[flashvideo filename=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/video/review2.flv” picture=”http://sjhoward.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/s7001616.jpg” /]

Also available on YouTube

Over the past decade or so, this government has become frighteningly bad when it comes to creating legislation – not just because I disagree with much of it, but also because some of it is just bad. Much of this bad legislation is passed for the supposed purpose of ‘preventing terrorism’. Whatever that really means.

Time and again, this Labour government has passed extreme legislation – some of which has later been found to be in breach of Human Rights – which ministers have claimed will be used only in ‘specific, extreme circumstances’ – or sometimes even at the sole discretion of the Home Secretary of the day. Whoever that might be.

Those laws are, by definition, bad.

Our own history shows us that laws created for a specific purpose but not legislatively restricted for such use will be willfully misused, whether by the same government, a future government, or quick-thinking individuals. You cannot pass a law and then propose not to use it – it’s illogical, dangerous, and unnecessarily restrictive of freedom.

Just this week, a council has been found to be covertly spying on families applying for school places, in order to ensure that they genuinely reside within the catchment area. The government told us that this was ‘anti-terror legislation’ – and, by all accounts, is now shocked at this apparent misuse of the law.

Yet they created the law. They knew that such situations could arise, and actively chose not to restrict use of the legislation. It’s shocking that a government can pass such sloppy legislation, and then not monitor for its misuse or more actively prevent it.

If a government insists on using its powers in such a slapdash fashion and then overriding the due concerns of the House of Laws through the overuse of the Parliament Act, then it can only be considered a bad government – and one which should be removed from power as soon as possible.

» Image Credit: Photograph from my personal collection

There is a scene in The West Wing, part way through Barlett’s campaign for a second term, when Toby Zeigler becomes aggravated by the constant appearance of banners demanding “Barlett for President”, insisting – rightly – that they should declare “Bartlett is President”.

It’s an interesting vignette designed to demonstrate the assumed political truism that the incumbent of any given office automatically has an advantage over any pretender: A fact which is almost always true in politics.

The incumbent should have an advantage, since people inevitably like to vote for something known over something unknown. Political parties all too often forget that people don’t vote on the basis of promises, but on the basis of actions: Telling people you’ll do all of what they want can never rival the power of actually doing some of what they want.

On top of this, the incumbent has the advantage, by default, of being the more Presidential or Prime Ministerial figure – exactly the kind of figure one would want leading a nation, and hence the one most people are likely to vote for. People have great difficulty seeing past superficial appearances, as has been proved so many times in so many fields.

Yet, at times of major political flux, the rules of the game inevitably change. The last such occasion was 1997, a seminal year in many spheres and hence unsurprisingly a seminal year in the political world as well. People had become tired of a government which itself had become tired, and of a Prime Minister who really had little more to do.

Compare this with Tony Blair’s two election victories as Prime Minister. He was able to compare the state of the nation at the time of the election with the pre-1997 state of the nation, and make a convincing argument for improvement. He could cherry pick his greatest achievements and promised to build upon them. He had the incumbent’s advantage, and it served him well.

Yet now, in 2008, Labour’s greatest achievements no longer resonate. We’ve tired of hearing of the New Deal, the minimum wage is old news, and NHS reform has been done to death. It seems like this government has nothing new to do – it’s done it all before, and we’re comparing Labour’s current promises with Labour’s previous delivery. The ‘bad old days’ of the Tories have slipped from the public conciousness, and it’s now very difficult for Gordon Brown to make a case for Labour’s successes without comparing to Labour’s previous failings.

Indeed, even systemic failures of government – such as the recent furore over MP’s expenses – now enter the public conciousness as failings of Labour by default, as they are in government, even though they are often cross-party failings which should tar the Parliamentary machinery as a whole. Labour, as the party of government, gets all of the negative publicity, yet very little positive publicity for reform work since it appears that most of it is already underway. There are few earth-shattering initiatives left to announce, and the media quickly tire of reporting ongoing work.

The fact is that David Cameron now has the advantage. He’s able to point out the failings of the Labour government without having to defend the failings of previous Conservative governments. In many ways, this moving forward of the agenda is his greatest achievement to date.

David Cameron is now able to play the ‘one of us’ card which Tony Blair used so effectively in 1997. Cameron wants to show that he’s not part of the ‘establishment’. He listens to Morrissey, he thinks you should consider the whole man not just the political front, and any political faux pas merely plays in his favour.

The recent coverage of him breaking cycle laws is a PR gift, likening him to almost anyone who’s ever ridden a bike rather than a nitpickingly law-abiding po-faced politician. Similarly, his refusal to answer questions about whether he’s taken cannabis merely leads much of the population to assume that he has – and hence identify with him further.

The well-oiled media machine around Cameron helps him to cultivate this image perfectly – anything which might be to it’s detriment is quickly swept under the carpet, whilst extensive comment and hence more extensive copy is given to ’embarrassments’, like the cycling incident, which actually improve his image.

