blog
An Atomised Society
Mon, 26 July 2010 - by Rob Dale
David Cameron ended the Parliamentary session by launching what he calls his ‘Big Society’ program and plans for a national citizen service to encourage volunteers. But what does ‘Big Society’ mean and does government backing for voluntary services really help?
The whole idea of empowering communities to do something for themselves was previously explored by Tony Blair after his huge victory in 1997. If it didn’t take off for an (at the time) popular leader during a time of economic prosperity then one must rightly be wary of its chances to succeed at a time of ‘savage cuts in public spending.
The biggest problem with Cameron’s initiative isn’t the idea itself - it’s the vagueness with which it is being promoted (The Independent last Saturday described it as his ‘hazy vision of social regeneration’”) and the lack of detail as to how these programs will work in reality.
It is understandable that most people are listening to these plans with a sense of caution. Society is very suspicious that this is really a plot to cover the government from its strong austerity measures - is the government trying to mask enforced redundancies behind a wall of newly-found volunteerism?
Perhaps the most striking thing however it the lack of realism in government thinking - the fact of the matter is that those who will volunteer are already doing so. Millions of people all around the world are already volunteering through richer and poorer so rather than spending time, effort and indeed money in building new voluntary structures, why not focus those resources on making life a bit easier for these already overstretched organisations?
Underneath the soundbite title the government is hoping to harvest a much more definitive ideology behind the ‘Big Society.’ Cameron and Clegg have bonded over desires to remake the way government functions and lift the dead-weight of bureaucracy that stagnates so much social innovation. And for these reductions in regulation and red-tape there appears to be a great deal of public sympathy.
But these subsidiary objectives aren’t necessarily the same as de-centralisation. Britain’s centrally-controlled political structure dates back to Thatcherism and her efforts to weaken local government. But despite wanting to cut bureaucracy the Prime Minister isn’t pushing any desire to re-empower these authorities - in fact the ‘Big Society’ is taking further power away from them in two big areas, education and planning controls.
The function of the government is to mediate between competing interest groups in society, but by fragmenting and removing this local authority function of mediation Cameron is potentially leading Britain towards a very atomized society. The result may well be a rise in problematic local antagonism with very little accountability to anyone if or when it all goes wrong.
Thanks to Robert Dale for this post.
The al-Megrahi Muddle
Thu, 22 July 2010 - by The Vibe Magazine
Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to the US has been dominated by debates over the role of BP and the British government in the release of Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi.
(c) The Prime Minister's Office
What have BP and the Lockerbie bomber got in common? Well, not much it would seem. Contrary to any hard evidence produced thus far allegations abound that the much maligned oil giant has played a pivotal role in lobbying the British government to release Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds in an attempt to ease relations with Libya as it endeavoured to secure lucrative oil contracts with the north African country. The allegations are being perpetrated, seemingly exclusively, by a couple of US senators.
What we actually have here are a number of different issues that have somehow become intertwined to form an exceedingly complicated conspiracy theory but must be kept apart until credible evidence informs us otherwise.
Protagonist number one, BP, the British oil company responsible for a gargantuan oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico making them persona non grata amongst many Americans. Its saving grace is the devastating effect its collapse could have on both the UK and US economies.
Protagonist number two, al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber. Responsible for the deaths of 270 people al-Megrahi was serving time in a Scottish prison (at the Libyan government’s behest) until his release was sanctioned last year by the Scottish Justice Secretary on compassionate grounds. He has terminal prostate cancer and was given three months to live by Scottish medical officials; he has outlived this estimation and will soon be celebrating 12 months as a free man.
Finally protagonist number three, the special relationship, the truly special relationship which now manifests itself as Dave and Barack.
All eyes were on the White House yesterday as the rookie prime minister made his first official visit to the White House. Inevitably the BP-Megrahi debacle was raised quickly and directly. How Cameron conducted himself in answer to these questions was impressive.
First and foremost the prime minister denounced the decision to release al-Megrahi as “profoundly misguided” but more importantly he under-scored his opinion with the often over-looked fact that the decision was taken by the Scottish executive in accordance with powers devolved to them by UK law. The prime minister not only showed a great respect for the Scottish executive but compounded his deference by publicly denouncing their decision to release al-Megrahi without as much as a nod towards any attempts at retrospective action.
If the US senators, indeed if President Obama, truly believe that the al-Megrahi decision was not made in good faith with full adherence to the law then it is an issue they must take up directly with the Scottish parliament, should they feel this to be appropriate. If roles were reversed it would be akin to the British government lobbying for full inquests into individual state laws on the death penalty, for example. It is not our place to do so and I can’t for a second entertain the thought that any British government would ever pursue such a campaign.
The loss of American lives in the Lockerbie bombings, however, has given the aforementioned senators cause, and at least in their minds justification, to call for a full autopsy of al-Megrahi’s release. To use David Cameron’s clumsy and not completely historically accurate terminology, it is important that Britain, in whatever way it chooses to delegate its judicial powers, does not become a “junior partner” in this issue. We are not an insubordinate entity that must justify its decisions for the satisfaction of the US and tricky though the special relationship might make it, we must protect our sovereignty at all costs. Allowing the US to take an interventionist tact of probing and picking at the Scottish executive in attempts to effect a repeal is unacceptable and however unlikely it may seem, could prove to be the biggest threat to the special relationship that arises from this fiasco.
