There will never be another Michael Jackson

The death of Michael Jackson was one of those moments in history when everyone remembers where they were when they heard the news. I suspect that the conviction of his former doctor Conrad Murray, will not be remembered in quite the same way.

The trial of Dr. Murray lasted just over six weeks and during that time the world learnt of Michael Jackson's drug problems, his insomnia but also his determination to produce the best live show ever at London's O2 arena.

During the trial it was desperately sad to hear the slurred audio recording of the singer, speaking about his grand plans for his London shows and his dream to open a children's hospital under his name. Of course, both of these dreams never came to fruition because Michael Jackson died at his rented Los Angeles home after taking a deadly cocktail of drugs.

Ever since Michael Jackson's death, his family have seemed determined to look for someone to blame, and that man turned out to be Dr. Conrad Murray. There is no doubt that Dr. Murray should have done more to ensure his client was properly monitored and he should not have been administering propofol to him at home, but it is perhaps naive to lay the blame of the singer's death squarely at his door.

One of Michael's previous doctors Dr. Arnold Klein, was mentioned many times during Conrad Murray's trial, as someone who administered painkillers to the star. If this is true, Michael's drug habit may have already been well established, long before the appointment of Conrad Murray as Michael's personal doctor.

One could ask then - why didn't Doctor Murray do something about this and try to wean Michael off the drugs? He may well have tried to and in interviews with police he does indeed testify to this, but weaning his client off drugs was not what Dr. Murray was employed to do.

It seems highly likely that Michael Jackson employed Conrad Murray as an enabler, as someone who would do as he was told in return for a substantial fee. If this was the case, then killing Michael Jackson would simply have been bad business and nonsensical. It is therefore much more likely that Conrad Murray was simply out of his depth and not up to the challenge of dealing with an addicted, demanding, celebrity client. For this negligence Dr. Murray deserves to go to jail, but he cannot be blamed entirely for the disintegration of Michael Jackson's life.

From start to finish Michael Jackson's life was a performance. Everything he did was sensational, and sensationalised further by the ravenous media, desperate for the next mad episode in the Michael Jackson reality TV show.

This way of life was all the star knew, having been a performer from a young age alongside his brothers in the Jackson Five. He never knew what a normal life was and someone with as much talent as Michael Jackson was never destined to be normal.

Michael was extraordinary in every way. The most obvious example was his appearance, radically altered by plastic surgery and affected by the skin disease vitiligo, but he was different in other ways too. He did not think like other people and this was what made him a genius.

Great artists usually lead exceptionally eccentric lives and Michael Jackson was no different. Not many people would build a personal theme park and live there permanently, but this was par for the course for a man who lived in a world of his own making. Michael Jackson's fame meant he could never enjoy a normal life, so he created a life where he could be who he wanted to be.

One of the downsides to this bizarre existence was that it provoked gossip and rumour, particularly regarding his relationships with children. The star was dogged by child abuse accusations for years and whilst we will never know the truth, it is worth remembering that he was never convicted of any wrongdoing. With his death it is surely time for these rumours to be put to bed and for Michael to be remembered for his music.

Michael Jackson's relationship with Conrad Murray was a tiny chapter in his extraordinary life, and although this chapter ended in his death, it will never eclipse what he achieved during his life. Love him or hate him, there will never be anyone quite like Michael Jackson again, and we were lucky to have experienced his talent for the short time he was with us.

UK riots: we need to encourage community responsibility

The recent riots that swept across the UK, were a shock to many people but what were the reasons behind them?

The first question to ask is, why did groups begin looting? The obvious answer must simply be that they stole because they knew they could get away with it. The police were over-stretched and the looters knew it. Once one group of people had looted successfully, then it was inevitable that more would attempt to copy them.

The problem with this analogy though, is that if this was the case, all shops and property would need armed guards at all times, as without protection there would be nothing stopping people from attempting to steal. The thing that stops people doing this on a daily basis, is of course morality.

You may answer that criminals will always try to commit crime and many of them may well lack basic morals, but large groups indulging in criminal activity is much more unusual and this is almost entirely down to our society's moral framework.

Most people are brought up with a vague idea of right and wrong. This is usually enough to prevent them turning to crime (apart from a minority of society), but during the riots these values did not prevent wrong-doing. The looters knew what they were doing was wrong, but they continued nonetheless.

Politicians talk about our society as 'broken' but this is a mistake. This label only serves to label sections of society and condemn them to their likely fate. For example, if you are a teenager growing up in a poor London borough with absent parents your future is already pretty desperate. If you are then put into a box marked 'broken' you could feel that you may as well live up to this label and act as you are expected to, in an irresponsible and selfish manner.

By talking up divisions in society we only serve to deepen them further. Going back to the riots, this has been a problem with the subsequent analysis of its root causes. Everybody is looking for someone to blame, be it the government, black culture (as David Starkey clumsily did so on Newsnight) the collapse of our moral framework or even our consumer culture.

One could argue for example that what bound the looters together was a love of consumerism and a desperate need for branded goods that they could not afford. There may be some truth in this when put against the shops that were targeted. For example, Currys, Foot Locker and JD Sports were all hit hard by looters and all sell expensive, desirable consumer goods.

However, consumerism is not all to blame. To look at it in a positive way, it encourages people to achieve and as a by product earn more money and enjoy a better quality of life. It does of course have negatives, with many poorer people unable to participate in the hoarding of expensive goods. This can provoke jealousy and ultimately criminal activity.

Another suggested reason behind the riots could be family breakdown. In the UK the divorce rate is almost 1/2 and whereas in the past children may have learnt moral standards from their parents, this may not be the case today. However, once again this argument has flaws. More marriages may have lasted in the past, but this is not to say that those families were good influences on their children. These days divorce is more socially acceptable, but as much as politicians deny it, sometimes it happens for the right reasons. It is much better for example for a child to grow up with one parent, than with two parents who hate each other.