At present, David Cameron is playing a blinder, and the most incredible part of his strategy is that every jibe coming from attack-dog Labour only enhances his image – it comes across as the formed establishment trying to keep out the young incoming reformer.

All-in-all, it’s difficult to see where Cameron can go wrong at this point. The only effective strategy Labour has is to expose him as a carefully managed establishment figure – but in so-doing, they can only expose themselves as the same, and probably end up harming their own campaign as a result.

The results of the upcoming local elections will be fascinating. Whilst local elections rarely form an accurate reflection of the national game, it will be interesting to see if the Conservatives can make the gains necessary to solidify their position as the certain electoral leaders and gain yet more momentum going forward.

Essentially, though, even if the Conservatives fail to make huge gains in these elections, it’s unlikely Labour will, and so the worst possible outcome is neutral. In essence, as far as I can see and unless something radically unexpected happens, there’s no way the next government can be Labour: Cameron is quickly cycling towards election victory.

» Image Credit: Picture taken by Alison Ratcliffe, modified under licence.

In an effort to outdo his predecessors and aim a policy so firmly at middle England that it almost hurts, Alan Johnson is planning to introduce vascular health screening for all 40 to 74 year olds. Frankly, the only conceivable policy which would satisfy the Daily Mail more would be a knighthood for Paul Dacre.

Mr Johnson wants to write to every person in the country between the given ages and invite them to attend their GP surgery for screening. The screening method will be very simple, involving only measurements of BMI, gender, family history, blood pressure, and cholesterol. Essentially, it will let overweight Mr Goggins know that he’s at risk of having a heart attack, just like his father and his father before him. It doesn’t add an awful lot of anything over and above the existing QoF targets, but Mr Johnson maintains that these simple measures this will save 2,000 lives per year. And that’s not a bad soundbite.

He’s a very clever man, Mr Johnson: He must be, because he hasn’t yet decided who will do this screening nor where it will be done, yet he already knows its exact cost – £250m per year. I’m not entirely sure where it is he’s found this figure. Perhaps it came to him in a dream.

Perhaps, in his dream world, the inverse care law does not exist. He admits that only 75% of people will come to his screening appointments (indeed, that’s the percentage on which his mystery funding figure is apparently based), but perhaps in his world this won’t be made up of the worried well. In contrast to any other health intervention ever introduced in the UK, the people who will attend his screening appointments are the ones who really need to attend.

The clinically obese will beat a path to their GP’s door for the experience of being told they’re fat. Those living on the minimum wage will take a day off work and pay for the bus ride to their local pharmacy between 9am and 5pm to be told their cholesterol is high. And those at greatest risk of vascular events – men – will suddenly have an overwhelming desire to engage with health services. Or not.

Instead, this will turn out to be another ill-conceived plan pitched to the worried well of the middle classes, helpfully providing the promise of a new ‘life-saving service’ to the age and class demographic most likely to vote in the upcoming local elections. Not only will it add little of clinical value, but it will divert a vast amount of money from parts of the NHS which desperately need it – particularly those parts which have a less ‘sexy’, populist image.

This is one case where I’m very happy to be proved to be a cynical political blogger rather than a realist. I’d like nothing more than for this plan to turn out to be a vascular panacea. Unfortunately, I can’t see that happening – and the one thing worse than an ineffective NHS is one which squanders money pandering to the worried well, for such an NHS cannot survive for very long.

» Image Credit: Original photo by Catch 21 Productions, modified under licence.

In today’s complex world, it can become difficult to know who’s supporting who, which way the political wind is blowing, and who to believe when it comes to news reportage. Take The Daily Mirror, for example.

It is often asked why The Mirror performs so relatively poorly compared to it’s long-time rival, The Sun, which is the most popular and far-and-away the most politically powerful paper in the UK. There’s not a person in Westminster who is unaware of what ‘The Sun Says’ on any given issue, yet The Mirror is largely ignored.

Before every general election, the politically complex Sun is fought over by Labour and the Conservatives, desperate to secure the support of Rupert Murdoch and hence the paper, thus receiving a huge boost to the electoral campaign. The Mirror is always left behind.

So, in these difficult times, it can be hard to follow quite who The Mirror is supporting at any one time.

Take today’s paper, for example. The front page story? A relatively extensive report on minor traffic violations by David Cameron on a bike. Frankly, not a dissimilar level of reportage to that when Tony Blair became the first serving Prime Minister to be interviewed by police, that time in relation to very serious charges.

And on the inside pages? Gordon Brown expresses his love for the ‘misunderstood’ Amy Winehouse, Coldplay, U2, and Leona Lewis: He’s really “down with the kids”. It’s Cool Britannia Mark II, and even less believable than the first time round.

I’m well aware that newspapers have always had political allegiances, but this particular juxtaposition struck me as so utterly ridiculous as to be worthy of comment.

» Image Credit: The Daily Mirror‘s front page, 21st March 2008.

Instant Opinion is the surprisingly popular sjhoward.co.uk spin-off book of political opinion available from all good bookshops, including sjhoward.co.uk/shop (£5.65), Tesco (£7.05), and Waterstones (£7.42).

