Freedom of Speech Works Both Ways

The furore over Muslim protesters burning poppies during a Armistice Day silence has been reignited by the news that one has been cleared while the other has been fined a mere £50 for a public order offence. As others have pointed out, the average parking ticket is £60. It doesn't say much for where we place our war dead in the grand scheme of things, does it?

Now, Jeremy Vine had a chat with Emdadur Choudhury on Radio 2 earlier. Throughout the interview I was impressed with Vine's professionalism. Faced with someone who wouldn't answer questions and refused to acknowledge the viewpoint of another Muslim, perhaps more proficient than Choudhury in knowledge of the Koran, Vine kept very calm. In fact, the interview did little apart from hold this man up to ridicule. But some important arguments did come out of it.

Most importantly was the idea that Choudhury had the right to burn the poppy as part of his freedom of speech. This was brought up by him and some (non-Muslim) callers. Surely, people said, it's a fact that our soldiers have died for such a thing as freedom of speech? To deny it even to Choudhury is a betrayal of our war dead.

I accept that with a few qualifications. The poppy is not a religious symbol in this country. However, as we are increasingly becoming a secular nation, it retains its power as a striking symbol of freedom, peace and human morality. Even people who don't necessarily agree with wars, either now or in the past, recognise that the poppy doesn't glorify their deaths but celebrates their existences. The people struck with horror at the sight of it being set alight were justified in feeling disgusted. I freely admit that I know little about Muslim heritage. However, I do know that if a British person had insulted Muslim dead in, say, Pakistan, they would have been not only condemned, but probably been subject to something much worse.

You can bang on about freedom of speech all you want, but the fact remains that it's one rule for Muslims and another for the rest of us. Is it any wonder that people become a little exasperated with this at times? All over the country Muslims hand out homophobic literature to incite hatred against their fellow man. Only a few cases are punished. Is this freedom of speech? No, it's an act designed to provoke and incite hatred. How is that at all different to the burning of a poppy on Armistice Day?

No one wants a "them and us" culture. I strongly salute the Imam who tried arguing with Choudhury on Radio 2, saying the act was disrespectful and quoting the Koran back at the extremist. I know that the majority of Muslims in this country hold his view. The problem is the minority who are compelled to seek division within our society. We can't let them win. And, in my view, that means taking a much tougher line on people like Emdadur Choudhury. Remove his £792 benefits every month. If he wishes to push himself onto the fringes of our society then so be it.

Striking Things About Barnsley

I became rather fascinated by the by-election in Barnsley last night, as it became clear the order wasn't going to be as clear cut as usual. I decided to stay up and see it through, only to find the Lib Dems sliding down to 6th and UKIP taking 2nd place. It was astonishing really, especially to be following the excitement as I was on Twitter. Social media might have a lot to answer for, but it could definitely be used as a tool to reignite interest in politics.

Anyway, Labour took a vast majority of votes and Dan Jarvis is now the MP for Barnsley Central. I have great respect for the man. I read an interview with him the other day and he seems to be one of the most down to earth, no-nonsense people in politics. As an ex-soldier he has first hand experience of our military operations, something which could be very valuable should Labour return to power. However, although he was the favourite, there are some interesting points to make about the Barnsley by-election.

1. The seat was certainly a safe Labour seat to start with. However, Eric Illsley has been imprisoned for his expenses. You would expect this to put a dent in the majority but, percentage wise, Dan Javis dramatically increased Labour's vote share from 47% to 60%. However, lower turnout has to take some responsibility for this.
2. The turnout was 'abysmal' as Nick Clegg said in an interview earlier. Yes, it was. At 36.5% it was down by 20% on the General Election. Now, the very fact that Clegg drew attention to the turnout suggests that he doesn't believe the Lib Dem's demolition in the by-election was significant. However, I would then wonder, if he places so little stock in turnouts of around 36%, why did he fight so hard against a threshold of 40% on the upcoming AV Referendum?
3. UKIP took second. I don't think it should be underestimated how significant this is for the party. All right, the vote share was only 12%, but that's still well above the 8% the Tories got. Forget the implications for the Coalition, this is an excellent result for a fringe party with excellent credentials.
4. The Tories and Lib Dems came in third and sixth respectively. Of course, this could be taken as the natural reaction to the cuts, and probably will be by most people within Downing Street. It's also one small area, which was always going to stay Labour. However, it's the vote share that's concerning. Both the Tories and Lib Dems scored 17.3% at the General Election. In the case of the Lib Dems, this has dropped to 4.1%. They lost their deposit for that terrible performance. Evidently, Labour have increased their share by taking votes, primarily from the Lib Dems I would think. And it's a sure bet that some Tories decided to vote UKIP, probably exercising their right to a worthy vote in a race they knew they couldn't expect to win. However, what about all those people that stayed home? It seems to me, on looking at the figures, that only a core of people fell compelled to go out and defend the Coalition. If this trend is repeated at the next General Election it could be that we've helped create even more of an apathy towards the British political system than we had only a year ago.