The truth is that police inactivity, lack of morals, consumerism and family breakdowns are all reasons behind the riots. Where they all converge, is in a lack of collective responsibility. In truth, this country has not had a true collective responsibility since the second world war. Back then different communities joined together under one banner and for one aim: to win the war. Today we have a rich cultural and socio-economic heritage and often this is to our benefit, but far too often communities fail to integrate with others.

London is a good example of this. In many areas outrageously expensive town-houses sit alongside dilapidated council estates, neither community engaging with each other. This situation is not sustainable in the long-term and something needs to be done about it soon. In a city where there is enormous wealth, the poor should be getting richer over time, but the reality is the opposite, they are getting poorer.

The riots happened not because the poor wanted what the rich had or children from broken homes did not know right from wrong. They happened because people stopped caring about their own communities. The government's plan to toughen up police tactics may work in the short-term but in the long-term politicians need to engage with communities and try to understand why they have lost their identities. The blame game has to stop here.

Morality should not be compromised by national interests

Colonel Gaddafi's long rule over Libya now looks doomed. Diplomats, military personnel and government officials have begun deserting his regime like rats off a sinking ship, but Gaddafi's demise has far more wide reaching implications than just the fall of an ageing dictator.

Across the Middle East and North Africa, a host of countries are ruled over by small elite groups or dictators, but the events of recent months are beginning to radically alter the political landscape and the aspirations of the people living in these countries.

The first country to be affected was Tunisia. President Ben Ali had been in power since 1987, at the helm of a regime that mercilessly surpressed its opposition and paid little attention to human rights. His power looked secure but following protests in January over unemployment, Ben Ali was forced to step down and fled the country.

What the Tunisian people had achieved clearly inspired others, and soon Egypt had removed its leader, Hosni Mubarak. Since then, there have been protests in Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain and most recently Libya.

This domino effect is extremely serious. In countries where political opposition has been surpressed for decades, there is no easy way to fill the power vacuum left by the removal of a dictatorship. In Egypt this has resulted in the Army taking control of the country until elections can be held in September.

When people were laying down their lives in Tahrir Square, military rule may not have been their goal, but at least now there is the prospect of democratic change in Egypt.

The situation in Libya is far more uncertain. Gaddafi is unlikely to step down as leader, having already pledged to 'fight to the last bullet.' The end may come swiftly for the Colonel, but do not expect him to go down quietly.

The Western powers now openly condemn Gaddafi's actions and his conduct towards his people, but it was not long ago that Gaddafi was portrayed as an important ally who had begun to change his ways. In 2004 BP signed a $550 million gas exploration deal with Gaddafi's regime and Tony Blair visited the Colonel in Libya for talks, aimed at joining forces to fight terror.

Of course it is very easy to look at all of this with hindsight and sarcastically riducule Blair's actions, but it also illustrates an important point. When brutal dictators like Gaddafi and Egypt's Mubarak are useful to us they are our friends, but as soon as things turn sour we immediately take the moral high ground, calling for democratic reforms.

It should never be the case that our morality is compromised by our national interest. If we are tolerating brutality and exploitation in countries that we make business deals with, we should not be making these business deals in the first place.

Hopefully the events of recent months will dissuade world leaders from compromising their morals to boost their balance books. Perhaps David Cameron and the delegation of arms dealers he took to Egypt, are not quite ready to subscribe to this idea of morality.

Delhi's Commonwealth Games rose to the challenge

This year's Commonwealth Games began under a cloud. Collapsing bridges and unfinished athletes' accommodation generated a feeling of pessimism around Delhi, and many people expected the competition to be called off.

Two weeks later all of these predictions of failure have proved unfounded. Last night the curtain came down on one of the most successful Commonwealth Games for years.

It is true that some top level athletes decided to stay away from the games, but despite this the competition has been fierce and the spectacle relatively unaffected.

One of the positives that came from the star names staying away was that others were allowed to come to the fore. For example, England's Louise Hazel won an excellent gold medal in the heptathlon, in an event that would likely have been dominated by her more illustrious compatriot Jessica Ennis.

If the Commonwealths now serve to develop fresh talent then this is a big reason to champion them as a competition.

This lack of top draw performers was not the case in the pool. Here the home nations dominated, with the likes of Liam Tancock, Rebecca Adlington and Fran Halsall coming home with an array of medals.

Despite this optimism there were some low points. The three failed drug tests by Nigerian athletes are extremely regrettable, and once again reinforces the stereotype of drug-cheats within athletics.

This though, is a problem for athletics across the board and the games in Delhi have not thankfully, been overshadowed by these cheats.

On a less damning note many athletes suffered with stomach trouble, but it would have been a miracle had no-one experienced the famous 'Delhi Belly'. This may be have been unfortunate for the athletes that fell ill but thankfully it did not appear to affect performances too much.

As a side note, I am not sure if anyone caught the netball final between New Zealand and Australia. This summed up multi-event competition at its finest; two teams giving it everything right until the end. New Zealand triumphed 66-64 after extra time, and it was great to watch.

If relatively minor sports such as netball can excite crowds then just imagine what the atmosphere could be like in London in two years time, if Great Britain's Jessica Ennis triumphs as Heptathlete champion.

For a competition that was apparently doomed to fail, Delhi has produced an excellent spectacle. The Commonwealth Games now needs to be given more support to help it remain relevant. I for one am looking forward to Glasgow's turn in 2014.

Armistice Day has greater resonance than ever

Yesterday's Armistice Day was one of the most important in recent years.

At a time when British soldiers appear to be making little progress in Afghanistan and yet continue to lose their lives on a regular basis, yesterday served as a day of reflection for many.

The First World War was of course on a completely different scale to the wars we see today, and the loss of life was horrendous in comparison; but at the time this was justified by saying that it was 'the war to end all wars'.

War breeds war

The reality was of course that 'the Great War' did not end all wars, and it was only twenty one years later that the second world war began. If anything the First World War only served to create more favourable conditions for more wars.

War is never an ideal solution and rarely does it achieve an ideal result. The reality of war is that many people will die, both civilian and military in the pursuit of victory and there is little that can be done to prevent this.

The crucial point though, is whether or not the sacrifices made during wars are justified. If your relative has died for a good cause it will of course be devastating, but at the same time one may feel a sense of pride in what they stood for.

