Tear Down These Walls

Today is the 20th anniversary of the symbolic end of the 'Cold War'.

Everybody remembers the drama which unfolded over that summer:



But fewer people remember the bureaucratic shrug which ultimately brought it down:



The Wall was a constant theme when I was younger and I remember being particularly inspired by Ronald Reagan's declaration of his liberalism overlooking the Brandenburg Gate.



In many regards I've always thought about how walls are the physical manifestation of the barriers society places between people, and in this sense they are the symbol of everything I find objectionable.

I can understand there can be a pressing need for them in certain circumstances, but that only goes to highlight the failings of the leaders who didn't avert the situation in the first place.

Anyway, here's some photos of famous walls from history:

Hadrain's Wall
The Great Wall of China
The Berlin Wall

And here's some which are still tolerated for 'political' reasons:

US-Mexican border:
Belfast:
Israel/Palestine:
Baghdad:

Each are symbols of larger social conflicts.

When these conflicts are resolved, these walls will fall and be consigned to history too.

Song of the day

Oblique reference disclaimer: this is somehow appropriate.



Don't expect me to explain how.

It's the poppies, stupid!

Everywhere you go at this time of year the humble poppy can be seen on people's lapels as ordinary people show their silent solidarity with the couragous soldiers who put their lives on the line in the name of what politicians call our security interests.

The poppy appeal is particularly relevant at the moment because of the current deployment in Afghanistan and the latest news that 5 servicemen were killed in a shocking attack by a gunman who was being trained to keep the peace.

The case comes as a huge blow to British strategy and raises big questions about our presence in the country and our ability to 'win hearts and minds'.

The Chair of the Intelligence and Security committee, Labour MP Dr Kim Howells, has broken ranks with the government to argue in a strongly worded Guardian article that current policy if deeply flawed and is proving counter-productive.

He says that "Seven years of military involvement and civilian aid in Afghanistan have succeeded in subduing al-Qaida's activities in that country, but have not... succeeded in eliminating... the Taliban" and that the insufficient resources being expended could be better deployed on the streets of Britain.

Not only would this better address the consequences of the terror threat, but it would remove one of the main aggravating causes of any attacks.

Such a 'shift in focus' would require renegotiation of international treaties, but it would also switch attention from the symptons of the disease to its' underlying causes.

At its' heart is a difference of opinion over the primary motivational factor behind the violence in global societies.

The western powers blame a fundamental lack of engagement in democratic political processes and the undermining of elections in Afghanistan, criticising the controllers of the illegal drugs trade and accusing them of corruption. They concentrate on an extremist cultural trend unwilling to work within international norms and statutes.

Yet the international consensus on numerous policies are precisely what they see is killing their kinsfolk, denying their economic potential and undermining their cultural heritage!

Lest we forget, the production of opium poppies is the main economic engine in an area which has been ravaged by war for almost as long as anyone can remember: the opium trade provides a large portion of the wealth which feeds the people, and it feeds the ability of local tribes to provide for their people in a wider sense too.

Poppy cultivation continues because the economic alternatives simply don't exist. The afghani economy remains dominated by the agricultural sector, despite only 12% of land being suitable for arable purposes. The industrial and service sectors are massively undeveloped and it is estimated that as many as 40% of the adult male population are without regular employment, while 53% of the population live under the poverty line (according to the CIA world factbook).

These are exactly the conditions for popular revolt against the state forces in any country, let alone one which has been at the ends of the earth since classical antiquity. It simply doesn't matter who those forces are percieved to be.

Equality and democracy are being subverted while military power is used to impose the will of outsiders, so whatever our leaders say they are standing up for it is not that. There are no two ways about it, the ideals of the western powers are failing the majority of Afghanis.

The fact is that the western powers are prosecuting an elitist, authoritarian view of morality and legality. The threat of terrorism is mirrored by our own insecurities. The war against drugs reflects our own inability to grasp the reality that lying to young people about the real risks alienates them, builds a sense of distrust and disillusion with the law and legislators and creates widespread disengagement from society.

As we have seen only this week the government policy on drugs has been under fire from world-leading experts who disagree with the official position that increasingly punitive action is likely to reduce the harm levels caused by criminalised behaviour.

