Just heard that John Edwards is dropping out of the Democratic race. Not a huge surprise, but certainly narrows the focus even more to a Obama-Clinton fight. Will be interesting to see if he endorses - my bet would be that he and his supporters go over to Obama.
Another VP nomination maybe?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The Keys to Florida
What a massive, massive win for John McCain in the Florida Primary last night. Although he didn't win by a huge margin (only about 5 points over Romney) it now installs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
What a massive, massive win for John McCain in the Florida Primary last night. Although he didn't win by a huge margin (only about 5 points over Romney) it now installs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The UN Security Council
I think Gordon Brown has had a successful trip to India and China, and the resulting trade deals and links will be beneficial to our economy in the turbulent times ahead. One issue I was particularly pleased to see raised was Gordon's support for India taking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Cold War of the Mind
The tension and mistrust between the UK and Russia is continuing to build. Over recent years, Russia has started to move back into the position that it considers right for itself - regional heavyweight with a view to regaining its superpower status, cemented by bullying tactics against smaller neighbours. Russian behaviour towards Georgia and the Ukraine is threatening to destabilise these nations in their recent political progress, whilst Russian involvement in the Middle East is adding to the mess of the region. None of which is hugely surprising considering the dictatorial tendencies of Time's Man of the Year, Vladimir Putin.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The SNP Approach
If you are ever curious as to how the SNP Government in Scotland prefers to do its business, then the recent SportScotland debate is a good insight.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Louis Theroux - Behind Bars
I had taped Louis Theroux's latest documentary "Behind Bars" at the weekend, and got round to watching it. It was a programme about him going to San Quentin prison in California for two weeks to explore the lives of the inmates and the effect that their imprisonment has on them.
It was horrifying.
The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.
It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.
Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.
We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.
It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.
I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.
Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.
The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.
The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.
I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.
Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.
It was horrifying.
The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.
It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.
Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.
We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.
It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.
I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.
Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.
The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.
The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.
I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.
Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bobbies on the beat cut crime - well duh!
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bobbies-on-the-beat-DO.3667986.jp
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Nuclear Power
I am pleased that the Government is supporting a new generation of nuclear reactors for the UK. I realise that this is an opinion that is not universally held, to say the least, but I believe that in light of the challenges that we are going to face in regards to energy in the coming years, alongside our commitments to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear is the option which presents us with the best chance of success, certainly when combined with other forms of energy production.
Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.
Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.
Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.
Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.
The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.
Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.
What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?
Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.
Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.
Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.
Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.
The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.
Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.
What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Age
I was reading an interesting post on the Newsnight site about the role of age in politics. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/01/a_question_of_age_1.html) It points out that the consideration of John McCain as a viable candidate for the US Presidency is something that would not be replicated in the UK, with the current obsession with 'yoof.'
It got me thinking. It is daft that older members of society feel excluded from contributing to our politics. Ming Campbell shouldn't have been forced out of his position due to his age - our politicians and leaders should be elected on the basis of their competency and ideas rather than how long they have been around.
However, whilst older members of society should be encouraged to contribute, so should younger members. The article discusses the fact that the party leaders are all young, and comments underneath bemoan the fact that young people are getting into positions of authority when they have no life experience.
Firstly, I'm 26 and I can tell you that 40+ is not young! Heck, to someone in their teens I'm an old fogey! Secondly, to have a representative democracy, we require elected members of all strands of our community - young, old, white, black, male and female. In my work, I talk to young people who are not involved in politics, and am frequently told that they are not interested because it is something for old people. Looking at the make-up of our elected representatives, there are very few younger people able to represent that age group and able to bring their concerns to the attention of the elected bodies.
All our citizens should be free and encouraged to participate. We should not presume that older age guarantees experience, whilst being young precludes it. Everyone has skills and experiences to contribute, and should be encouraged in this. Likewise, it shouldn't be presumed that older people lack an energy and commitment to do the job they are elected for.
To create a vibrant democracy, we require the participation of all its members. Young, old and middle-aged, we all have something to offer.
It got me thinking. It is daft that older members of society feel excluded from contributing to our politics. Ming Campbell shouldn't have been forced out of his position due to his age - our politicians and leaders should be elected on the basis of their competency and ideas rather than how long they have been around.
However, whilst older members of society should be encouraged to contribute, so should younger members. The article discusses the fact that the party leaders are all young, and comments underneath bemoan the fact that young people are getting into positions of authority when they have no life experience.
Firstly, I'm 26 and I can tell you that 40+ is not young! Heck, to someone in their teens I'm an old fogey! Secondly, to have a representative democracy, we require elected members of all strands of our community - young, old, white, black, male and female. In my work, I talk to young people who are not involved in politics, and am frequently told that they are not interested because it is something for old people. Looking at the make-up of our elected representatives, there are very few younger people able to represent that age group and able to bring their concerns to the attention of the elected bodies.
All our citizens should be free and encouraged to participate. We should not presume that older age guarantees experience, whilst being young precludes it. Everyone has skills and experiences to contribute, and should be encouraged in this. Likewise, it shouldn't be presumed that older people lack an energy and commitment to do the job they are elected for.
To create a vibrant democracy, we require the participation of all its members. Young, old and middle-aged, we all have something to offer.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Obama Effect
The race is on!