If however your relative dies in a futile war, then their death could be seen as a waste. This is the dilemma that politicians and soldiers' relatives have to mull over on a daily basis.

Dilemma

Is the war in Afghanistan worth losing British soldiers for? The Prime Minister maintains that we are fighting in Afghanistan to maintain Britain's security from terrorist attacks, and that if we were not there we would be under serious threat.

This may well be true and not many people are able to look at the intelligence reports to be able to agree or disagree with this statement. Public opinion though appears to be turning away from supporting the war and this is dangerous for Gordon Brown.

The recent public row with the mother of dead service-man Jamie Janes did not help Mr. Brown's cause and while the criticism of the Prime Minister in this instance was mostly unjustified; it shows how impatient people are becoming with the war.

The Prime Minister should have taken more time to draft his letter to Mrs. Janes but portaying him as insensitive for making spelling mistakes was a bit of a cheap shot from The Sun.

Brown said on Monday "I have at all times acted in good faith seeking to do the right thing. I do not think anyone will believe that I write letters with any intent to cause offence."

Need for debate

This argument though clouds the real issue of whether or not is time to start bringing home the troops and unless things start to improve quickly expect to see the issue debated more frequently in parliament.

There is a danger however; that if this does happen it could be seen as showing a loss of support for our soldiers but this is no reason not to have the debate.

The mission objective in Afghanistan has become muddled and by not having a proper debate on what we are trying to achieve there, could mean that lives will be lost when they need not have been.

Yesterday's Armistice Day service at Westminster Abbey included the words of Wilfred Owen the First World War poet, and much of his poetry still resonates today.

For instance 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria more'. These words have been repeated over and over, but today they have lost none of their meaning and perhaps for some, none of their cynicism.

The situation in Afghanistan does not appear to be improving and on a day when the US ambassador in Kabul has allegedly advised the US President not to commit thousands more troops to the war-zone, the future of the conflict looks uncertain.

It may be difficult to redefine the mission but for the brave troops, their families and the public mood, it is essential that this happens soon.

Sacking the Government's Chief Drug Adviser Stinks

On Friday Professor David Nutt was sacked from his post as top drug adviser to the British government.

Earlier that week Nutt had criticised the government's decison to upgrade Cannabis from class C to B. He also said ministers had devalued and distorted evidence and said drugs classification was being politicised.

The response of the the Home Secretary Alan Johnson, was to sack Professor Nutt, saying he had "lost confidence" in his advice.

Science devalued

Nutt responded by describing his sacking as a "serious challenge to the value of science in relation to the government".

This is really the serious issue here. If a scientist is asked to look at an issue as important as drug use then wouldn't we want him to be open and honest about his views?

This was clearly not the view taken by ministers and in their view Nutt's views clashed too much with their policies on the subject.

Professor Nutt said of the government: "We can help them. We can give them very good advice, and it would be much more simpler if they took that advice rather than getting tangled up in other sorts of messages which frankly really do confuse the public."

He was referring to the upgrading of Cannabis to class B, a move that to many people seems fairly pointless. Indeed, according to the scientific evidence presented by Nutt, smoking cannabis creates only a "relatively small risk" of psychotic illness.

Alcohol and Cigarettes

He also said that separating alcohol and cigarettes from other drugs such as LSD, Ecstasy and Cannabis was "artificial". A fair point considering the amount of damage that alcohol and cigarettes are well-known to cause.

Of course one could also argue that to work as an effective adviser, coming out in public with views clearly opposed to the government's own, is a counter-productive exercise.

By openly criticising policy, Nutt was always walking a tight-rope in terms of keeping his job. However, should this really have been the case?

If ministers are only surrounded by 'yes men' then creating real, sensible change in policy and attitudes will never come about.

Impartial voice

Presumably Nutt was appointed to give an impartial view about drug use, so why then when he decides to offer it is he removed from his post?

It is true that ministers do not have to act on advice, but in a democratic society respected figures such as Professor Nutt should be able to speak freely without being censored.

Perhaps speaking publicly was the last resort for Nutt, and he felt he had no other option other than to make his views public. At least now by doing this we are able to have a sensible debate about drug use.

Drugs destroy people's lives. If Alan Johnson and his predecessor Jacqui Smith are experts on the subject then fine but if not, then effective and outspoken advisers are desperately needed.

The decision to sack Professor Nutt from his post is yet another disappointing move from this ailing government. Let's hope his dismissal does not signal the end of the debate.

What have we learnt from the Party Conferences?

At the end of the party conference season we have now heard all three parties' visions for the future, but have we actually learnt anything new?

Clegg the idealist

The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg did a good impression of someone who wants to be Prime Minister and to be fair his party did present some good ideas.

The problem of course is that Clegg will never be able to get the wider British public to listen to him. The irony is that if they did listen a lot of people would probably agree with his sentiments.

For example, in his conference speech he said:"I want to live in a country where prejudice, insularity and fear are conquered by the great British traditions of tolerance, pluralism and justice.

Where political life is not a Westminster village freak show, but open, accessible and helpful in people's everyday lives."

Fair enough. The problem is achieving all of this and it is very easy to make grand pledges when you know there is no pressure on actually having to deliver on them.

The future's Brown?

So if the Lib Dems can not be taken seriously, can Labour? The answer appears to be just about, but with Gordon Brown in charge they still look a doomed party, destined to return to opposition.

It is true that Brown gave a good speech at Labour's conference (by his standards) but many Labour activists still came away with lingering doubts about their chances of winning the next election.

The Prime Minister's biggest flaw remains his inability to effectively communicate with the public, and even his articulate wife's introduction could not change this.

Sarah Brown introduced Gordon as "my hero" and as the tired looking Scotsman sauntered up to the lectern, it is fair to say that he did not look particularly heroic.

Brown quite simply looks exhausted at the moment, no surprise given his busy workload but sadly today impressions are all-important and Brown looks a beaten man.

In terms of his speech, the stand out mentions include the referendum promise on electoral reform, something that will have cheered many Labour MPs, putting teenage mothers in a "network of supervised homes" and his pledges on social care.

