Say No to Trident, Lib Dem Conference Report 2010
Say No to Trident’s foray into the real world met with mixed success it would be fair to say. The greatest event was our fringe meeting held in coalition (a popular concept nowadays) with Liberal Democrats for Peace and Security. Julian Huppert MP, just arrived back from China where he had been asked by one of his hosts whether Britain would join in if the USA decided to attack China? A scary prospect indeed and while it seems absurd for us to contemplate currently, it gives an interesting insight into the mindset of Chinese strategic thinking. They obviously see the USA as a threat in military terms and are seeking insight into just how must they would be up against if the worst happened. It has to be said that Britain, with one honourable except of Vietnam, acts as very reliable auxiliaries to the American legions. Julian went on, expressing the view that Trident had already had been included in the Strategic Defence and Security Review by default. Since I too have been saying this for some time, I confess to a small internal cheer on this one. Tessa Munt MP is wonderful; although describing herself as a “baby” whip, if she had to choose between that office and her convictions on Trident, the whips’ office would have to be looking for a replacement. David Grace of Liberal Democrats for Peace and Security spoke on the current political situation and what was hoped to be achieved by his motion which had been put together with Louise Edge of Greenpeace. And of course, Kate Hudson of CND told us of their latest report which outlines the economic damage that would occur if the Trident replacement is pushed through on a like-for-like basis. The event was packed out, with standing room only and, as Kate also expressed in her blog, was both good natured yet determined
Another highlight of the Conference for SNTT was the speech by Janet King during the emergency Trident motion. She spoke simply yet with conviction about the broken promises and poor example of Britain and the other nuclear-armed states of failing to live up to the promises made under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed forty two years ago. Janet’s speech was in contrast to my own. I am afraid that I got too bogged down in the internal politics of the issue and simply did not send a clear message to a wider audience. It went down well in the hall but I promise I’ll be better next time. Nader Fekri, a SNTT member on the facebook site spoke passionately on the immorality of nuclear weapons. Shirley Williams was brilliant as ever in reminding Liam Fox that Bush is no longer in the Whitehouse. Jacque Bell was also ready to speak but sadly was not called.
I have to say though I am still not satisfied with the terms of the debate. Any motion on nuclear weapons which myself and Nick Harvey, Armed Forces minister, can agree on has to be a fudge. In fact, this debate did not advance the cause of unilateralism (or bi-lateralism which is even more to be preferred if practical), it merely is a restatement of current Lib Dem policy. The speech that made this totally clear was from Steve Coltman of Loughborough. He was the one advocating the deployment of Astute-class submarines armed with nuclear warheads. This is not what Say No to Trident wants to see. We have to stay firm; both in aim and principle. I am almost certain that if our original motion had been allowed to pass through by the Federal Conference Committee that today the Liberal Democrats who be a party that supported unilateral nuclear disarmament. The amount of support we encountered as our tiny four-person demonstration (myself and Janet, joined by Margaret Rowley and Geoff Reed) stood outside the conference centre on Monday was staggering. In fact, we were campaigning to the converted, with only one young man taking the time to argue with Janet who is in her natural element approaching complete strangers with a happy smile, placard in hand. It was mischievously suggested by one lady that we got the wrong conference and that we should be standing outside the Conservative’s Birmingham event instead!
So where does this leave us? At Conference, at least some are now aware that there is a grass-roots movement and a few of them know it is called Say No to Trident. The organisation has made good contacts with organisations like CND, Greenpeace and Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy. What we haven’t achieved yet is the change to the policy which we so dearly desire. The next motion that we put in cannot be about Trident. As far as we Liberal Democrats are concerned, that system would be out on its ear if we ever get power. The next fight will be whether we replace it with the systems that Ming Campbell and Nick Harvey favour or rather sanity will prevail and our party policy will be a Britain without nuclear weapons.
Friday, 27 August 2010
What the Two Davids have in Common
On the face of it, perhaps it would be easier to list what David Milliband and David Cameron don’t have in common. Both are of a similar age, both Oxford-educated and they both followed the now well-worn path of the political professional after leaving university. So is it any wonder that the two Davids have similar ideas about the path to power?