Heroin is clearly a much more serious proposition than Cannabis, and recreational usage should not be encouraged, but there is a global shortage of medicinal morphine products at the same time as fields of poppies are being destroyed in Afghanistan because the illegal trade peddled to addicts is being used to fund Taleban-backed resistance.

In other words the deaths and injuries suffered by ordinary soldiers in the line of duty are the manifest costs of a misplaced moral code and a distorted sense of legislative priority - we would not need to be in Afghanistan if our government didn't think punishment excused their failure to communicate effectively and honestly.

The conflict in Afghanistan is a consequence of our bad laws at home and the waste of lives and money being expended there are harming our ability to resolve the situation through increased education and resourcing for border controls in this country.

The two sides of the issue are intimately intertwined, and Gordon Brown has got it wrong on both counts.

As a student of history he must recognise how the loose confederation of tribal resistance forces were used by the west to defeat the might of the Soviet invasion in the late 1970s by combining into the mujahideen, so he should know that aggression against the Taliban will have the same inevitable result unless he commits wholesale genocide.

So when you see anyone wearing a poppy in rememberance of the massacres of the past, it should also work as a reminder that it doesn't give the wearer immunity from making the same mistakes as were perpetrated then.

What will be the topics of discussion at BBC Question Time in Reading tonight?

David Dimbleby and panel come to Reading tonight for the latest edition of the BBC's flagship political discussion programme.

QT has been the cause of controversy in recent weeks with the first appearance of BNP leader Nick Griffin, and some heated debate is always on the cards, so it's worth asking what people think is likely to come up.

Having a look back at the past few days it seems obvious that the deployment of British troops in Afghanistan, the sacking of government Chief Scientific Advisor Prof David Nutt over drug policy and the Conservative backtracking over a promise for a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty will be considered.

But what other subjects do you think deserve coverage?

A political purge

So Prof Nutt has been 'asked to resign' and two colleagues (Dr Les King and Marion Walker) inhaled deeply and have walked out in sympathy.

It was inevitable (as I mentioned earlier), and it only highlights the shambles of the policy-making process of this Labour government.

Alan Johnson accused his scientific advisor of stepping outside his area of competence and interfering in the political debate. He is clearly in meltdown phase as this was to effectively admit that he stepped outside of his area of competence and is willing to interfered in the scientific debate.

But before anyone shrugs their shoulders and says this is just tit-for-tat mudslinging, it must be pointed out that while the role of 'Chief Scientific Advisor' required high academic qualifications, the job of Home Secretary simply requires membership of the order of the Brown-nose!

As a matter of fact Johnson stated he lost confidence in Prof Nutt's ability to give impartial advice, which rather belies the evidence that Mr Johnson simply disagreed with the advice.

So, as Alan Smithson notes, this is the end of any ambitions Johnson had of becoming PM. Mark Reckons agrees - and that interview merely provides the icing on the cake.

But I'd go further and say that the episode actually signals the end of Johnson's career as a frontline politician (which appears to be a position supported by the British Medical Journal). Maybe the former postie could sort out the counterproductive militancy behind the CWU strike instead... don't hold your breath!

The policy of reclassifying cannabis was not, however, one determined by the Home Secretary - it was a top-down doctrine imposed by Gordon Brown himself.

So, yes, Johnson needs to go because he has shown professional incompetence, but he also needs to go because he has shown political incompetence for allowing himself to be set up as a patsy by his boss, who regarded him as a threat.

But neither does Brown emerge unscathed by the affair.

The internal manoeuvering at the heart of the Labour party is clearly to the detriment of law-making, and for this Brown is to blame and should be held accountable.

Meanwhile the Crust of the Grouch explains how Labour has got itself into this mess because they are afraid of losing power.

Policy based on electoral calculations exemplifies the depths of cynicism Labour has now sunk to.

It is just one more example of how Labour started digging itself into a hole when it failed to take advantage of the landslide majorities it gained in Blair's first two terms: Labour's problems stem directly from their failure to deliver the promised reforms which would give a more proportionally representative democratic system.

But the final word has to go to Chris Huhne, who is straightforward and scathing. He says,

"If ministers care so little for independent scientific advice, they should save public money by sacking the entire group of experts and instead appointing a committee of tabloid editors."

In other words he is saying the sacking of the scientific advisors over political differences is tantamount to the government admitting they have already abdicated their responsibilities and handed over the reigns of control to a shadowy cabal.