The teenage mothers supervision idea is supposed to give young mothers help in bringing up their children but it did sound strange when it was announced.

If you were a Conservative you could use it as an example of too much government interference in our daily lives, but although a little crude it may have some merit in theory.

The best speech of the conference however, was made by Peter Mandelson, the come-back king. Mandelson declared the election "up for grabs" but admitted that Labour would be underdogs going into it. A fair assessment perhaps, but it will be an uphill struggle for Labour.

Cameron gets personal

The final round of conferences was hosted by the Conservatives and it is clear why they are favourites for the next election. Whether or not you like David Cameron he is definitely the most charismatic of the three leaders.

Cameron's speech itself was light on policy, but what it did contain was a glimpse into the man himself. One of the main criticisms of Cameron is that he is too slick and people do not trust him because of this.

The biggest challenge then for Cameron is to present to voters a man who is capable of being Prime Minister and during the conference he went some way towards doing this.

One of his key messages was that government needs to decrease in size, and for a country trying to make savings this should be an appealing idea. At the heart of his speech though were his attempts to try and portray what kind of man he is.

Significantly he spoke of the death of his son Ivan earlier this year which he said had made him think about whether or not he wanted to carry on as leader. One would have to be very callous to doubt the truth of these words.

Cameron left the tough policy announcements to George Osborne and the cuts he announced were a big risk.

For example, 25% off the defence budget and a one-off pay freeze in 2011 for all public sector workers, (excluding frontline forces and those earning less than £18,000) are definitely not policies you would describe as vote winners.

However by announcing cuts now, the Tories are trying to show that they are up-front about what they will do in government. Osborne used the phrase "we're all in this together" and they have certainly taken a gamble by announcing cuts as savage as this.

One of the biggest problems facing Cameron is his past. He and his shadow-chancellor George Osborne both went to Eton and this is a fact that unsettles many voters.

If two Etonians are at the top of Government in 2010, then what does this say about this country's progress in terms of social mobility?

To digress for a moment, my highlight of the Tory conference has to be when William Hague introduced the Conservative MPs onto the stage.

It looked like a school prize day when all of the clever people are grouped together in a bizarre freakish line-up. This was unsettling enough, but when Bono appeared on screen things got even stranger. Is there nothing this man won't do? A rare comedy moment in a month of tedium.

Anyway, the Tories may well win the next election but unlike New Labour in 1997 there is not as yet a healthy enthusiasm for them as a fresh party with new ideas. If they want to make sure of a big majority in the election this has to change.

A hung parliament would be a bad result for everyone. A country in crisis needs a strong government, and Cameron has a tough challenge ahead of him to try and convince the British public that his party offers real change.

Brown will not go down without a fight, but in all honesty the next election looks like it will go to the Conservatives. By what margin though remains to be seen and complacency could be Cameron's biggest weakness.

What long term effects will the MPs' expenses scandal have?

England's Ashes win gives Test Cricket a healthy future

England's 2-1 win over Australia in the 2009 Ashes was an achievment that not too many cricket observers would have predicted at the start of the summer.

England may have beaten the West Indies in May but the West Indies were a lack-lustre outfit led by Chris Gayle, a man who had openly said that he 'wouldn't be so sad if test cricket died out'.

Gayle is a huge fan of Twenty20 cricket and the riches and excitement that the game offers were brilliantly showcased this year in the IPL in South Africa. As a big-hitting batsman Gayle's game suits Twenty20 perfectly, so it is no surprise that he has taken to it.

In truth Gayle looked like someone who would rather have missed the plane than played a test series in England at the beginning of May.

To be fair to him, the weather was bad, the crowds were poor and for opponents of Test cricket's continuation, the series against the West Indies was the signal that the end was nigh for the five day format.

Test Cricket doomed?

Even Kevin Pietersen, the former England Captain appeared unsure that Test Cricket had a long term future. In an interview with The Times he said: "I’d be a fool to tell you now that Test cricket will be here in 10 years’ time because I don’t know now."

So a pretty bleak outlook then. Not so if we look at the evidence from this year's Ashes series. Tickets were in huge demand for each test, the series was extremely competitive and once again the series captivated the media and the nation.

Twenty20 is definitely an exciting sport to watch, but it just does not have the same twists and turns that Test Cricket provides. A five match series of five day games is really a different sport to Twenty20, and while One day cricket may well suffer a decline, the future of test cricket now looks healthy.

Competition is paramount

The Ashes became boring for many cricket fans over the years, quite simply because of Australia's dominance. Since 2005 we have seen England win back the urn for the first time in 18 years, only to then lose it again 5-0 in Australia, and then reclaim it again in 2009.

Competition is key to any sport's enduring popularity, and whether you are English (or Welsh for that matter) or Australian I am sure you would agree that the series' competitiveness is very important to its future.

The IPL has flooded the the world of Twenty20 with cash, and some players may well chose to end their test careers early to take advantage of these riches; but one only has to look at the reaction of the England team to see what winning the Ashes means to them.

Money is a fact of life in professional sport these days, but even in the over-spending, bloated world of Premiership football, I would guess that most of the players would trade a year's salary for back to back league titles.

New audience for cricket

One of the arguments against Test Cricket continuing is that spectators are more interested in the shorter form of the game, and Twenty20 has without doubt introduced cricket to people who had little interest in the sport before.

This is a good thing, but for fans of Test Cricket Twenty20 will never be able to equal the thrills, spills and tactics that a test match brings. In football terms, Twenty20 is a bit like a penalty shoot out compared to the World Cup tournament of Test Cricket.

For any English or Australian cricketer, winning the Ashes will be the pinnacle of their careers, and on the evidence of this series it looks like it will continue to be the case for many years to come.

As long as things stay this way the crowds will surely follow, and Test Cricket will continue to flourish as it always has. Long live Test Cricket!

Let's have a proper debate about the NHS

Conservative MEP Dan Hannan, has caused a political storm by openly criticising the NHS on America's Fox News.