I freely admit that I am a geek - let's face it, I'm getting highly excited about an election that I have absolutely no vote in. But I do believe that the election of a US President is an event that impacts upon the entire world.
The key story to come out of Iowa from a Dem p.o.v. was of course the success of Barack Obama in winning the caucus. A great result for him and just reward for the improvement that he has demonstrated in his campaigning over the past few weeks. Crucially, his margin of victory was significantly clear over his rivals, and even more crucially, Hillary Clinton came a very disappointing third, trailing John Edwards by a very narrow margin.
It is certainly a great result for Obama, but I don't think he should be measuring the White House curtains quite yet. Although Iowa gives him momentum (and it is looking like he may well build on this with victory in New Hampshire) there is still a very powerful machine behind Hillary Clinton. I think that it would only take one victory for her, particularly in one of the bigger states, could quickly restore the aura of inevitability that she has worked to hard to build up. I don't think that Edwards has enough to his campaign to seriously challenge for the nod - I personally supported him in 04 and believe he would have won the election had the Dems not stupidly nominated Kerry, however he is not as impressive now as he was then. In addition, the Dems are desperate to avoid any links to that disaster of a campaign - the GOP tore Kerry apart on several issues, and would be delighted if they could just roll out the same old tactics again. Well, actually they will do that regardless of who the candidate is, but it won't necessarily be as effective.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa is a big blow to Mitt Romney's chances. He did win the Wyoming Republican Primary, but this is a pretty insignificant event (Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter won the remaining delegates which shows you how in touch with national opinion the state is!). For Romney, New Hampshire is crucial now - I think he must win it or run the risk of seeing his campaign die. Giuliani has played a dangerous game of ignoring the early states, so he will came out all guns blazing as the big states come into play, which will further reduce Romney's chances. And of course, polling indicates that McCain has a very real chance of winning NH.
Personally, if I had to support a Republican (with very gritted teeth, naturally!) it would be McCain. I think he is an impressive conviction politician, with a long history of cross party working. Considering how dead in the water his campaign was, his recovery is very impressive - the question now is whether it will be sustainable. So NH is a must win for him too.
So, my predictions for NH - Obama and McCain.
And then the real fun begins.... =)
I freely admit that I am a geek - let's face it, I'm getting highly excited about an election that I have absolutely no vote in. But I do believe that the election of a US President is an event that impacts upon the entire world.
The key story to come out of Iowa from a Dem p.o.v. was of course the success of Barack Obama in winning the caucus. A great result for him and just reward for the improvement that he has demonstrated in his campaigning over the past few weeks. Crucially, his margin of victory was significantly clear over his rivals, and even more crucially, Hillary Clinton came a very disappointing third, trailing John Edwards by a very narrow margin.
It is certainly a great result for Obama, but I don't think he should be measuring the White House curtains quite yet. Although Iowa gives him momentum (and it is looking like he may well build on this with victory in New Hampshire) there is still a very powerful machine behind Hillary Clinton. I think that it would only take one victory for her, particularly in one of the bigger states, could quickly restore the aura of inevitability that she has worked to hard to build up. I don't think that Edwards has enough to his campaign to seriously challenge for the nod - I personally supported him in 04 and believe he would have won the election had the Dems not stupidly nominated Kerry, however he is not as impressive now as he was then. In addition, the Dems are desperate to avoid any links to that disaster of a campaign - the GOP tore Kerry apart on several issues, and would be delighted if they could just roll out the same old tactics again. Well, actually they will do that regardless of who the candidate is, but it won't necessarily be as effective.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa is a big blow to Mitt Romney's chances. He did win the Wyoming Republican Primary, but this is a pretty insignificant event (Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter won the remaining delegates which shows you how in touch with national opinion the state is!). For Romney, New Hampshire is crucial now - I think he must win it or run the risk of seeing his campaign die. Giuliani has played a dangerous game of ignoring the early states, so he will came out all guns blazing as the big states come into play, which will further reduce Romney's chances. And of course, polling indicates that McCain has a very real chance of winning NH.
Personally, if I had to support a Republican (with very gritted teeth, naturally!) it would be McCain. I think he is an impressive conviction politician, with a long history of cross party working. Considering how dead in the water his campaign was, his recovery is very impressive - the question now is whether it will be sustainable. So NH is a must win for him too.
So, my predictions for NH - Obama and McCain.
And then the real fun begins.... =)
Happy New Year!
Not sure that anyone actually reads this blog, but if you do - Happy New Year!
I do my main blogging over at the Labour MpURL facility, but will start trying to put more regular thoughts up here. Of course, these ill informed ramblings will probably just be drifting off unheeded into the ether, but at least it floats them out of my head! =)
If you do ever happen to stumble over this page, then feel free to leave me your thoughts, nice nasty or just plain surreal, to convince me that I am not alone.
Blogging - the modern equivalent of talking to yourself and the voices in your head!
I do my main blogging over at the Labour MpURL facility, but will start trying to put more regular thoughts up here. Of course, these ill informed ramblings will probably just be drifting off unheeded into the ether, but at least it floats them out of my head! =)
If you do ever happen to stumble over this page, then feel free to leave me your thoughts, nice nasty or just plain surreal, to convince me that I am not alone.
Blogging - the modern equivalent of talking to yourself and the voices in your head!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)