To err, or not to err

There's a clear split in opinion over the classifaction of drugs, as highlighted in all the papers and discussion programmes.

Basically the government has decided to ignore the advice of its' chief expert Prof David Nutt, who has been outspoken in criticising the government.

Either the government should sack him, or they should accept his arguments - he is appointed by them, after all. To do neither shows they are weak, divided and lack principles.

But I think the debate has been distorted by simple primary school level of confusion over the 'soft' drug, cannabis.

On one side it is the perception of cannabis as a 'soft' - and therefore harmless - drug which is causing confusion. And on the other it is the blatant ignorance of basic information which is yet more causing confusion.

This graph (from the Lancet) provides the best visual representation I can find for helping understand the difference between different drug types and how we should classify them (note alcohol is in the mid-range ie technically a class-B drug).

Cannabis is not a 'drug' in the sense that it is a pharmaceutical - it is only a 'drug' in the sense that it is an organic herb containing various active chemicals.

Whereas Ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine) or Heroin (diacetyl morphine) are trade names for refined chemical products on the criminal black market, Cannabis refers to a general name for a genus of flowering plants (which includes cannabis sativa, cannabis indica and cannabis ruderalis).

The different origins of the vernacular names is an interesting linguistic question, which black-marketeers couldn't care less about, politicians simply don't have the general level of education to distinguish between and most news reporters simply brush over - even when they do know better. It underpins the separation of fact and opinion and has huge implications for public policy in the matter.

So, while 'Ecstasy' or 'Heroin' refer to single chemical agents which have measurable effects, 'Cannabis' refers to a set of unique chemicals in various combinations of multiple chemical agents, each of which have different properties and each combination of which has different effects.

The unique group of chemical agents in Cannabis are described as cannabidols (hence the name). The most commonly occurring are THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) and the pater familias CBD (Cannabidiol).

The first of these is considered to have psychoactive properties (which has associations with triggering schizophrenia), while the second of these as anti-psychotic properties (associated with treating schizophrenia).

While it is not just the strength of the drug which should be considered when classifying cannabis, it is also the relative proportions between the numerous various different agents in each individual batch.

Mark Easton gives a typically excellent summary of some of the issues. He provids details of the governments' own survey that showed more 43% in favour of no change, while roughly equal numbers in favour of reclassification and legalisation (19% each). So there's clearly more at stake than the government claims...

...yet the government has subjected us to a constant barrage of ill-informed scare stories about how super-powerful strains of 'skunk' are flooding the streets of the nation in a bid to retain control of the situation. The head of the Forensic Science Service's drugs unit, Dean Ames, provided evidence of the new 'deadly' variety (2-3 times stronger) which had started to dominate the market and that this higher quality product justified a change in the law to change the way the market operates. Except the change in the law didn't change the function of the market, only the conditions in which it operates.

The political problem is that the public is now so far ahead of the establishment politicians that the law has become irrelevant in helping inform public behaviour: only this week I was walking behind a group of twelve and thirteen-year-olds who were smoking something they'd purchased illegally, but they were complaining that it was 'bad shit' and they should go back and beat up the guy who dealt it to them. Way to drive kids underground!

As Professor Nutt said:

"If you think that scaring kids will stop them using, you're probably wrong. They are often quite knowledgeable about drugs and the internet has made access to information extremely simple. We have to tell them the truth."

It didn't smell like nothing to me, and they obviously knew about the differences between different products. They also clearly knew that the knowledge of their own experience is far more reliable than the guilt trip some morally repugnant fusty old biddy like Jacqui Smith wants to send them on as an excuse for her to absolve her own youthful indiscretions. Prosecuting her own insecurities by persecuting those who are in a similar position now as she was then is no penitance and does not resolve any wider situation.

Frankly speaking I'd court the disapproval of public fugures who are such blatant frauds as Ms Smith and I can understand why anyone else would too.

Unless and until the lectures from the authoritarian pulpit can demand our attention in such ways as through automatic transmission into every mobile phone and PDA (and I'm not sure this isn't the dream of the aspirant omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent force in an irreligious time), then it must be accepted that there are simply millions of people who are just not listening and will not listen to whatever the latest innaccurate, ineffectual and irrelevant outbursts of 'initiative' the PM and his self-absorbed colleagues in Parliament choose to congratulate themselves with as a means to justify their reelection crusade.