Hannan called the NHS a "60-year mistake" and labelled it as the result of something planned during the war. He then moved onto the US saying:

"I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need."

Political gamesmanship

David Cameron the Conservative leader dismissed Hannan as 'eccentric' and made it clear that these views were not reflected in Tory policy. He then added that "the Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS."

Andy Burnham the Health Secretary went further calling Hannan 'unpatriotic', but then also adding: "What has happened within the last 48 hours is what Cameron has feared most because it lays bare the Tories' deep ambivalence towards the NHS."

This does seem a little cheap, seeing as most people admit that Cameron is committed to the NHS. Particularly considering that Cameron's own family has benefitted greatly from NHS services, when his late son Ivan was cared for.

Labour understandably have used this occasion to launch an attack on the Tories, but saying that Conservative policy is anti-NHS is perhaps political gamesmanship gone too far.

Opening up debate

Can you ever imagine a British politician on either front-bench speaking their mind quite like Hannan has? Whether or not you agree with him, what is certain is that he has opened up a debate on the future of the NHS, something that is long overdue.

The NHS is without doubt a wonderful national institution, but one that is fatally flawed. A National Health Service that is free at the point of delivery and serves everyone is a terrific ideal, but is sadly one that will always struggle to be fulfilled.

There has been much talk of NICE over the past few days, the independent body that approves treatments and medicines for use on the NHS. This is of course done on the basis of need but mostly on cost, just as any government department makes its budget choices.

Investment

This then inevitably means that some patients will miss out on their treatment of choice, because it is just too expensive sometimes to pay for them. As time has moved on, treatments and technologies have become more and more expensive, so this problem will not go away.

Labour have poured unprecedented amounts of money into the NHS, and they have made some progress, but GPs now work less hours than they used to and are paid more than ever. Surely this is an indication that not everything in the garden is rosy.

Outdated model

Political blogger Iain Dale gives his take as to why the NHS is constantly struggling to meet people's needs:

"It is because we are trying to make a 1940s healthcare system cope with the demands of a 21st century society. We cling to the idea that healthcare is free at the point of delivery, while conveniently ignoring the truth that in many cases it isn't, and it never can be. And yet at the same time we prevent those who are happy to pay for their care from doing so without then being banned from having NHS treatment. Until we come to terms with the fact that a 1940s structure can never service 21st century needs, we're not going to get anywhere." (read the full blog post here).

This really is the fundamental problem. How can we possibly expect the NHS to serve everyone equally when its model is outdated? Politicians need to start debating this issue, and crucially without playing party politics with it.

The NHS is not a political football to be kicked around by each party, and anyone who has had anything to do with it should have massive respect for what it, as an institution represents.

Problems lie ahead

In my personal experience, the staff in NHS hospitals are excellent, but the problem is that there are just not enough of them. This needs to change quickly, because as our population gets older and fatter the NHS will be more stretched than ever.

Dan Hannan may well be a political maverick that not many people agree with, but sometimes it takes eccentric individuals to stand up and speak their mind, in order to open up debates that no-one really wants to have. The NHS does its best, but it could be so much better.

So if we are going to make changes let's start making them now before things get even worse, because if we wait too long the NHS could cease to exist out of necessity, and nobody really wants that.



(You can watch the Dan Hannan Fox interview here)

Is the Baby P case a reflection of 'Broken Britain'?

Yesterday the names of the three people held responsible for allowing the death of Baby P (now known as Peter Connelly), were finally revealed.

We now know that Tracey Connelly, 28, her partner Steven Barker, 33, and his brother Jason Owen, 37, were responsible for causing Peter's death. We also know that Barker was convicted for the rape of a two year old girl.

We were led to believe that their identities were kept secret to protect Connelly's other children, but also to avoid prejudicing other active cases, so why have their identities been revealed now?

Children at risk

Surely Connelly's children will be at risk from being identified, and with their mother only receiving a five year sentence she may well be out in half that time. This presumably means that she will have to be given a new identity upon her release from jail.

If this does not happen then the risk of vigilante attacks is high, and so too the risk to her children's well-being. However, if Tracey Connelly does recieve this level of protection, then it is also likely that both Barker and Owen will too.

The problem here is that this level of protection is very expensive, and the public reaction to the government spending money on convicted criminals is not favourable at all. So the question must be posed why chose to identify those involved?

Why identify?

If it is because the public have a right to know who committed the crime then fine, but if this is the case then they should not be given new identities upon release. This is a massive waste of money, and if their identities had been concealed forever, this expense could have been avoided all-together.

In these kinds of cases there is always the temptation to paint someone like Tracey Connelly as a victim of sorts. We now know that she suffered abuse as a child and had a pretty awful upbringing, but this does not mean that what happened to baby Peter was inevitable.

If this were true then there would be many more child deaths resulting from abuse, but it just isn't. Too often teams of social workers are attached to those who have committed crimes, and they are given the option to blame what they did as adults on what happened to them as children.

'Broken Britain'

More often than not this gives people the easy way out, and this has to change. Politicians talk about 'Broken Britain', but attaching these labels to areas of society is not helpful at all.

It is as if a generation of people have been condemned to repeat the cycle of poverty, unemployment, abuse or any other detrimental cycle you can name, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Well this is patently not true. If politicians tell people that Britain is broken, people will believe it and stay resigned to their likely fates. However, if politicians begin to engage with poorer communities instead of chasing so called 'floating voters', we may just make some progress.

Communities abandoned

To take an example, in South Yorkshire Barnsley has been forgotten by the traditional political parties and people are looking for answers. This led them to elect a BNP candidate to the Euopean Parliament.

If the main-stream parties re-engage with voters here and show an interest in their needs, then this will change but it needs to happen fast, otherwise 'Broken Britain' will become a widespread reality of the politicians' own making.

The sad case of baby Peter Connelly, will I am sure be used to highlight what is wrong with today's society, but his death should not be exploited in this way. It is disrespectful to his life and just plain wrong.

What the case does show is what happens to someone when they are neglected. There is still time to help people in these situations and the so-called cycle of abuse is never inevitable, however much some people would have us believe that it is.