Why Ofcom is Ineffectual

It's probably best not to delve into my deep feelings on Rupert Murdoch's News Corp getting the go-ahead to buy the shares in BSkyB which it doesn't already own. It would be messy, loud, and probably scare anyone reading this. Needless to say, I'm furious about it. But my anger centres on one man. Yes, Mr Hunt, I mean you.

Ofcom, who have a history of upholding rather stupid complaints while ignoring more serious ones, took one of their rare positive actions when they suggested that the News Corp bid be referred to the Competition Commission. Had Vince Cable still been in control of this, no doubt it would have been. Cable, at best, looks uncomfortable when encouraged to suck up to Tories. He is one of the only major Lib Dems to have retained some semblance of individuality, and he almost lost that in the student fees fiasco. However, Cable's 'war' on Murdoch was enough to get him dragged away from making the decision.

And we all know what happened next.

Jeremy Hunt, Culture Secretary, took over from Cable. Yes, the decision for whether to allow Murdoch to take over BSkyB was given to the man reported last year to have said that he didn't really see the problem with it. Now, that may not be terrible, but it certainly doesn't inspire any confidence about him going into this role with a clear head. Then he sat on his decision for a few months, ostensibly to allow Murdoch time to reassure him that the move would be acceptable. This has apparently been remedied by Murdoch agreeing to spin off Sky News into another company, which most reports suggest barely bothers Murdoch at all in the grand scheme of his interests.

The fact of the matter for me remains clear: Murdoch has been eager to keep his machinations away from the Competition Commission. That alone is the reason why they should be involved. I find it astounding that a media regulator can make one recommendation, only to be overruled by a minister with a preconceived idea of what the case entailed.

I wonder what Vince Cable thinks of all this. This isn't 'war' on Murdoch. This is pandering to him. And we won't be better off for it.

Why I'm Angry About The AV Threshold Issue

Last night the House of Lords gave in and allowed the Commons to reject the amendment placing a 40% threshold on the AV referendum. This would have meant that if the turnout had been less than this figure, the referendum would have been non-binding and referred back to Parliament for debate. The Commons had to reject the amendment several times before the Lords admitted defeat.

Now, although the idea of sending something back to Parliament so they can decide on it isn't a great solution to a problem the whole country is asked to solve, it seemed to be a sensible one. With the threshold in place, the onus was on the Yes to AV group to prove their reforms are wanted. That is the way it should be. This is a major overhaul of our voting system: the people wanting it should have to ensure that they have a majority of the nation happy with the decision. It goes beyond whether you will vote for AV or against it; it's a simple courtesy.

We as a nation are generally lacklustre in voting, particularly in local elections. There is little evidence to suggest that the public have been captivated by the AV referendum. What is likely to happen is that the people who go out and vote on May 5th will be the people who generally vote in local elections (widely, this figure is under 40%), along with the people who feel strongly on the issue of AV. A massive alteration in our voting system should not come down to who has the most activists willing to vote for it. It should be for the good of the nation, and voted for by the nation.

What would have the threshold have done? Well, ensured that a new voting system isn't automatically implemented on the say-so of a minority for a start. Just imagine, we could have an average 30% turnout on May 5th. That would mean that the Yes group would only have to secure 15.1% of the population's votes. Again, I stress that this is the greatest overhaul of our political system in recent memory. Why should a small percentage of activists speak for the majority?

There is a simple reason why the threshold was repeatedly denied by the Commons. You see, David Cameron promised Nick Clegg a referendum without a threshold. Whether this was because Clegg believed AV could only prosper without a threshold is down to speculation. However, this kind of back-room dealing is precisely the reason I despise AV in the first place. More significantly, Lord Ashdown conceded that the AV issue was the deal-breaker for the Coalition. If the vote had gone the wrong way we could easily be looking at a government falling apart. And why is this? Because they are selfishly trying to push through a piece of legislation which will assist them at the detriment of the country.

But more of that in the coming weeks...

Cutting Domestic Violence... The Budget For

Let me preface this post by announcing that I am not a deficit denier. That phrase is loosely applied to anyone who doesn't agree with George Osbourne's strategy for dealing with the massive debt this country faces but it is extremely misleading. To criticise and illuminate people is not to deny.

I've been alarmed by the swingeing cuts to arts budgets. I've been perturbed by the wholesale reorganisation of the NHS which appears to be a vehicle for implementing Tory ideology. However, several notable stories have cropped up which have reminded me there is something even more precious at stake as the government swings the axe.