The establishment habit of trying to make individual decisions on our behalf while distorting the information they give us - when they choose to provide it - goes to the heart of why the public distrusts the current political system. It suits their purposes, but it doesn't fulfil our needs or our aspirations.

The fact that certain political figues actively choose to go against considered expert advice and their better instincts says all you need to know about them. You've also got to wonder how the rest of the public will respond to their advice if that is the example they set!

So I'd prefer it if we erred on the side of reality, if we must err at all.

And if the government were serious about banning dangerous plants then they should start by eradicating poison ivy from all our churchyards.

Ideas for Power2010

I've been tagged in a meme by Bracknell Blogger, Dazmando.

Being a completely anti-social misanthrope (ahem) who spends far too much time hanging out online (double ahem) I'm usually disinclined to get involved in blog memes, but from what I've read of the other ideas put forward in response to Guy Aitcheson's request for suggestioned reforms I'm a bit disappointed at the lack of original thinking and the grasping for 'big ideas'.

Check out some of the different ideas on the Power2010 blog where there is a lively discussion. The deadline for submitting ideas is November 30th.

So let me start by outlining what I think are the problems from the viewpoint of someone who has been on the inside and the outside and currently hangs out on the fringes.

The main problem is a sense of disconnect between the inhabitants of our representative chambers and the general public. We hardly know who they are or what they do, and what little we do know seems designed to put most people off.

Distrust stems from incomplete and unreliable information, broken communication channels and messages which are not short and snappy or clear and complete or full and frank. Only when all the information is at our disposal can consensual adult decisions be made.

What happens in Parliament must correspond with society, our needs and our wishes if it can be expected to be representative: we must encourage accessibility and break down the barriers to participation.

My first reform would therefore be on election day at the point where decisions are made. While I would keep current restrictions on access to the polling station, I would also require a room to be set aside where literature from party candidates can be picked up and perused.

I've found it shocking that people are asking questions of tellers on the doorsteps of polling stations and making judgements without any space to make a proper decision. And as most polling stations requisition whole schools or other community buildings for the duration it is something which could be implemented at no cost.

My second reform would be to the political calendar, so people can set their diaries according to what happens. PMQ's is accepted as the highlight of the week because it occurs with unerring regularity at midday on Wednesdays. I know there are a range of events and ceremonies which take place at Parliament, and while I can say what happens at a few of them I couldn't even say with certainty when it is open.

So as a general plan I would have the parliamentary calendar correspond directly with the school calendar. This would create an intrinsic timetable to events and allow business to be conducted separately from the primarily ceremonial aspects of parliamentary life.

My third reform would be to the financing of political debate, and to do so in such a way which makes it reflect the level of service provided by the people campaigning for votes.

Currently the total amount of spending by political parties is of the order of £1 per person per year, yet we hear about the inordinate impact of donations made by excessively rich members of society who are able to decline requests to clarify whether or not they are even eligible to donate those sums!

Political funding is closely akin to racketeering at the moment and it must be put on a more equitable basis. So I think if people were aware that their votes were providing the means of financial support for that party to be successful then participation would be incentivised and made more affordable - we may have won 'one person, one vote', but we are still a long, long way from saying the contributions of all people are equal.

-

I'm supposed to tag 5 bloggers, so I'll be deliberately democratic and link to bloggers representing a fair cross-section of the local blogosphere:

Freethinker Elizabeth Thomas,
atheist Steve Borthwick,
environmentalist Matt Blackall,
humorist Mr London Street,
communications expert Tim Trent.

I'll also warn them now, if they are prepared to write a post I will write a round-up collating their responses for my local blog.

I am particularly interested in seeing the different perspectives each will bring to the question.

Politics and Political Parties - the truth is out there, somewhere

The issue of representation has been filling my head recently, which follows on from the furore about QT.

And so it comes up again with the dear Jennie asking why certain bloggers are ignored by the blogging establishment.

As a general topic it's one I get into on a regular basis. The discussion always centres around what the definition of 'politics' is.

Some people think politics = political parties.

Others think everything is political.

The first seems to come from a mindest that people involved with political parties are unable to be objective, while the second comes from a mindset that nobody is completely objective (even when they try).

I get round the accusation of bias by taking the 'BBC defence' and seeking out a balanced view, but this then creates a difficulty in giving appropriate and proportionate weight to the different sides.