Harry Patch's death cuts our last living link to World War One

Today the the funeral took place of the last British soldier to serve in the trenches of World War One, Harry Patch.

Mr. Patch did not speak about the war until be was 100 years old, but since then he has often spoken out about the perils of going to war. Harry was by all accounts not keen on a full military funeral, so was it right to see such a fuss made over it?

For a man who clearly did not enjoy his time in the army it did seem a little inappropriate for the military to dominate his funeral. After all, out of his 111 years very few of these were spent in the army.

Link with the past

But of course this really misses the point. Today was not about the ordinary man Harry Patch, it was about our last living link with this historic event, the first world war. Harry just happened to be the last man standing.

So then it was perhaps inevitable for his funeral to be met with such pomp and cirumstance, and perhaps Harry would have understood this. Speaking of Harry Patch in this way sounds like I knew what he thought or what he was like, but of course this is wholly untrue.

This is precisley the problem. Recently some people have used Harry Patch to prop up their cause, most recently anti-war protesters, but Mr. Patch never endorsed any of these causes. All he did was stay alive long enough for people to think they owned a piece of him.

Poem

Perhaps the best coverage of Harry Patch's life came in the form of a poem written by Andrew Motion, the out-going poet loreate. The last verse of which is as follows:

"You grow a moustache, check the mirror, notice
you're forty years old, then next day shave it off,
check the mirror again - and see you're seventy,
but life is like that now, suddenly and gradually
everyone you know dies and still comes to visit
or you head back to them, it's not clear which
only where it happens: a safe bedroom upstairs
by the look of things, although when you sit late
whispering with the other boys in the Lewis team,
smoking your pipe upside-down to hide the fire,
and the nurses on night duty bring folded sheets
to store in the linen cupboard opposite, all it takes
is someone switching on the light - there is that flash,
or was until you said, and the staff blacked the window."

Motion's poem (which can be found here) tells the life story of a man who lived a normal life in South-West England. It obviously includes his time spent at war, but unlike most coverage of Harry, it does not confine his 111 years entirely to the trenches.

Never forget

To risk sounding as if I knew him again, Harry was not a willing soldier but did his duty, even being wounded in the process, but his death meant so much for so many people because of what he represented.

The First World War should never be forgotten and now that we have lost our only living link to this event, it is now more important than ever that we never forget the sacrifice that our soldiers have made and continue to make.

Norwich North by-election result weakens Gordon Brown further

On Friday the Conservatives secured a 7,348 seat majority in Norwich North, making Chloe Smith the youngest MP at 27.

This used to be a safe seat for Labour but the way in which Dr. Ian Gibson was dropped by his party, meant that in reality Labour never had any chance of retaining this seat.

Like many MPs Dr. Gibson was caught up in the expenses scandal, for claiming for a flat in which his daughter lived rent-free before selling it to her for half its market value.

Regret

There is little doubt that Dr. Gibson would have regretted this, but his constituents still valued him greatly as an MP and did not want to lose him.

The decision then from Gordon Brown to tell Dr. Gibson he would not be allowed to stand as an MP at the next election, was not welcomed by the people of Norwich North.

One could argue that what Gibson did was not any worse than what other MPs did who kept their jobs. So why was he singled out? If the Labour leadership was connected to its grass roots then this decision would never have been made.

Brown attacked

The Labour MP Barry Sheerman, has today decided to launch an attack on Gordon Brown saying he had until "this summer to show he's got the capability to do it." Shearman was at the forefront of previous calls for Brown to go so this is no real surprise, but calls for the PM's head will not go away.

Gordon Brown has failed as a leader and any Labour supporter must surely be despairing at the mess their party is in. Put simply there is no chance that Gordon Brown can lead the Labour party into a general election win in 2010.

So why are Labour persevering with Gordon Brown? It could be that no-one else in the party wants to be put their neck out in what is a difficult time for the country.

Defeatist

If they wait until after the likely election defeat, then the successor will be able to start again with a fesh slate, something they could not do now. But this is surely a depressing way of going about politics, when personal ambition becomes more important than sorting the country out.

By sleep-walking into an election defeat Labour are leaving the country in a vulnerable state. A lame-duck government is no good for anyone, especially when the economy is in such a dire state.

What is needed now is a general election, and the sooner the better. Britain needs a fresh start under a fresh government.

Like many long serving governments, New Labour has now run its course and change is needed urgently.

Football paying the price

Carlos Tevez' move to Manchester City for £25 million is the latest in a long line of big money moves in football.

Back in 1994 Chris Sutton's £5 million move from Norwich to Blackburn broke records, but fifteen years on and Christiano Ronaldo has been sold for £80 million.

Sir Bobby Charlton called this figure 'vulgar' and it seems crazy that such an enormous amount of money should be spent on a footballer; particularly in a time of global recession.

Setting a precedent

Transfers on this scale are not of course the norm, but the reason why they matter is because of the precedent they set. Premiership teams pay astronomical wages to their star players and this puts pressure on the teams below them.

There have been exceptions such as Stoke City who have managed to stay in the top league without breaking the bank, but their stay may yet prove to be short-lived.

One just has to glance at the teams that were relegated from the Championship last season to see how times have changed. Norwich, Southampton and Charlton are all Premiership teams from the last four years, but ones who overstretched themsleves financially and paid the price.

The problem is that the more the top teams pay, the more the teams below them have to pay in order to keep up. Leeds United is an obvious example, where they went from Champions League football to League One in six years.

Reliance on one owner

The question must be asked; just how long can all of this go on? There have already been rumours of Premiership clubs struggling with finances and it is not particularly healthy for a team to rely on one single owner, as many Premiership clubs now do.

Chelsea have been running at a loss for several seasons and if Roman Abramovich decided to withdraw his investment, their business model would look decidedly shaky.

Manchester City are now the richest club in the world thanks to their owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyans, but again they are totally reliant on his investment.

Fans important

The fans at Manchester City will be happy about their new signings but should football clubs really be allowed to turn into play-things for their wealthy owners? The owners should remember that a club is nothing without its fans and right now the Premiership is in danger of losing its soul.