To his further credit Cameron offered to release any relevant papers that may shed light on any potential wrong doings and although its likely this may prove to be an unnecessary step it showed both transparency and confidence, important qualities indeed in these uncertain times.
Important also was both leaders’ agreement that the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong. Concurring on this issue showed an ideological unity whose validity was established with the ease by which it was expressed, an ease which dominated the whole of the White House press conference and which bodes very well for the special relationship.
Now if a handful of senators can resist further mud-slinging and drop a vendetta clouded by anger at recent BP failings in a completely unrelated arena they might be able to deal with the more important issues of safeguarding the Gulf of Mexico’s ecosystem and tackling their structural deficit. Their President seems to have been able to, I suggest they follow suit.
The real tragedy of locked-in syndrome
Wed, 21 July 2010 - by The Vibe Magazine
Tony Nicklinson wants to die after a severe stroke, while away on a business trip to Athens, left him paralysed, unable to move any part of his body except his head and eyes. However, there are some who might say that he is one of the luckier survivors of locked-in syndrome.
(c) Tony Nicklinson
Tony Nicklinson is 56 years old. He is married to Jane with whom he has two daughters: Beth and Lauren. He used to work as an engineering executive, a job that took him across the world, and before that he was a rugby player. Now he wants to die, after a severe stroke, while away on a business trip to Athens, left him paralysed, unable to move any part of his body except his head and eyes. He cannot walk. He cannot talk. He cannot feed or bathe himself. Mr Nicklinson is, to use the clinical term for his condition, locked-in. He is highly unlikely to ever recover.
Yet he cannot end his life by his own hand. So, unless he refuses food and water, dying of starvation and de-hydration, someone else must do it for him. His wife has agreed to do just that following what must have been the most agonising decision a loving spouse can possibly face. However, say her lawyers, if she does there is a real chance she will be tried for murder. After all, she is not being asked to assist a suicide. She is being asked to commit a mercy killing.
The debate that is set to follow is a predictable one of an individual’s right to die versus the collective’s right to be protected from a callous abuse of a law that may lead to their lives being ended against their will. Ultimately, this is a moral, not a legal question. It is a matter of conscience, not of right and wrong, and as such can only ever be resolved by an act of Parliament. Even then, the debate will continue for as long as two or more people hold different opinions on the issue. I know which side I stand on, but I will not seek to impose my views on you because that would obscure the wider point of this article.
There is no way anyone can possibly understand what it is like to live with locked-in syndrome without going through it themselves. In Tony Nicklinson’s own words – he communicates with the use of a perspex board and letters, looking, blinking and nodding to spell out words:
“I am fed up with my life and don’t want to spend the next 20 years or so like this. Am I grateful that the Athens doctors saved my life? No, I am not. If I had my time again, and knew then what I know now, I would not have called the ambulance but let nature take its course.”
However, there are some who might say that Mr Nicklinson is one of the luckier survivors of locked-in syndrome. Luckier because at least his condition was correctly diagnosed. As it turns out, an alarming number of people who live with the same condition, but are unable to even communicate their level awareness due to the severity of their disability, are routinely misdiagnosed as being in a vegetative state (awake but not aware). Two fates await such people: being cast off into a nursing home to a life of solitude and neglect; or having their feeding tubes removed at the behest of doctors and relatives, deaf to their silent pleas for life.
It is not known how many people in the UK live with locked-in syndrome: no one has ever bothered to count them. However, a study by a team of specialists in the field, published in the British Medical Journal, showed that 43% of patients brought before them over a three year period had been misdiagnosed as being in a vegetative state. While their levels of awareness varied, some were most certainly locked in, including one man who spent eight years in a nursing home before somebody finally realised his mind was still active. Eventually, he was sent to a rehabilitation centre where he could receive the specialist care he required and even learnt how to communicate with the outside world again. His first three words in eight years, “I love you”, were directed towards his wife who never gave up on him.
Some might say this makes no difference. They may ask: who could possibly want to live like this? Surely those who have been misdiagnosed and given the quick and painless end that Mr Nicklinson now seeks are the lucky ones? Yet surely that is their decision to make and no one else’s. If you’re looking for hard evidence though, you need look no further than across the Channel to France, the only country in the world that affords its approximately 500 locked-in citizens the dignity of being counted. A survey of 78 of them by the Association du Locked-in Syndrome (ALIS) reported that 71% had never thought of suicide, while only 8% demanded it. Another survey found that when asked how they rated their quality of life and specifically their own personal happiness on a scale of -5 to +5, most answered between +3 and +4.
