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.

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)

British politics is dragged through the mud as Cameron takes the lead

First it was Labour's turn, then it was the Conservatives and today it is the Liberal Democrats' turn to have their reputations dragged through the mud.

However, entertaining as it has been to see so many politicians embarrassed, this does no good at all to British politics. At a time when the domestic (and global) economy is at a standstill, it is a pity that Prime Minister's questions today, was spent squabbling over who paid back what and who claimed for this?

The Tories expenses have been arguably the most embarrassing claims yet. Douglas Hogg's moat cleaning has to get the prize for 'most original expense claimed' with Oliver Letwin's claim for a leaking pipe under his tennis court coming a close second.

Cameron takes the initiative

Despite this though, David Cameron has somehow come out of the last few days on top. Yesterday he took the initiative by saying that Tory MPs who refused to pay back "excessive" claims would not be Conservative MPs for much longer. This was a firm stance and perhaps as a result, the government were left scrambling to keep up.

Communities Secretary Hazel Blears held up a cheque for £13,332, money she made from dodging capital gains tax (although she did not break any rules), and Gordon Brown claimed to have cross-party support for his new plans to review all expenses claims going back four years.

It was later revealed that this cross-party support was not fully agreed although it was discussed, and that Brown appeared to have been caught on the hop. The Tories have been just as bad as Labour in terms of their abuse of the system, but by failing to act sooner Brown has been left behind.

Lame duck government

Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, described today's government as a "lame duck" government, while speaking on the BBC's Daily Politics, and in today's Prime Minister's questions this was all too telling. Brown was unable to think on his feet while Cameron was offering up new ideas.

One of his ideas today was not a new one, the idea to cut the number of MPs, but it is one that could capture public opinion. This is the key to the middle ground right now, and the ailing Labour government have shown themselves to be way out of touch.

Of course this happens to most governments on the way out but at a time when the economic situation is so dire, the country needs strong leadership. Brown is a good politician, but crucially he appears to be losing the support of his party, and when that happens, as it did for Margaret Thatcher in 1990, there is only one way to go, and that is towards the exit.

A challenge to Brown?

David Cameron has used the expenses row to put himself in the shop window as a future leader, and Brown has not used it at all. It will be very interesting to see how the summer pans out. Labour MPs will certainly be getting twitchy, but just who would be willing to stand against Gordon Brown?

Alan Johnson could be a good option, and if the economy starts to pick up, there might just be hope for Labour, but Brown is a survivor and will not go down without a fight. Anyone wanting to deal a knock-out blow to Brown had better be prepared for a scrap, and Johnson may well think better of it.

This week will not be looked back on as one of British politics finest hours, but hopefully it will lead to positive changes to the MPs' expenses system. It is just a shame that so much damage was done before things could begin to be mended.