Today, the Guardian are reporting that the county council in Devon have proposed to cut 100% of the £1m it current gives to the three charities which constitute its domestic-violence network. Without this money the organisations will likely flounder as the amount they receive in donations is, comparatively speaking, rather small. It isn't scaremongering to suggest these cuts will have severe consequences. More women will be injured with no place to go, more children will watch their parents engaging in fights and their futures may be harmed by the experiences. Also, if such situations do result in hospitalisation or worse then the burden falls back onto the tax payer anyway.

I see this as the latest in a worrying line of ideological cuts which impact vulnerable families. Married couples are to be given tax breaks to promote the stable family environment as the one to aspire to. Who doubts that this will encourage people to stay in unhappy and possibly abusive relationships because they can't afford to be apart? In addition, legal aid is being cut to cases where the custody of a child is up for discussion. If a mother can't afford the legal costs of fighting for her children then won't she just stay in a relationship that's bad for all concerned?

Taken separately most government legislation can be seen in terms of the money it saves. That's all well and good - the money needs to be saved somehow. However, add up the impact of these cuts on the most vulnerable members of society and they begin to look a little less rosy.

Resignations, Accusations and Appearances... Oh, My

It's been quite a week as far as politics goes.

In the space of a few days we've had Baroness Warsi accusing us all of Islamophobia, Alan Johnson resigning from front-line politics and Tony Blair appearing for the second time at the Chilcot inquiry. The latest news is that Andy Coulson, communications chief for Downing Street, has resigned, apparently under pressure about his role in phone hacking when editor of the News of the World.

Now I'm a grade-one cynic. I do not believe that the sudden resignation of a man whom the media and public have been baying for is completely unrelated to the wider political sphere. After all, what better way to appease the public in the wake of drastic and controversial NHS reorganisation plans than to give them something they've wanted for months?

Additionally, Baroness Warsi's comments, although not officially endorsed by Downing Street, have created a storm that has served well as a mask at the end of the week. Tony Blair at the Iraq inquiry is a delightful smokescreen for Cameron, one which enforces the vision that Labour were involved in an illegal war. It's been a great week for burying things really.

Alan Johnson, of course, was far beyond the control of No. 10. Having read an interview with him over Christmas I'm saddened by his departure and I wish him well (and I wish him privacy).

Suing the NHS: Yes or No?

Jeremy Vine had an interesting debate on his radio programme this lunchtime about the payments of compensation to NHS contraception 'error' victims. The essence of the argument was whether people should sue the NHS at all, or whether, as we all stump up for it within our taxes, we should just leave it alone.

Fundamentally, I believe negligence should be paid for.

If something with a relatively low risk goes catastrophically wrong due to preventable human error then the victim should be within their rights to complain about the outcome. What I don't agree with are the vast sums won in compensation claims - are they really representative of the injuries and distress someone has suffered? In the case of requiring further care and assistance then, of course, this is justified. However, mental distress resulting from an error is much more difficult to quantify and, as such, much more open to abuse from greedy individuals. So is the answer just to put a blanket ban on claiming compensation from the NHS?

Well, no. With the NHS facing a tough few years with reorganisation, efficiency savings and cuts (it's hardly as protected as it was advertised) standards will inevitably drop. Although doctors are prevented from working too many hours by EU law there is no guarantee that negligence will not be caused by other aspects of day-to-day working life: lack of training, shortage of materials, staff or information, for example. Removing the threat of claiming against the NHS simply removes the danger that the health service cuts will be seen as what they are - a dangerous attempt to reduce the deficit by putting our staple system at risk.

This is not to say that the arguments against the contraception cases are entirely without merit. No contraceptive is comprehensively reliant. Any pregnancy in these cases which has resulted from the patient being in the 1% whom the unit unfortunately failed shouldn't be open to compensation in my view. It is an inherent risk and it's one that most women take. However, several cases were highlighted where the implant had been inserted wrongly to the detriment of the health of the patient involved. One woman had suffered injuries to her muscle due to the incorrect insertion of the implant. This is negligent, whether from lack of training or just idiocy on the part of the doctor.

I don't at all believe in this compensation culture which our country seems so enamoured with. Only in cases of negligence when the person sincerely needs the money they are awarded would I say action is justified against the NHS. By all means, highlight the case, campaign tirelessly for a certain error to be recognised and/or admitted to by the health service in the name of improving the service.

Don't, however, sue the NHS simply to line your own pockets. Taking money from the rest of us in a time of deep and painful cuts isn't the way to endear yourself to anyone. After all, I'm sure the neighbour waiting for an operation which has been delayed due to lack of funds will be less than impressed with your new television bought from the proceeds of their taxes.