The contents of the book are also available as a PDF document, usually selling for £3.49. However, for a very limited time, I am able to offer the eBook version for just 79p. That’s the same price as a single song on iTunes, yet provides over 200 pages of quality political content in easy-to-read PDF format.

This bargain price represents a massive 77% off the usual retail price of the eBook, or 89% off the usual retail price of the print edition.

The idea is that if you particularly enjoy the eBook edition, you may be more tempted to treat yourself to the print edition – yet there is absolutely no obligation to make any further purchases. If you don’t like it, you’ve wasted 79p. If you love it and go on to buy a print copy, you’ll have made me a little more happy.

For this very special offer, payment can only be made by PayPal, and only through the special (subtle) link at the bottom of this post. Thank you for your support!

Update: The offer has now expired, but the eBook is still available at the original price of £3.49.

Photo provided by the Lib Dems Nick Clegg made a complete prat of himself today, wandering around a huge stage in a quite nauseating way, speaking without a script but most clearly not off-the-cuff, in a pale imitation of something David Cameron might have attempted. He made bad jokes, he attempted audience participation with lacklustre consequences, and the whole thing looked – at best – amateurish.

In short, Nick Clegg is a complete electoral turn off, and takes himself far too seriously to attempt the tactics he tried today.

It’s bizarre, in a way. Clegg is trying to argue that he wants a ‘different kind of politics’, yet is trying to communicate that message through endless hackneyed political stunts carried out badly. A walkout isn’t a walkout if it’s obviously planned, a prompt-free speech isn’t off-the-cuff when it’s over-rehearsed, and conscientiously abstaining doesn’t work under a three-line-whip.

The most successful Liberal Democrat leader was Charles Kennedy, not because he was a great political operator, but because he engaged his own target audience. He pretty much shunned the traditional political ways of Westminster, and engaged in a pretty unique chat-show style that looked different, sounded more civilised, and genuinely engaged an ever-growing section of the population.

Much of David Cameron’s style, such as his attempt at manufacturing a personality, comes from imitation of Kennedy, not of Blair. And yet, just as these tactics are working, the Lib Dems have abandoned them.

Nick Clegg is not a good Party Leader, but he could become one. He clearly needs time to grow into his new role, but there surely must be mutterings within the Party today about quite how long he should be given. Charles Kennedy, returning in a shower of glory having conquered his drink problem, may be exactly what the Lib Dems need right now.

Ronnie Campbell plays protagonist in the funniest story I’ve read in ages.

Shortly, MPs are to vote on how big a pay increase they should give themselves. Even asking such a question of MPs – essentially, how much money do you want – seems crazy enough, but this is British politics, and so craziness is par for the course.

So, happily, that’s not where the craziness ends.

See, Gordon Brown wants MPs to limit their pay increases to 1.9%, since that’s what other public sector workers are getting.

This totally ignores the fact that MPs are currently earning £60,675 – or more than double that for cabinet ministers – compared to £22,000 for a nurse, £20,000 for a police officer, or £15,000 for a soldier. Limiting the increase to the same relative value as these people has no real meaning. Perhaps limiting their salary to the public sector average would have some meaning, and may focus minds a little more – although still, with the number of perks received by MPs, the figures would not be truly comparable.

Where is the justification in paying MPs so much more than other public sector workers? Their job is to represent the views of their constituents – something few of them actually seem to do these days – and such a position should be seen as a privilege, not an arduous task for which financial recompense needs to be comparatively extreme.

Looking at things this way makes Daniel Kawczynski comments seem loopy:

I can’t look into the eyes of my constituents who are police officers and say ‘you will stick at 1.9% but I, as an MP, should have more than that’.

…but apparently he can look them in the eyes and say ‘Hey, I sit in a cosy office all day, you risk your life on the streets, I deserve thrice your pay!’

This decision over one’s own body is for the conscience – the conscience of individual citizens in this country. It is not for this Parliament, by free vote or other vote, to impose upon them a requisition of their bodies after death for the state.

So said John Reid, a little over three years ago. It would appear that Gordon Brown now disagrees. And, for once, I agree with Reid.

I have no moral, religious, or ideological issues with organ donation, and have been a registered organ donor for several years. I do, however, have a strong objection to the proposed suspension of the idea of informed consent – a guiding principle of modern medical practice.

There are so many deep practical problems with the idea of presumed ‘consent’ – not least of all that presumed consent in such a context is realistically no consent at all, and that once a mistake has been made, it cannot be undone.

But, most of all, we’re skipping steps. We’re going from a situation of maintaining a relatively little-known and little-promoted organ donor register to presumed consent, without trying anything in between.

For appropriate candidates, it should be made a legal requirement that relatives are asked about organ donation as part of the death certification. This would immediately increase the number of donations, as doctors are poor at asking such questions for fear of embarrassment, insensitivity, and upset. As a standard legal question it would be unavoidable.

This would be a simple, non-controversial measure that could be put in place very quickly and would increase the number of viable organs available for transplant.

Why don’t we give it a go?