Much like the banking crisis that no-one appeared to see coming, football may too have to face a financial crash. Anyone who loves football will not want to see this happen, but unless financial caps are put in place for transfers and wages, this is a very real possiblity.

The governing bodies need to be aware of this and act fast, otherwise the hearts of many communities who love football are in danger of being ripped out by greed.

Phone hacking scandal taps into the political world

It emerged this week that The News of the World had allegedly been tapping celebrities, politicians and public officials' phones.

The reaction of the UK media (generally) was one of shock, with John Prescott appearing on almost every TV channel and radio station, clearly outgraged that someone may have read his texts. It baffles me that Prescott always has to shout when he is speaking into a microphone.

Of course it is not a good thought that newspapers have been conducting surveillance on people but to many within the industry, this news will not have come as a complete surprise.

Murky practices

The paparazzi and tabloid journalists always seem to know where celebrities will be, that is how the magazine Heat survives. Just think, without Heat we would not know what Cheryl Cole looks like without make-up! Dark days indeed.

It could be suggested that the reason they know the whereabouts of celebrities, is because they have intercepted their calls. But wait, all journalists have complete integrity don't they?

As an aspiring journalist myself, I believe that most do but there are bound to be a few rotten apples at the bottom of the barrel and it is these apples that often get the juiciest stories. So the temptation to play fast and loose with ethics must be tempting.

Political

This 'scandal' also has a political side to it. The Guardian is a left leaning newspaper that would presumably not want the Conservatives to be elected. Andy Coulson, David Cameron's director of Communications, is the former News of the World editor who resigned following the jailing of one of his journalists for phone hacking.

It could be suggested that The Guardian is trying to damage Cameron's reputation by painting Coulson as a man with no morals. The paper would probably answer this, by saying that the story is in the public interest and Coulson needs to be made an example of.

The problem at the moment is that there appears to be no hard evidence linking the former editor with the hacking. If this evidence does come out then expect Cameron to fire Coulson pretty quickly, but until then it looks like his job is safe.

McBride comparison

The reason Cameron is loathed to get rid of Coulson, is because he is extremely good at his job. However, with an election less than a year away the Tories will not want their well cultivated public image to be damaged, so even a hint of something fishy could see Coulson face the axe.

On the Labour side MPs have been trying to compare Coulson with 'Mr. nasty', Damien McBride (http://wilson-whatsitallabout.blogspot.com/2009/04/damian-mcbride-gives-gordon-brown.html) who lost his government job after trying to smear top Conservatives via an email campaign.

At the moment though Coulson does not quite measure up to McBride. In McBride's case the evidence of wrong-doing was produced and he swiftly resigned. It is understandable for Labour to play this card, but it is not as yet a particularly strong argument.

Identification

Another strand to this saga is the decision so far by The Guardian not to identify the journalists involved in the hacking. MPs will find this hard to take, particularly as the newspapers had no quarms about identifying MPs who allegedly fiddled their expenses.

If the newspaper has names then there is no reason not to publish them. If journalists are hacking phones then arguably, they deserve to be exposed by the press.

It will be interesting to see whether celeberity scandals feature less in newspapers over the coming weeks.

Michael Jackson dies at 50

Last night Michael Jackson died from a heart attack at his rented Los Angeles mansion. A sad end to a tragic life.

Jackson had an incredible career selling over 750 million records, more than any other artist in history. Not since the Beatles has a music act been so successful on the world stage.

For many people in their twenties and thirties, Michael Jackson has been a constant, always in the news and often for the wrong reasons. The allegations of child abuse were particularly damaging to the star, although he was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Flawed genius

Another fascination was Jackson's changing face. Over the years Jackson changed from a good-looking black boy to a frail white husk. His apparent wish to change himself so drastically proved that fame and wealth do not always bring happiness.

What ever you think about Michael Jackson, he changed the world of pop music. You only have to listen to any music in the charts today to hear his enduring influence. Jackson was truly a genius, but as with many geniuses he was flawed.

When he annaounced his comeback at London's O2 arena, many people were unsure if at fifty he would still be able to be the Michael Jackson people loved, but no one could have predicted his premature death last night.

One step too far

Jackson had faced endless lawsuits over recent years and looked an exhausted man. The aim of the comeback looked like an attempt to get some of the fortune he lost back, and what his performances would have been like we will never know.

Not surprisingly the Paparazzi were obsessed with Michael Jackson, and even at his moment of death they huddled around the ambulance trying to see the star's dead body.

The coverage of Jackson's corpse being wheeled from a helicopter was in my opinion a step too far and it is a shame that news editors did not resist showing this.

Fickle media

News agencies are now waxing lyrical about Michael Jackson's many virtues but it was not long ago that many of them were condemning him for baseless charges. The media have always been fickle, but this does appear a bit rich.

Michael Jackson should be remembered for what he was, a musical genius who's music will outlast all of us. Through music he brought people together across the world, and whatever you think of him he was certainly one of a kind.

John Bercow is the new speaker...so what?

Well it has finally been confirmed. Conservative MP John Bercow is the new Speaker of the House of Commons.

Many Tory MPs did not want Bercow to get the position and it appears that Labour got their way, voting for a Tory that is disliked by many in his own party. It is sad that party politics got in the way of this appointment, but also inevitable.

Michael Martin the former failed speaker, was derided as a Labour chosen candidate during his time in office and Bercow promised "permanently to cast aside" his "previous political views". Admirable words indeed, but ones that were roundly ridiculed.

Neutrality

Bercow's statement even produced a joke from Gordon Brown; "It is said that you have now cast aside all your past political views - some of us thought you had done that some time ago."

This was in relation to Bercow's previous work in an advisory role to the Prime Minister, and rumours of his planned defection to Labour. It was significant to see many Conservative MPs refuse to applaud the new man as he was led to the speaker's chair.

Today was supposed to signal a big change in the way that parliament conducts is business, but is this really accurate? Bercow speaks of reform, but in reality the speaker is in no real position to offer it.