Needless to say, none of this will make any one of those 8% of people seeking to die now feel any better and I don’t expect it to. Nevertheless, although we can never be sure whether any one of the countless people who have had their feeding tubes removed and their lives ended, was actually locked-in, like Tony Nicklinson, but simply unable to communicate, what data is available tells us that the chances they were misdiagnosed and as such just as conscious of what was happening to them as you or me, but denied their right to choose and subsequently their right to life, were literally almost 50/50. Perhaps we should set about addressing this criminal injustice before we debate whether mercy killing amounts to one too.
Date set for withdrawal from Afghanistan: help or hindrance?
Tue, 20 July 2010 - by The Vibe Magazine
Defence Secretary Liam Fox’s announcement that 2014 is the date for withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan, is both unwise and unhelpful for the mission.
First of all, I must begin this article with an admission. The level of my military knowledge does not extend beyond a pre-pubescent obsession with the brilliant computer game, Command and Conquer. But even with my distinct lack of expertise, it would seem to me that Defence Secretary Liam Fox has committed one of the cardinal sins of waging war in the past couple of days.
Surely, it is counter-productive and presumptuous to effectively announce to your enemy when you plan on leaving? Whilst I accept that these are tricky political waters for Liam Fox to navigate with the death toll becoming more saddening by the day, his confirmation that British combat troops will leave in 2014 does a good deal to jeopardise the mission in Afghanistan.
War is not just about technology and how advanced the weapons you possess are, otherwise the coalition would have ‘won’ the war in Afghanistan some time ago, if there is such a thing as a tangible ‘victory’ in this war. It is also about psychology. If the Taliban ever needed a morale boost, this is it. It leaves the Afghan people, who have lost far more than us in this war, hung out to dry. For the Taliban, it is now about a resilient waiting game, one which they seem happy to participate in.
It enables their propaganda to project the message to ordinary Afghans that the international forces are weak, and allows them to portray themselves as the true ‘defenders’ of Afghanistan, who will be there indefinitely. Whilst this is obviously factually inaccurate, I fear this is the impression that is likely to be conveyed to the Afghan people.
There are other issues with giving such a rigid timetable. Liam Fox told Andrew Marr on Sunday that ”it has always been our aim to be successful in the mission and the mission has always said that the Afghan national security forces would be able to deal with their own security by 2014”. Fine, but what happens if the Afghan security forces cannot fight the Taliban alone by 2014? Although the withdrawal is “conditions-based”, it seems pretty clear that 2014 is the deadline.
If after 2014 the Afghan army and police fail to hold back the Taliban, Liam Fox or any future defence secretary will be left in the even more perilous position of having to decide whether to send troops in once more. It is simply irresponsible to give a date when there is a significant degree of uncertainty surrounding what the future holds in Afghanistan over the next four years.
In addition, Hamid Karzai’s government seems almost entirely inept to the foreign observer. Corruption is reportedly rife, and the president has a fundamental lack of control and authority across what is a large geographical area. With no clear signs of an improvement in governance, it is difficult to envisage a set of circumstances in which his administration will be capable of presiding over “an era of Afghan-led peace”, as President Karzai is reported to announce at the International Conference on Afghanistan to be held in Kabul on Tuesday.
I am firmly of the belief that now we are in Afghanistan, our forces cannot simply withdraw in failure. It would serve to make the international community seem impotent, and would not do justice to the heroic deeds of the many who have fallen. Of course I sympathise with those who want us to leave as soon as possible; the loss of life is truly tragic. But now we are there (something I did not agree with in the first place), it is critical that we follow it through to a sufficient conclusion, without being constrained by dates set out of political necessity. British and international troops are there to do a job, and I’m sure they do not want it to end up being a botched one.
I sincerely hope that by 2014, the Afghan forces are capable of fighting the Taliban alone and that the circumstances for the withdrawal of British combat troops are in place. Unfortunately, on the present evidence, neither of these seems particularly likely, and setting a date for withdrawal seems to be more of a hindrance than a help to the mission.
Lord Puttnam & the Lord Speaker talk young people, politics and digital democracy
Mon, 5 July 2010 - by Alex Sergent
C21 was in attendance for a lecture and talk given by Lord Puttnam and the Lord Speaker last week. We asked them both questions on how they thought the internet could help engage young people with politics'
See the YouTube video here and there are pictures from the event from the UK Parliament here.
Is this what you are looking for?
Mon, 28 June 2010 - by Niall Cruickshank
Are you like most people and wondering who your MP really is other than a name on a piece of paper? Well, Catch21 is allowing your MP to properly introduce themselves to you. We will be providing short and snappy 2-3 minute interviews with new MPs who have only recently been elected to Parliament following the recent general election (and by-elections).They will be telling you exactly what they want to do, what other MPs they like and even what special talent they have, all in a few easily-digestible minutes. Consider it the speed dating of the political world!
The video campaign will be running from the end of June until late July / early August and is being supported and promoted online by the Hansard Society, Dod's Parliamentary Communications (via e-politix), Operation Black Vote and The British Youth Council. Videos will be released one or two a day, providing the perfect brief diversion that will make you more informed and able to discuss the crucial issues affecting our society today. So make sure you do not miss this easy opportunity to actually see the faces behind the names and learn more about the new people running this country.