During the battle for the Labour leadership, it has become clear that D. Milliband favours the New Labour approach: appealing to all sectors of society while his brother Ed wants a return to core Labour supporter of old. I remember when Tony Blair came to power. It was while I was a mature student at the University of Wales Aberystwyth. I used to have socialist friends (I still have a few but nowadays it is hard to find a real socialist) and I actually felt sorry for them. Even before 1997, socialists have been effectively disenfranchised in this country. In the 1970s, the voter had a real choice between the right and the left of politics. Nowadays that is no longer the case and I think that is to the detriment of this country.
It was actually for my degree essay on evolutionary theory that I found myself reading one of Professor Ian Stewart’s popular books on mathematics. I can’t remember which one but it contains the scenario of the two ice-cream sellers on a crowded beach. The sellers sets up at opposite ends but this means that the people occupying the middle can go to either of them, while the individual trader has no chance of attracting customers from the other end of the strand. In order to maximise their share of the market, both sellers start moving towards the middle with the eventual result that they are side-by-side.
So it is now with politics. New Labour was effectively a post-modern response to politics, agreeing with the likes of Francis Fukuyama who had proclaimed the End of History, the victory of capitalism and the never-ending reign of globalisation. Blair and Brown modelled themselves rulers of this Brave New World, post-modernisers to the core. History was reduced to a series of rival dialogues, each of equal or no value and therefore tradition meant nothing. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, built up for 300 years after the Glorious Revolution, based upon earlier civil wars and the Magna Carta, were worthless in the 21st. Century. Civil rights were meaningless and the power of the Courts eroded. Hence New Labour’s love of identity cards and the super-databases behind them; they agreed with Sir Humphrey that in order to decide what the government needed to know, they needed to know everything. The process of government suffered likewise, with Cabinet meetings reduced to listening to the Word of the Dear Leader and real policy being decided on the sofa with an inner cabal. Senior civil servants were replaced with political appointments, advisors ensuring that the civil service remained “on message”. While Paris glittered after its spring clean, London got the Millennium Dome. Gold, that old-fashioned economic mainstay was sold off at under $400 an ounce. Social mobility actually decreased during the thirteen years of Labour. But worst of all was the Labour leadership’s willingness to follow the USA into bloody and illegal wars. Labour became like Ibsen’s Peer Gynt, who after drinking the troll’s brew grew to be like an onion: all layers and no heart; a being so empty of morality that not even the Devil wanted his worthless soul.
That’s my verdict on New Labour and anybody who still wishes to continue that project but how does David Cameron fit into this? Well, it seems to me that he has attempted a similar trick with the Conservative party and has marched his ice-cream stall to the centre of the beach. After the defeat of the Major government in 1997, the Conservatives veered to the Right under the successive leaderships of Hague, Duncan-Smith and then Howard. With New Labour straddling the Centre-Centre Right, it may have been principled but it simply didn’t work in electoral terms. In order to gain power, the Tories had to march back to the Left, or at least the leadership had too. I’m not so sure that the bulk of the Conservatives have decamped from their grounds on the Right. If the Coalition has shown anything about stresses within the parties of the partnership, it is that the Conservatives that are more ill-at-ease than the Liberal Democrats. Cameron came very close to failure in the last election, an unforgivable sin considering the open goal that Labour had left them.
This situation of both the largest parties fighting over the same electorate means that the democratic process is Britain is in real danger. After all, if the arguments are reduced to a narrow part of the field, in reality what is point of the political process? No matter which party is in power, the country is left under a dictatorship of the Centre. Views outside a narrow strip of opinion have no chance of real political power.
So like any good Liberal Democrat, I come to electoral reform. It is necessary in order to avoid the dictatorship of the Centre. Both the left of the Labour party and those on the right of the Conservatives would benefit from a change because under coalitions, the views towards the ends of the political spectrum have some chance of representation. People usually use this as an argument against electoral reform but in reality it is far more democratic than the system we currently have. The Centre will be dominant as this is where the opinion of most people lie but at least those on the edges can have some say as coalitions wax and wane. Given my opinion of New Labour, I am not surprised that they have failed to even support the modest Alternative Vote system that they advocated during the general election. The Tories are being, well, typically conservative in their unthinking opposition. But it is vital that all those actually believe in representative democracy campaign our hearts out come the referendum next May. Britain needs this reform in order to have any chance of principled government in the future.
Otherwise, we will be left with the two largest parties in their role as amoral ice-cream sellers competing on a beach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)