Need for change

The only way reform will happen is for all of the party leaders to agree on a clear way forward together, and this will not come from the speaker however much Bercow would like us to think it will.

On another point, it was sad to see Ann Widdecombe post such a low vote. Widdecombe is a politician with much integrity, but her decision to stand down at the next election may well have dissuaded MPs from voting for her.

The rise of the career politician is something that Widdecombe stands against, and this is arguably one of the biggest problems with today's parliament. The party whips have become too powerful, with some MPs reluctant to break party lines for fear of stalling their political careers.

Breaking with party policy was never something that bothered Ann Widdecombe and she will be a big loss to both parliament and party when she stands down.

Overplayed

In the past, the election of a new speaker has never usually been reported as a big event, it is only because of today's unique circumstances that it has now become one.

Parliament is still in crisis, and the sticking plaster of a new speaker, however much he talks of reform will not heal this wound.

Fundamental political reform is needed urgently, and for this to happen there needs to be agreement from all sides of the house, otherwise party politics will continue to cloud the debate.

The worrying rise of the BNP

Last night the British National Party won their first two seats in the European parliament.


Many mainstream politicians looked shocked when this happened, but in truth this has been coming for some time. In a country where the first past the post system means that the big parties focus so much of their energy on chasing floating voters, the BNP have filled a void.

One could argue that both the low turn-out and the disgust shown at MPs' expenses could mean that many of the BNP and other smaller parties' votes were merely a show of protest and would not be repeated in a general election.

BNP play on fear

However, the fact that a racist organisation like the BNP is getting any support at all is deeply worrying. In an increasingly multicultural nation, the BNP have successfully played on people's fears over immigration and job losses.

In somwhere like Barnsley for example, BNP support shot up from 8% in 2004 to 17% in 2009. This is a classic example of a place that feels forgotten by mainstream politics. Businesses are closing down, people have lost their jobs and it is little surprise that voters are left feeling frustrated.

For Nick Griffin the BNP's leader, it has been so easy to win followers. By dropping references to his party's racist beliefs, and making dissatisfied white people believe he is the only person standing up for them the BNP have become more successful than many would have ever believed.

Debate

Under Griffin, the BNP have become the most successful British fascist party ever, surpassing Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists, and the fearsome National Front (of which Griffin is a former member), and this is no accident.

For too long politicians from all three main parties have chosen to ignore the rise of the BNP, suggesting that openly engaging with them would give them free publicity, but this has been firmly proved to be the wrong decision.

The Church of England should be applauded for intervening and telling people not to vote for the party, but in reality this had little effect. Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats need to wake up to the fact that the BNP are here to stay. It is time to engage with them in debate.

Nick Griffin has been very clever in masking what the BNP are really about, but by engaging in debate with his party, the mainstream parties can retake the initiative.

Devious

Opening up a debate over the BNP's small-minded policies would show them up for what the party really is; racist bigots who happen to wear suits. This needs to happen without delay.

One of the party's new MEPs Andrew Brons, mentioned nothing of his racist beliefs in his acceptance speech last night. This is the deviousness of the far-right, they now know how to look acceptable and must be exposed.

In modern Britain there should be no room for any racist party, and politicians need to wake up to the danger that our democracy faces from hate-filled groups like the BNP; before it is too late.

Broadly Speaking

Have a listen to a clip of my radio show "Broadly Speaking". Sadly we have now finished broadcasting but I hope you enjoy listening to it!

Gordon Brown's position may soon become untenable

As more and more expenses claims continue to surface in the Daily Telegraph, British politics has never looked worse.

Many governments have been damaged by allegations of sleaze, John Major's for example in the 1990s, but today's scandal cuts deeper than rows over brown envelopes and affairs.

The problem for Gordon Brown right now, is that he has to be seen to be firmly in control of his party, but with each new allegation his influence seems to weaken.

Brown indecisive

Take the example of Hazel Blears, the MP for Salford. Brown called her actions "completely unacceptable" but then appeared to give her his full backing. Pardon the electorate for feeling confused over what he really thinks.

There are now rumours that Blears will be moved on in the next cabinet reshuffle, which would only make Brown's decision making process look even more confused. Many may well ask, if he can't control his own party, can he be expected to keep control of the country?

Of course one should add some balance here, this expenses scandal was not solely a result of Gordon Brown's mismanagement of the system, although one could argue that he (and others) only want to make changes now because the revelations have come out.

Parliament still in the dark ages

It is very easy to blame the Prime Minister for the problems, and ultimately in a self-regulating House of Commons, one could argue that the buck stops with him, but this is far too simplistic.

The fact is that much of what goes on in the Commons is well and truly past its sell-by date, and the expenses furore could just be the shot in the arm that politics in this country needs.

Sadly for Brown though, he has not really been able to seize the initiative, and instead the younger more articulate David Cameron looks to have come out on top. With an election only a year away (or sooner depending on who you talk to) the Labour party is in deep trouble.

Labour left dejected

It looks almost as if Labour have given up the ghost, resigned to their fate of being the opposition party after the next election; but does it really have to be this way? There could just be a twist in the tail.

The most popular theory doing the rounds at the moment is the idea of Alan Johnson the Health Secretary, putting himself forward to be leader. Johnson would be a popular choice, and he could just give Labour a much needed boost in the polls going into an election.

Significantly, Johnson put himself well and truly in the shop window this week, by talking up political reform and suggesting perhaps the use of Proportional Representation.

Johnson wrote in the Times "we need to overhaul the engine, not just clean the upholstery," but does he mean removing Gordon Brown as leader? He of course denies this but for many, a Johnson led Labour party would be a welcome relief from the burden of Gordon.

So now we can sit back and await the next round of expenses revelations. Only this morning there was the news that the Labour MP Frank Cook allegedly claimed for a £5 church donation, a kind gesture indeed, I am sure you will agree.

Brown's political raft may have been set adrift by Labour, and it looks like his party would rather puncture it than throw him a lifeline, but have they got the guts to do it? Only time will tell, but if the Prime Minister does sink, expect to see some political careers go down with him.

(photo courtesy of telegraph.co.uk)