So, what can be done to give a more representative account and convince critics that no group or individual is being discriminated against and treated unfairly?

Ultimately I think there is some overlap between those who think white working-class men are being treated unfairly and those who think BME groups and women are being treated unfairly: the establishment is failing to placate these critics and convince them by communicating the full extent of the issues at stake, and this shows the action being taken by the establishment is not sufficient.

Without getting into the question of immigration and how desirable it is (people who know me personally don't need to ask - I have some strong views), the establishment has failed to clarify that these issues are a choice we each need to make - we need to separate the narrow issue of what is good for 'me' and the broader subject of what is good for 'us', and if they do not correspond then we need to understand why not.

It has been a consistent trend of Gordon Brown's path to power that he has crushed, negated and otherwise sidelined opposition wherever he has seen it, but this has had the consequence that the public has not debated questions of importance as assumptions were made and conclusions jumped to, bypassing and failing to account for any uncomfortable facts.

Where Thatcher and Blair stimulated demonstrations of opposition, Britain under Brown has simply gone ahead without wider participation in the discussion of the ways and means worth adopting. Where Thatcher and Blair were capable of debate (however inaccurately), Brown asserts.

Britain under Brown is increasingly in the iron grip of a new establishment - despite their noises about inclusivity, participation at elections is not rising and general membership of political parties has fallen. The seemingly inevitable passage of David Cameron into Downing Street is not being met with any general acclaim and the growing climate of cynicism about politics is enthusing a sense of separation from participation in the processes of democracy among the public: politics is now a lifestyle choice, not a reflection of those choices we make.

It seems obvious to me that the two-party hegemony suffocates a real sense of representation, and the more it seems likely that this will continue then frustrations from different sections of society will increasingly crop up.

It does not matter what Labour or Conservatives do about our borders, or if their initiatives bring about a massive increase in women or black or Asian MPs, because it is only a temporary repreive - they will still represent the same way of doing things which has consistently shown itself to break down as the innate incoherence of their binary philosophy crumbles.

Inclusivity cannot mean substituting one preferred view for another more preferable view, as that just perpetuates a sense of prejudice and disenfranchisement, rather it must mean growing the overall level of participation: an open democracy cannot stand still, it must constantly constantly strive to break down the barriers which so easily grow between us.

An End to 'Peak Oil'?

The human capacity for innovation and technological advancement is amazing.

For a long time environmental campaigners have been concerned about both the decline of resources and the pollution caused by waste. But such dual problems can often be combined to create an effective solution.

The problem of 'peak oil' and what to do about the 50million scrap tyres which must be disposed of every year in the UK alone is exactly one such case which may go a long way to providing for society while improving the environment at the same time.



See, human creativity overcomes our base fears - again!

-

Possibly related discussions (well that's how my mind works): Alix, LDV.

A short statement on the speakers' conference on Parliamentary representation

Parliament represents society.

While Parliament fails to fully represent society it fails to represent the best of society.

So any imbalance in representation is an indictment of the failure of Government to fulfil the potential of all the members of society.

-

I watched the three main party leaders face the committee and I have to say this was an instance when the best of our politics was on show.

Brown, Cameron and Clegg all made excellent shows of the efforts they've made and provided good reasoned (if partisan) arguments why more democracy is necessary to solve the weaknesses in our current democracy.

With all the furore being caused by the BNP's appearance on the BBC it has been easy to get distracted from the positive politics going on under our noses, but it is also easy to lose sight of how these issues are two sides of the same coin.

So it is a shame that QT was dominated by the assumptions surrounding perceptions of the BNP and its' leader Nick Griffins' anti-democratic credentials, when the time may have been more productively spent quizzing him on what efforts he is making to improve the overall balance.

I for one don't see the BNP encouraging gender balance, nor do I see them doing anything at all to help ethnic minority representation or arguing for an extension of the democratic franchise to any group - in fact they are doing the reverse!

Therefore amid all the hype over who exactly is bullying whom I think it is important to remember who is actually offering greater support to the greatest part of society and therefore who has the best interests of society at heart.

Brown and Cameron can both proudly stand up to say they are taking positive steps, but I have to get behind Nick Clegg's argument that it is a wider problem of our politics that we aren't doing enough. Maybe we can never do enough, but I think it is vital to recognise we must always try to do more.